091104ED

Page 2590

1 Mr. Djeric --

2 JUDGE HALL: And your application is for ten minutes to --

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. So your application is to have ten minutes

5 to examine -- to re-cross examine the witness on the questions that the

6 Chamber asks. That is your application.

7 MS. KORNER: On that issue and that issue alone. No other issue.

8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If I'm not mistaken, the topic is

9 crime and criminal matters, so I'm not going to go beyond that topic, and

10 I know that I cannot.

11 MS. KORNER: No. The issue is whether or not you want to ask

12 further questions about any allegation that your client was involved not

13 in war crimes but effectively in black marketeering.

14 JUDGE HALL: We agree that you have ten minutes, Mr. Cvijetic --

15 for that purpose, Mr. Cvijetic.

16 Further cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Djeric, I cannot but repeat a previous

18 question from yesterday. All of these suspicions of yours in relation to

19 crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Stanisic, I'm not going to deal with

20 Mr. Mandic, I'm interested only in Mr. Stanisic.

21 Did you mention in the Assembly on the 23rd and the 24th of

22 November when you spoke about his participation in crimes in a general

23 way, did you stand up and tell him what you were thinking of exactly when

24 he asked you to do that? Did you come, stand up and tell him to his face

25 exactly what you meant? I still don't know what you're talking about, so

Page 2591

1 can you be more specific, sir?

2 A. The whole time we're talking about the problems that we had, and

3 I have been telling you about the problems.

4 Q. Well, just answer the questions, just answer the question.

5 A. I cannot answer the question. You're not letting me.

6 Q. Just answer the question. In the Assembly did specifically put

7 that question?

8 A. I spoke about this at the Assembly sessions, in the government.

9 Wherever I went I talked about this matter, and I always started on this

10 topic, and you can see that from all the documents.

11 Q. Okay. I'm looking at this document from the Assembly and you

12 didn't begin that topic at all.

13 A. Well, I submitted my resignation at that Assembly session

14 specifically because of all the crimes that were going on. But please

15 don't. I apologise, but you are simply burdened with the fact that the

16 prime minister had problems with the president of the republic, so that's

17 the problem. I did have problems. We did have differences of opinion,

18 but that has nothing to do with the work of the ministers in the

19 government. We did have different concepts. I mean, that is not

20 disputable.

21 Q. All right. But that has nothing to do with what I'm asking you.

22 I have to then try to guess what you are trying to say. You did not

23 complete your answer about the TAS affair. How did that end?

24 A. Well, it ended because the government insisted that the

25 perpetrators be prosecuted. So why don't you ask the minister that you

Page 2592

1 are defending whether that matter was prosecuted and whether the minister

2 of justice was also called to responsibility because of that.

3 Q. The chief of the station and his deputy, when the inspectors

4 established that this affair was going on, was that person and his deputy

5 arrested and prosecuted according to the law? Do you know about that or

6 not?

7 A. Well, this is slightly -- this is a larger quantity of vehicles,

8 the reputation of the factory, our interest to preserve the integrity of

9 the factory and its reputation, so we consulted at all sides in a way to

10 deal with the matter that would help us to preserve our relationship with

11 the factory.

12 Q. You didn't respond and you didn't tell us whether the chief of

13 the police and the deputy were arrested and handed over to the

14 prosecutor's office by the inspectors from the police station?

15 A. What are you -- what are you talking about, the TAS?

16 Q. Yes, the TAS.

17 A. Well, yes, we're talking about 2.300 vehicles there in that TAS

18 affair.

19 Q. Mr. Djeric, the topic of this cross-examination is not that. So

20 I cannot deal with the factor -- with the fact that the inspectors also

21 looked at your role in the whole matter.

22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the last part of

23 the question and the answer of the witness.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, you would have been able to

25 find in the material where the ministry --

Page 2593

1 JUDGE HALL: The -- could we have the question and answer again,

2 and I would remind counsel and the witness that the interpreters need an

3 interval between question and answer in order to interpret fairly and

4 accurately.

5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Here's the question. Mr. Djeric the problem is that the

7 inspectors of the Ministry of the Interior apparently took the order by

8 Minister Mico Stanisic too seriously, and besides, among their own ranks,

9 meaning the chief of the police and the deputy, the affair also began to

10 touch you. So in that did you -- and so that is also part of the

11 problem.

12 A. Well, everything is really well known, sir. All of these things

13 are just stories. I am the one who asked for all of these matters to be

14 resolved. I'm the only official who actually resigned, you understand.

15 Why didn't any of the others resign? Because I insisted that rules be

16 respected, that there be no interference in the political process and so

17 on and so forth. Do you know that the government --

18 Q. All right. Can I put a question, I only have ten minutes. With

19 your resignation, Mr. Djeric, you found a smart way of preventing

20 yourself from being investigated, because with your resignation you also

21 withdrew the ministers.

22 A. No. These are your stories. You have no arguments. This only

23 tells about you and your seriousness and the way you understand things.

24 I am the one who fought to have matters clarified in all possible ways,

25 and the government.

Page 2594

1 Q. All right. Can I put my next question to you?

2 A. The government made steps and persisted in prosecuting all kinds

3 of perpetrators of all kinds of crimes. Not only these kinds of crimes

4 but those that have to do war crimes and violation of human rights and so

5 on and so forth. I was the one who worked on all of that and asked for

6 that.

7 Q. Mr. Djeric, you mentioned proof or exhibits, and the Defence has

8 proof about the chief of police, the deputy, and for all the others, much

9 substantial proof, and we will introduce that proof, but now I have to

10 put a question to you because my time is running out.

11 Do you know that because of such rumours that had to do with

12 Mr. Stanisic, a state commission was formed to investigate that? Do you

13 know what the results of the work of that commission are? Just wait.

14 Just wait, please.

15 Go ahead. You can answer now. Do you know? Do you know?

16 A. Well, these commissions simply were formed in the places where

17 there was protection available, where the president was and so on, where

18 there was actually protection for the people who in my opinion were

19 responsible for the violations of the law.

20 Q. Do you know and can you qualify the Assembly in the same way as

21 the highest organ of power?

22 A. I've said openly what I had to say. No one --

23 Q. Sir, you don't want to answer my question.

24 A. Well, no, it's not that I don't want to. I've said what I wanted

25 to say. I've stated the arguments. The Assembly had the opportunity

Page 2595

1 to -- to deny what my claims were.

2 Q. You are evading the answer. Just be patient. So the Assembly

3 formed a commission, the commission completed its work, and its findings

4 were that there were no illegal actions on behalf of Mr. Stanisic and

5 elected him again as minister of the interior in 1994.

6 A. Sir.

7 Q. Well, this is the question I'm asking you. Do you know that the

8 Assembly did this?

9 A. Sir, this is a question of procedure. This happened after I

10 resigned. As to how Stanisic again came to that same post I'm not going

11 to actually deal with any of that.

12 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ...

13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right. All right.

14 Mr. Djeric, thank you very much.

15 I have no further questions.

16 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, anything arising?

17 MS. KORNER: Absolutely, positively, 100 per cent not.

18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

19 Mr. Djeric, thank you for the days you've spent with us --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. You are now released, and we wish you a

22 safe journey home. Thank you, sir.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

24 [The witness withdrew]

25 JUDGE HALL: We -- sorry.

Page 2596

1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that brings us to the documents.

2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic.

3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if I may interrupt. I know

4 Mr. Zecevic is relating to another witness to come in the future so I

5 think it may be preferable that we deal with this now, the documents.

6 Your Honours, I'm asking for admissions of all the documents on

7 our list as put up as exhibits.

8 JUDGE HALL: The -- your motion is already a matter of record.

9 MS. KORNER: I didn't make --

10 JUDGE HALL: It tells of the documents --

11 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] it simply gives a list, yes.

12 JUDGE HALL: And the Chamber hasn't forgotten it. The Chamber is

13 in the process of deciding how it will -- how it will deliver its ruling,

14 but it hasn't forgotten.

15 MS. KORNER: Yes, I know that, Your Honour, but if there are --

16 with the greatest of respect, we're building up a library of unresolved

17 issues in this case, and with the greatest -- with the exception of the

18 intercepts, which I understand there is certainly a legal argument

19 about ...

20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I appreciate the intercepts are still

22 a matter obviously of something you have to rule on, but outside of the

23 intercepts there's been absolutely no challenge to any of the other

24 documents, their authenticity, or anything. So --

25 JUDGE HALL: We haven't lost sight of that, Ms. Korner.

Page 2597

1 MS. KORNER: Well, I made my submissions, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, you have something, because

3 Mr. Zecevic, has -- he alerted us that he has a matter to raise. What is

4 your --

5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is in relation

6 to Ms. Korner's submission. Would you allow me? I need just a very

7 short period of time, perhaps between two breaks.

8 [Defence counsel confer]

9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This has to do with the documents

10 and exhibits that I mentioned and that we tendered into evidence through

11 my cross-examination. We will be submitting a written submission where

12 we ask for your ruling to have those documents admitted into evidence as

13 well, and I just wanted to announce this.

14 JUDGE HALL: Of course our ruling will abide receipt of your

15 written submissions and any response from the other side.

16 MS. KORNER: No, no, no. I think this is all a bit confusing. I

17 think Mr. Cvijetic means he wants the documents he asked about put into

18 evidence. I don't think he's at all objecting to any of ours.

19 Is that right?

20 JUDGE HALL: I didn't understand that he was.

21 MS. KORNER: No, and --

22 JUDGE HALL: He will correct me if I misheard him, but what I

23 understood his intervention to be is that he wasn't dealing with your

24 application, your extant application which we addressed a few minutes

25 ago. He was talking about different documents.

Page 2598

1 Isn't that correct, Mr. Cvijetic?

2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I was referring to the documents

3 and exhibits that I mentioned during cross-examination. I was referring

4 to those documents. I hope that I'm clear enough now.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, at several points during your

7 cross-examination of Professor Djeric the Judges asked themselves whether

8 you would wish to have all these documents introduced into evidence while

9 you were putting them to the witness, and we were surprised that you

10 didn't seek to tender them into evidence while the chance was there. You

11 are perfectly aware of the facts that the normal procedure is that any

12 party who wishes to have documents tendered into evidence and admitted

13 into evidence can do so through a witness or through a bar table motion,

14 and the bar table motion option applies only where documents cannot be

15 introduced in any other manner, that is to say, through a witness. So

16 now I really think that you are late with your motion, that you come

17 after the witness has left the courtroom and has been dismissed, and now

18 you wish to have your documents admitted. It's irregular, and I don't

19 have my procedural guidelines in front of me so I can't refer to them,

20 but I would imagine that we have a rule in the guidelines that exactly

21 says -- says this, that --

22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I interrupt --

23 JUDGE HARHOFF: No.

24 MS. KORNER: -- because --

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: No. Please can I just finish. So if we are

Page 2599

1 going to be handling this with caution, we may entertain your motion, but

2 I want to be very clear that from now on and in the future, evidence --

3 documents or evidence has to be tendered through witnesses, and if they

4 cannot be tendered through a witness then we will have to go into the

5 option of tendering evidence through a bar table motion but that, as

6 we've said many times before, that has to be the exception. We do not

7 wish to end up at the end of the trial with a huge load of documents in a

8 bar table motion.

9 You may reply, and then we will give the floor to Ms. Korner.

10 Oh --

11 MS. KORNER: I was going to rely on behalf of Mr. Cvijetic for a

12 change and support him.

13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think we should let him speak for himself.

14 MS. KORNER: But I can explain, because he tried to introduce

15 them on the day you were absent, and I got up and said, Just a moment, we

16 can't get any of our documents in at the moment. They are all floating,

17 as I said, in an amorphous mass above the court. It surely cannot be

18 right the Defence should get theirs in, and that's why he's left it until

19 the end, and I hope that assists him.

20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honours? With all due

21 respect, I have to remind the Chamber and Ms. Korner. I started offering

22 documents for exhibits from number one, and then Ms. Korner protested,

23 asking that there be a single ruling by the Trial Chamber that would

24 include me and her, and namely that it would be done at the end based on

25 the list submitted. So that was an objection by the OTP, and the Chamber

Page 2600

1 granted their objection, and this is why I was waiting for an opportunity

2 to do it at the end.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic and Mrs. Korner, please be

4 reasonable and do it our way. The understanding the Chamber has of the

5 Prosecution's motion for admission into evidence of the 108 documents was

6 a motion that was filed in advance of the witness coming, and the reason

7 why the Prosecution, if I understand it correctly, used this approach was

8 that the Prosecution was dealing with a very large number of documents,

9 108 documents altogether, and rather than having to go through all of

10 these 108 documents in order to have them introduced and admitted into

11 evidence through this witness, the Prosecution put the whole thing to the

12 Chamber in advance of the witness's arrival and asked for a procedure by

13 which these documents could be tendered and admitted into evidence.

14 The Chamber is yet to rule on this matter, but we gave a

15 preliminary indication of what we had in mind by saying that the

16 Prosecution could seek to subdivide the 108 documents into various

17 categories that sort of were coherent and then put a couple of documents

18 from each of the groups to the witness so as to give an indication to the

19 Chamber what was in the rest of each of those groups, and that was then

20 the procedure that was followed by the Prosecution. But this is and was

21 completely different from the approach that you are now trying to take,

22 namely by first introducing a document to the witness and then when the

23 witness has been dismissed then coming forward with your motion to

24 request admission.

25 So if we can settle this issue, Mr. Cvijetic, by saying that we

Page 2601

1 will then hear your motion out of caution, but that we remind both

2 parties that in the future documents that are sought admitted into

3 evidence must be presented and must be -- must be sought to be admitted

4 while the witness is here, and only in cases where we are dealing with a

5 complex situation such as the introduction of a very large number of

6 documents will we then require a motion in advance of the witness so as

7 to deal with it. But now this is the first time that we have had this

8 situation with one of the parties seeking to have admitted a large number

9 of documents. We got the motion in advance. The witness came here, and

10 we will hand down our decision on that motion very shortly, either later

11 today or maybe early tomorrow morning.

12 Does that conclude this matter?

13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: If I may be of assistance, Your Honour, the

14 reference is page 2430 from the transcript of the 2nd of November. If

15 that can assist, that's where Ms. Korner and Mr. Cvijetic had the

16 exchange initially, the day you were away, Your Honour. I just give you

17 that for reference.

18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

19 Mr. Zecevic.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I'm not -- I'm not sure. I need

21 to -- just a short address on this. I think the matter was ruled by the

22 Trial Chamber that at the end we will be given the opportunity to offer

23 the document. That is the reference Mr. O'Sullivan has given. So that's

24 why I don't really understand the argument right now, but I will -- I

25 will not dwell into that, because Mr. Cvijetic was leading the witness,

Page 2602

1 and Ms. Korner is here. I just wanted to -- to mention this.

2 Now, Your Honours, we have -- we have a completely different

3 matter which I need to address. The matter concerns one of the witnesses

4 which is coming this -- this week.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honour?

7 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: This matter concerns a situation with the witness

9 which comes this week, namely the witness ST-156. In the course of

10 yesterday, we received the proofing note from our colleagues of -- of the

11 record of the proofing session that they had with this witness. Now, the

12 proofing note is five pages long and contains a number of data, events,

13 names, and issues which are not contained in the 65 ter summary of this

14 witness.

15 Now, the guidelines which you ordered, Your Honours, the

16 guideline 25, say, at least I understand it, that the party seeking to --

17 to introduce evidence in the cases of 92 ter witnesses, the evidence

18 which are beyond the scope of the statements or transcripts which are

19 provided in the package, must ask leave from the Trial Chamber to do so.

20 That is -- that is -- that was my understanding. So as to amend the

21 65 ter list and only then be able to -- to introduce these -- these new

22 evidence.

23 Now, if -- if even in a case where -- where the Prosecution would

24 do in accordance with your guidelines, which they didn't in this case,

25 I'm afraid, then it would create a problem for Defence, because we are

Page 2603

1 not put on notice, and we -- we find just 24 hours before that the

2 witness now changes his statement significantly, and then the -- then

3 there is no way that the Defence can be ready to cross-examine the

4 witness, because eventually we will have to conduct at least some kind of

5 investigation on the new -- on the new data which is provided in this

6 proofing note.

7 So I'm just opening up this -- this issue in a timely manner,

8 because we received it yesterday. We tried to -- to jointly resolve the

9 issue between -- between the parties in order that we find a compromise

10 how to do it, but we're unfortunately unable, and -- and ultimately that

11 is why we're -- that's why I'm addressing the Trial Chamber, and we need

12 to -- to clarify the situation, how are we going to do with this witness

13 and the future cases which I'm sure will happen.

14 Thank you, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic. We have heard what you've

16 said, and we'll process the -- how to deal with this, as you say, which

17 is likely to be a recurring problem.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: That is exactly -- that is exactly the case, Your

19 Honour, but I'm sure we would need to know the -- the clarification by

20 the Trial Chamber, because I appreciate that the -- that the Office of

21 the Prosecutor has some scheduling problems as a result of that, or might

22 have some scheduling problems, and also we might have to, I don't know,

23 adapt our -- our resources in order to deal with that problem. So we

24 would appreciate if some clarification could be given by Trial Chamber as

25 soon as possible, because the witness is in line and is waiting here.

Page 2604

1 Thank you.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I -- may I just assist on this

4 particular witness who is here and expecting to testify tomorrow? And

5 he's been here, I believe, since Saturday I'm told. Yeah.

6 What happened was he testified in the state court. That

7 testimony was disclosed to the Defence, I understand, in December of last

8 year. When he came here, the lawyer who was going to be leading his

9 evidence was obviously, because that wasn't contained in the 92 ter

10 package, was obviously clarifying with him the matters that were raised

11 in the Belgrade -- the state court testimony. That's why it's a much

12 longer proofing note than would normally happen.

13 I understand, because obviously I haven't seen the witness

14 myself, that there are some matters in this which are new, but there are

15 largely those that have already been contained in that transcript, and

16 that's the situation. And the lawyer concerned decided to amalgamate

17 everything into one long note, which is why it's much longer than the

18 normal proofing note.

19 So that's -- that's the situation with this witness. It's only

20 really a question of whether Your Honours or the Defence will agree that

21 they are in a position to deal with it given that they've known most of

22 the information since December last year for tomorrow, or the witness

23 will have to be sent away to come back again.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I just want to very briefly say this:

25 The only notice document, according to the rules and the procedure in

Page 2605

1 this Tribunal and the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, is the 65 ter list,

2 9th of June, 2009, nothing else despite the fact that when some other

3 documents were -- were disclosed to us.

4 Nobody expects the Defence to read every single document which

5 has been disclosed, because it's a million of documents. There is no way

6 that -- that the Defence of five people over this period of time can do

7 that. So it's quite logical.

8 What we are -- what we have as our frame are the 65 ter notices

9 which are provided by our opponents, and that is what we concentrate on.

10 Now, this -- in this case, in this case, the 65 ter notice is 9th

11 of June, 2009, and it -- and it contains -- and the package contains only

12 his statement and his statement only. In the meantime, I don't dispute

13 that -- that we were disclosed the documents from the state court, but,

14 Your Honours, that's a number of witnesses in that particular case. It's

15 more than 600 pages, I believe, the whole -- the whole case file.

16 Now, what is -- what has happened with this proofing note is that

17 his statement and the 65 ter summary, which was given to us, is expanded

18 beyond the contents of the 65 ter summary and his statement, and that is

19 creating a problem. And I think the guideline 25 is exactly for these

20 reasons, inside your order on guidelines and production of evidence and

21 presentation of evidence. Thank you.

22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if it assists, for what it's worth,

23 and of course it's a matter of cost, the witness can return next provided

24 he's given a fixed date. But of course, he's been here for a number of

25 days now.

Page 2606

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I say that Your Honours may want

3 to rise because we have to get protective measures put in place for the

4 next witness anyhow, and it would certainly assist if we rise.

5 --- Break taken at 3.12 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 3.41 p.m.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, you asked for admission of the

8 documents that you put to the witness ST-111, Professor Djeric, and we

9 have discussed it in the break. I should start out by apologising for

10 not having been aware of your motion that was put forward on Monday to

11 have the documents admitted and to Mrs. Korner's response, but I think

12 the simplest and the safest way to go about it is for you to actually

13 file a written motion in which you spell out exactly which documents you

14 wish to have admitted now, because as I recall, it wasn't all of the

15 documents that you presented to Professor Djeric that you actually wanted

16 to have admitted into evidence but only most of them, but there were a

17 few, as I recall, a few documents which I understood that you would not

18 be seeking to have tendered into evidence. But be that as it may, I

19 think it's clearer and simpler and therefore safer if you put forward a

20 written motion of exactly which documents you wish to have admitted, and

21 that will also allow for the Prosecution to have their comments

22 registered.

23 So that's the decision as far as your motion for admission into

24 he have of the documents present to Dr. Djeric.

25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. My

Page 2607

1 intention was to do exactly as you have decided.

2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Addressing the issue that Mr. Zecevic

3 raised, the question that we have of the Prosecution and depending on the

4 answer that the Prosecution offers, it may mean that the problem as far

5 as this particular witness and this case is concerned disappears, and

6 that is this: The expanded -- I'm trying to avoid the use of the word

7 "evidence" or "testimony." The expanded information which has been --

8 which is apparent from the proofing note, does the Prosecution intend to

9 rely on that new information?

10 That's a preliminary question that we have.

11 MS. PIDWELL: Good afternoon, Your Honours. It is the intention

12 of the Prosecution to rely on at least some of the information that is

13 contained in that proofing note, and it was intended to lead that

14 evidence through the witness as -- when he came in the time that is

15 allowed for this -- as a 92 ter witness. So we -- it was the intention

16 of the Prosecution to ask for a slightly extended amount of time, say 40,

17 45 minutes instead of 30 for this witness to bring in the relevant

18 additional points that were brought out in the proofing session.

19 JUDGE HALL: Well, apart from the problem that you anticipate

20 about time, Ms. Pidwell, I don't know whether you addressed your mind to

21 the other consequence of that decision which the Prosecution would wish

22 to take, namely that -- well, first of all, to state the obvious about

23 the principle of the Defence not being caught by surprise, is the issue

24 that unless I am missing something, and perhaps you may be able to

25 persuade me that I have it all wrong, that this -- whether this witness

Page 2608

1 can be a 92 ter witness if you're relying on that new information or

2 whether he would not have to revert to being a viva voce witness.

3 MS. PIDWELL: My understanding, Your Honours, is that the -- the

4 new information that has been brought -- brought out from this witness is

5 simply an expansion of the details that are in his statement or prior

6 testimony. So this is the first time the Prosecution has met with this

7 witness for this case, and in proofing the issues that are relevant to

8 our indictment have been -- have been addressed with this witness, and so

9 specific pieces of information which we consider relevant for the

10 Prosecution case have come to light since the statement was made to the

11 Office of the Prosecutor a number of years ago, well before -- not

12 specifically for the purposes of this case.

13 It's going to be an ongoing issue, I think, because when we proof

14 a witness -- for example, the next witness -- one of the next witnesses

15 in the next couple of days has -- gave a statement in 1998 to the Office

16 of the Prosecutor and has never testified before this Tribunal. He is a

17 92 ter witness, and the information that came out in his proofing is --

18 was, again, to provide more detail of the issues that were in his

19 statement, but the more detail was extracted because it's relevant to the

20 issue in this indictment, police issues, issues in 1992 specifically in

21 our indictment.

22 So that is the practice of the Prosecution which will continue,

23 and so it's a matter that we do need to address, because it's a matter

24 that will probably be relevant to all of the 92 -- well, a significant

25 amount of the 92 ter witnesses.

Page 2609

1 JUDGE HALL: But have you applied your mind to the last

2 observation that I made that the -- calling a witness under the

3 provisions of 92 ter is not as -- is more limited than it appears the

4 Prosecution seems to appreciate. Did you take on board that observation

5 in formulating your response?

6 MS. PIDWELL: The Prosecution has tried to streamline its case to

7 enable as many witnesses as possible who have testified before or who

8 have given statements before to -- to testify pursuant to rule 92 ter

9 because of the time constraints, and the limited time that we have in

10 terms of the half hour or 45 minutes we have to present the evidence of

11 the witness will be designed to tailor their package to the issues in

12 this case.

13 We hope we can do that in that time-frame, and in most of the

14 cases we think we can, but there may be some witnesses who when we see

15 them for the first time a few days before they testify will give us more

16 details on something upon a question that the proofing attorney has

17 raised with them which we consider will assist Your Honours in

18 considering the matters before you, and those -- in those cases, they

19 will go in the proofing note, and we will adduce that evidence as a

20 fine-tuning, if you'd like, of the statement for the purposes of this

21 trial.

22 JUDGE HARHOFF: How do you suggest the Defence to be compensated

23 for the lack of opportunity to have time to prepare for their

24 cross-examination in these instances? I think Mr. Zecevic's point is

25 very reasonable, and in the best of worlds you would have contacted this

Page 2610

1 witness before you submitted your 65 ter list and have another statement,

2 a more recent statement, made available, had that statement -- and have

3 that statement included in the 65 ter list so that we could rely on it

4 for the purpose of introducing this witness and these witnesses as 92 ter

5 witnesses.

6 So that leaves basically the choice for the Chamber that we can

7 either ask you to proceed exclusively on the basis of the statements as

8 they are now to the exclusion of the new evidence that has come in, or to

9 have new statements made and then considerable time given to the Defence

10 to prepare for their cross-examination. But my question was, how do

11 you -- what do you suggest we do to compensate the Defence?

12 MS. PIDWELL: Well, I guess the issue is time and timings, and

13 the Prosecution brings these witnesses up and proofs them in a -- in a

14 time -- in a limited time-frame in accordance with the practice of the

15 Tribunal in consultation with the Victims and Witnesses Section. We

16 disclose the proofing note electronically as soon as it's done, and for

17 example there's usually a good at least 24 hours from the time that the

18 proofing note is finished to when the witness -- that's probably the

19 minimum, but there may be cases when -- when -- if new evidence comes out

20 of the -- the witness, we could shuffle the witness like we -- the

21 proposal for this one that Mr. Zecevic is raising now to accommodate the

22 timing issue. And if the Trial Chamber is happy for us to say if the

23 witness is scheduled for Monday and he's proofed over the weekend and the

24 attorney realises that this is one such occasion, we could shuffle him to

25 further down in the week. So we can do that. We can try and accommodate

Page 2611

1 the Defence to give them a period of time to consider this new

2 information or expanded information it if arises. We're hoping it won't

3 arise too often, but I'm saying this is probably not a limited situation

4 where it will arise because of the practice and the way that we are only

5 able to see these witnesses shortly before they testify.

6 In an ideal world we would have met them all last year and got

7 new statements and had them tailored for this case, but that's not been

8 an opportunity that we've been given.

9 JUDGE HALL: So what do you propose to do in the instant case?

10 Let's not solve problems that haven't arisen yet.

11 MS. PIDWELL: The witness is available to come back next week and

12 has indicated he can if we give him an exact date and time.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may be heard on the matter, Your Honour.

14 The -- the rule says that the party calling the witness,

15 according to the 92 ter, may ask the 65 ter document notice to be amended

16 only upon showing good cause.

17 Your Honours, this is the rule, and it has to be implemented. So

18 what am I -- what am I saying? It concerns me a lot. I know it's not

19 Ms. Pidwell and the whole Prosecution team which has been only recently

20 appointed to do this case, but there has been five years of pre-trial

21 phase in this case.

22 The Prosecution knows their witnesses. They -- it would be only

23 at least expected that they investigate and talk to their witnesses

24 before filing a pre-trial brief. That is what I expected they're doing,

25 not that they're using the 1998 statement of the witness, and nobody for

Page 2612

1 10 or 11 years has ever contacted that witness, he never testified, and

2 now he comes over here with who knows what, a million of new information

3 and we're provided in a proofing note like 24, 48 hours before. This is

4 simply not something that can be understood as a good cause, as showing

5 of a good cause. Definitely, Your Honours.

6 The problem is that in this particular case, Ms. Korner just use

7 as a counter-argument. She said, "We put Defence on notice as early as

8 December 2008 that the witness has testified in the state court." But we

9 were -- we were disclosed these documents, but I would assume that

10 somebody from the -- from the calling party, after knowing that -- that

11 the witness took stand in the state court would go over to him and

12 discuss with him what did he say over there. Did he change his

13 statement? And not to do that just 24 hours before he appears in the

14 court.

15 I don't really see, after hearing all the -- all the submissions

16 from the -- from the Prosecution, that the Prosecution is actually

17 showing good cause to amend the 65 ter summary -- or 65 ter list.

18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, may I suggest this --

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

20 JUDGE HALL: -- that the problem that you have identified from

21 when you first raised it before the break is one which to my mind doesn't

22 admit of any clear or easy solutions. For example, Ms. Pidwell has

23 indicated the problems that the Prosecution has in terms of the limited

24 time available to them to see a witness, notwithstanding how much time

25 may have passed.

Page 2613

1 May I suggest that you reserve your views on the broader question

2 and we limit ourselves to deciding what your response is to her

3 application that this witness be stood down until next week.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the -- that is why I wanted to

5 address the -- the actual problem with this witness, but I just wanted

6 this as a foundation. I say, we say, that there is no -- there is no

7 basis in the rules. I mean, the Prosecution can only ask a leave to

8 amend the 65 ter and then provide the proofing note of the witness, ask

9 the proofing note to be admitted into evidence. Yeah, because they are

10 offering the proofing note to be admitted into evidence, and we say it

11 cannot be done. It -- they have to ask leave and show good cause to the

12 Trial Chamber in order that the Trial Chamber would grant them the leave

13 to -- to admit the proofing note into the evidence. That is -- that is

14 the problem.

15 If the proofing note is not in the evidence, then probably we

16 can -- we can deal, if we're given some time we can deal with the

17 witness, because that might be the situation, that the witness comes in

18 and we are not put on notice, nor is -- nor is the Office of the

19 Prosecution, and he changes his -- or he expands his information that he

20 gives, and then that would be the situation where we would be dealing

21 with that witness. Probably asking for more time to prepare the

22 cross-examination based on these new -- new material or evidence which --

23 the information which the witness has given, or ask -- ask the Trial

24 Chamber not to -- not to adopt the testimony of the witness into evidence

25 based on -- on this.

Page 2614

1 So therefore, I hope I have -- I have clarified what is our

2 situation.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Not exactly. The Presiding Judge asked you if

4 you would go along with calling this witness some time next week, I

5 understand, as a 92 witness on the basis of the proofing note.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: On the basis of proofing note --

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: -- being admitted into evidence.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. That was her question.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: I think the question is premature for me, because

11 first of all, according to the rules the Prosecution must seek leave from

12 you to amend 65 ter list with the proofing note, and upon showing good

13 cause the Trial Chamber will grant that. In that -- at that point if

14 you -- if the Trial Chamber would grant that proofing note to be admitted

15 into evidence, then -- then that is a question for me would I be ready to

16 cross-examine the witness in -- in four days.

17 If the Trial Chamber is saying to me unofficially, so to speak,

18 that that is the intention of the Trial Chamber, I might be able to give

19 you an answer, but I would need -- I would seek some clarification in

20 that respect.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: But that is what we are -- that is what the

22 Prosecution is asking, and we're asking your opinion. What do you --

23 would you object? Because if you can say that in this instance, "Okay,

24 we'll go along with it but that goes for this instance only and then

25 we'll have a find a general solution to the rule -- to the problem, then

Page 2615

1 we might go along with that. If on the other hand you say that, you

2 know, if the proofing note goes in, then you need at least, I don't know,

3 two or three weeks to prepare then the situation is different.

4 So we're hearing you out on this issue.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay, Your Honours, let me be very specific. We

6 object to the proofing note being admitted in the -- into evidence,

7 because we say that this is a violation of the rules and there is no good

8 cause shown to amend the 65 ter list. That is the situation. And we

9 will object to such an application from the Office of the Prosecutor now

10 and in all other cases unless, as I say, the good cause is shown.

11 Because that is the rule, Your Honour. I'm sorry. I can't go around the

12 rule.

13 Thank you.

14 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, I just have two very short points.

15 Firstly on the issue of the admissibility of the proofing note, there was

16 and interchange between myself and Mr. Zecevic on the 1st of October on

17 this issue when we first encountered whether the proofing note should be

18 tendered as part of the 92 package or not with our -- one of our first

19 92 ter witnesses, and it was on Mr. Zecevic's invitation that the

20 proofing note was actually tendered as part of the package. You may

21 recall the Prosecution actually thought it wasn't appropriate because of

22 the circumstances of how the proofing note is taken and it's not a signed

23 statement and all those other things, and we resolved the issue with the

24 proofing note being tendered as part of the package with Your Honours

25 noting that it's a proofing note not a statement and that you would give

Page 2616

1 it the weight that Your Honours considered appropriate in the

2 circumstances, and that's how we resolved it back on the day. We've

3 proceeded on that basis since then, and I just wanted to point that out.

4 And secondly, I just wanted to bring Your Honours' attention to

5 the actual wording of Rule 92 ter, which says that:

6 "The Trial Chamber may admit in whole or in part the evidence of

7 a witness in the form of the written statement or prior testimony."

8 So there is the ability to enable the Prosecution in

9 circumstances to lead additional evidence, additional to the evidence

10 that you have said is part of the package pursuant to that rule.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the point of the matter is that this

12 proofing note expands, expands beyond the contents of the statements

13 and -- and transcripts of the witness, expands information beyond that.

14 So that is -- that is why we're objecting to this proofing note being

15 admitted. And the point is that the 65 ter is the notice document, and

16 we need to be put on notice in a -- that is the whole point of the

17 65 ter, the pre-trial brief, the 65 ter summaries. And the standing of

18 the jurisprudence of this Tribunal is that the party seeking evidence

19 must know its case before the case starts, and therefore, that is why we

20 are providing the notice to the Prosecution. As well, the Prosecution is

21 providing notice to us. And in that notice, these -- this information is

22 not contained, and that is the basis our objection. And the 65 ter

23 notice can only be amended upon showing a good cause and with the leave

24 of the Trial Chamber. That's the whole point.

25 Thank you.

Page 2617

1 JUDGE HARHOFF: The difficulty is that -- you may remain seated

2 if you -- but the difficulty is that in principle this witness should

3 then be called as a viva voce witness, really, because now new evidence

4 is brought into the picture and -- and, you know, if we were to include

5 that new information, we would have to go beyond the scope of

6 Rule 92 ter. So either the Chamber should ask the Prosecution to recall

7 and relabel the witness as to become a viva voce witness, or we would

8 have to allow the Prosecution sufficient time to prepare new statements

9 based on the evidence given by this witness before the court in Belgrade

10 and then have this new statement introduced as an expanded basis for

11 introduction of the witness's testimony through 92 ter. And I'm not sure

12 which is the fastest of these two options.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, but both of these options -- both of

14 these ...

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. I took it -- I took it to be understood

17 that in any case, the Prosecution would have to seek leave for any of

18 these changes, but --

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honour, because again, even if they

20 change it to viva voce, we are still not on notice according to 65 ter,

21 because we received the summary of 65 ter for -- whether the witness is

22 92 ter or viva voce. We are giving the summary by the Prosecution, and

23 it says this witness will talk about indictment, paragraphs this and

24 that, charges this and that, and in essence will talk about this and this

25 is the notice. Now the witness comes over here and he says, "Well, no.

Page 2618

1 I'm not talking about the army. I'm talking about the police. I'm

2 talking about," I don't know, "the accused and so on." This is simply --

3 this is simply not in accordance with the rule and the jurisprudence of

4 this Tribunal, and therefore it is -- both of these options are in

5 violation of 65 ter again, which you offered, Your Honour, with all due

6 respect.

7 MS. PIDWELL: [Overlapping speakers] I wonder if Mr. Zecevic

8 could tell me which part of Rule 65 ter he's referring to, I'm a little

9 stumped by his argument because Rule 65 ter requires us to provide a list

10 of witnesses and summaries of their evidence, which we have done --

11 MR. ZECEVIC: That is exactly.

12 MS. PIDWELL: -- in the form of half-page summaries. Obviously a

13 summary is a general summary of the evidence that this witness is going

14 to give in court, and -- so I'm not quite sure that we're required to be

15 held to the terms of the summary. That's not what Rule 92 ter -- we are

16 held to the Rule 92 ter, which means the basis of his evidence, the

17 witness's evidence is either the transcript or the statement, and the

18 65 ter is just the summary. It's what we have summarised. This doesn't

19 form part of the evidence. The evidence is pursuant to Rule 92 ter and

20 that's the package we're relying on, and when we present the 92 ter

21 witness we are tailoring that evidence to the issues in this case in the

22 very limited time that we have.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, that is -- that is exactly the part

24 which -- yeah. Sure.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 2619

1 JUDGE HALL: It seems that the -- we have no choice but to cut

2 the Gordian Knot here and decide as we are ruling that in the case of

3 this witness he will not be permitted -- no evidence will be led on the

4 new information in the proofing note. He is confined to the previously

5 served statement.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE HALL: We rise.

8 --- Recess taken at 4.12 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 4.34 p.m.

10 JUDGE HALL: Is the Prosecution ready with Witness ST-14?

11 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, Your Honours. Just while the witness is being

12 brought, Your Honours, this is the first witness you'll hear from the

13 municipality of Zvornik. He is the first of three crime base witnesses,

14 92 ter, you'll be hearing for the balance of the week. He has protective

15 measures, pseudonym, facial and voice distortion. He has testified twice

16 before in the Slobodan Milosevic and the Seselj cases. The Prosecution

17 is relying on his testimony in the Slobodan Milosevic case together with

18 his statement and associated exhibits. I anticipate less than 30 minutes

19 for his examination-in-chief, and the Stanisic Defence have approximated

20 about an hour for his cross-examination.

21 This witness is the survivor of one of the worst massacres in the

22 Prosecution's indictment, namely the calculated execution of

23 approximately 88 men at Drinjaca on the 30th of May, 1992.

24 [The witness entered court]

25 WITNESS: WITNESS ST-14

Page 2620

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 MS. PIDWELL: I think we need to be in closed session, Your

3 Honours.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

6 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE HALL: Good afternoon. Sir, that piece of paper being

9 shown to you, that document, that does contain your name, does it?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's my first and last

11 name, yes.

12 JUDGE HALL: Would you please sign it and hand it back to the

13 usher.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Marks]

15 THE REGISTRAR: The pseudonym sheet will become P291 under seal,

16 Your Honours.

17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

18 Well, thank you, sir, for coming to testify before this Tribunal.

19 You have been granted protective measures in that there is the -- no

20 one -- no one in the public gallery will be able to see you, and the

21 protective measures include voice and image distortion, so that anyone

22 viewing the proceedings will not be able to identify you either by your

23 face or by your voice, and of course, you would have just signed the

24 pseudonym sheet so that your name would not be publicly disclosed.

25 (redacted)

Page 2638

1 [Open session]

2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

4 Q. [Interpretation] ST-14, do you know that Patriotic League was

5 established as an armed formation for the town of Zvornik back on 26th of

6 July, 1991, at Kula Grad?

7 A. 26th of July which year?

8 Q. 1991.

9 A. Perhaps, but I did not attend that event. Perhaps that's true,

10 on that day.

11 Q. No, no. I wasn't implying that you attended. I'm just asking

12 whether you knew that the Patriotic League was established on that day.

13 Patriotic League was an armed formation for the town of Zvornik.

14 A. You asked me whether I knew that Patriotic League was established

15 on that day, and I told you that perhaps it was established. I heard

16 that Patriotic League existed, but as for the date, I don't know that it

17 was then, but I am familiar with the existence of the Patriotic League.

18 Q. But you do allow for the possibility that it was on that date.

19 A. Yes, it's possible, but I can't be specific, more specific.

20 Q. I'm not asking you to do that. Tell me, please, do you know who

21 the leaders of the party for the democratic action were in Zvornik? I'll

22 give you some names. Asim Juzbasic and Hasim Adzic. Would you agree

23 with me?

24 A. The names are familiar, both names, but I'm not sure that there

25 was a leadership of the party at the level of the municipality, but the

Page 2639

1 names are familiar.

2 Q. Have you heard of Sakib Halilovic, nicknamed Kibe?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you know that he was appointed commander of the Patriotic

5 League for the town of Zvornik in June of 1991?

6 Do not answer, please. I can't switch my microphone off.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: It looks -- it works now.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The name is familiar, but I'm not

9 sure that he was at the municipal level, that he was commander of the

10 Patriotic League at the municipal level. I'm not sure about that, but

11 the name is familiar.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Do you know that after July 1991 every village, every

14 neighbourhood inhabited by Bosniaks received the plan for wartime

15 assignments and commander?

16 A. What I know, and since after the 31st of March when the

17 referendum on independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina was held, I wasn't

18 present either in Drinjaca or in Zvornik, (redacted)

19 (redacted), we did self-organise on our own initiative in order to

20 guard our houses, but that there was some plan at the municipal level on

21 arming and so on, I'm not familiar with that although it may have

22 existed.

23 MS. PIDWELL: Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. We might need just to

24 redact the name of his village at line 19, is it -- sorry, 23, 23 and 24.

25 If we could redact that, please.

Page 2640

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Ms. Pidwell. I'm sorry.

2 JUDGE HARHOFF: And, Mr. Zecevic, I just wonder if there is some

3 sort of misunderstanding. I understood the witness to say that the

4 Patriotic League was established on 26th July, 1991, and that Sakib

5 Halilovic was appointed as its commander for Zvornik in June 1921 --

6 1991.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I said July 1991, but in

8 any case it was not known to this witness. He knows the name, but he

9 cannot confirm that this gentleman was appointed commander in 1991.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Understood. I just wanted to know if I heard you

11 correctly.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

13 Q. [Interpretation] I just want to ask you, sir, don't mention the

14 name of your village. We were in open session, so now it has been

15 recorded in the transcript, and there's a possibility that you would be

16 identified. So I'm going to avoid it, but you also avoid mentioning it

17 when you answer, but it happens.

18 Did you hear of Captain Almir who commanded the units and fought

19 for three weeks from Kula Grad in April 1992? Is that -- are you aware

20 of that?

21 A. Yes. I did hear of Captain Almir, but I never knew his real

22 first and last name, so I heard that he had been at Kula Grad and that he

23 was organising the resistance there.

24 Q. Do you know that this Captain Almir -- well, this is his nom de

25 guerre, if I can put it that way, his Partisan name, that he came to

Page 2641

1 Zvornik in December 1991 with the task of forming units, arming them,

2 training them, and building fortifications? Are you aware of that?

3 A. No. No, I'm not.

4 Q. Thank you. I think that during your testimony you said that you

5 knew that in mid-March 1992, the Serbian municipality of Zvornik was

6 formed in Karakaj. Is that correct?

7 A. That's the information that we received, that the Serbian

8 municipality of Zvornik was being formed with its seat in Karakaj and

9 that the police, shortly before the fall of Zvornik, that I refer to as

10 fall of Zvornik, had gone to Karakaj just a little bit before that. It

11 was a sort of industrial zone with the majority population of Serbs. So

12 in a way this is the information that we received from people who knew

13 what was going on there. I was just a young man of 22, so I was really

14 just listening to what was going on.

15 Q. So you heard that in mid-May 1992 the Serbian municipality in

16 Karakaj was formed, which was part of the municipality of Zvornik with

17 the majority Serb population, and that was when the police in Zvornik

18 separated. You heard about that. And then the rest of Zvornik with the

19 majority of Muslim citizens stayed on the other hand?

20 A. Yes. Well, if you divide it in such a way, it's natural that the

21 rest of the town for a while -- I can't say that it was under Bosniak

22 control. I as a person who imagines Bosnia and Herzegovina with all of

23 its citizens cannot really divide it in this way, but it's a fact that

24 two peoples lived in Zvornik, the Bosniak and the Serb people. So if the

25 Serbs had gone to Karakaj -- I'm not thinking of the population going,

Page 2642

1 but I'm talking about the establishment of the administrative seat for

2 Serbs in Karakaj. Then life proceeded in a more or less normal way until

3 the 5th or the 6th of April, but then a few days before the events in

4 Bijeljina things were disrupted and people already had started to leave

5 and move out of the town according to the information that I received.

6 Both groups of citizens had started to move out and to move their

7 families to safer places.

8 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, we'll take the break in about two

9 minutes, so you can --

10 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. I have just one maybe two questions on this

11 subject, then it's a perfect time to break.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Are you aware that the chief of police in

13 Zvornik was Osman Mustafic? At that time.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you know that Mr. Mustafic had SDS support but did not have

16 the support of the SDA so much? Are you aware of that?

17 A. I'm sorry, but that is a little bit funny to me. I don't know.

18 It's possible, but I'd never heard of anything like that, that he had

19 that sort of support and that things were the way you say they were.

20 That's a little bit strange.

21 Q. Well, believe me, it was strange to me as well. That's why I'm

22 asking you.

23 Are you aware that at the time when that station was, let us say,

24 the security station was divided in Zvornik and the weapons that were at

25 the station was divided amongst, let me put it that way, the Serbian part

Page 2643

1 in Karakaj and the station that remained in Zvornik, are you aware of

2 that?

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Maybe it's appropriate time to break now. The

5 microphone is not working.

6 JUDGE HALL: Twenty minutes.

7 [The witness stands down]

8 --- Recess taken at 5.40 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 6.03 p.m.

10 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, while the witness is being brought

11 in, I'd just like to note for the record and for Your Honours that I've

12 been joined by Mr. Gerard Dobbyn for the Prosecution. He will be taking

13 the next witness we hope to start before we adjourn tonight.

14 [The witness takes the stand]

15 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?

16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Just one more question, Mr. ST-14. We talked

19 about this division in the municipality of the police, in the Zvornik

20 municipality. Would you agree with me that there were no conflicts

21 during that division of the police and the municipality in the town

22 itself? Can you confirm that, please?

23 A. Well, I think that there were no conflicts, no.

24 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell me, do you know that as of late

25 March, throughout April and -- if there were any attacks about -- attacks

Page 2644

1 against some soldiers of the JNA, some ambushes, killings of policemen,

2 attacks on Serbian villages, burning of houses? Do you remember that,

3 anything like that?

4 A. Well, I think that you would need to just give me a little

5 description of a case or give me some village names in order for me to be

6 able to say anything about that.

7 Q. I'm just interested generally if you're aware of such

8 information. If you do, then we could go into more detail if that is

9 something that we would be interested in pursuing.

10 A. I don't have information, and I wouldn't really like to dwell on

11 any of that because it didn't happen in my village or in my local

12 community. So if some things did happen, perhaps, yes, but I don't feel

13 that I can talk about that then.

14 Q. Well, no, I didn't mean for you to comment on anything like that.

15 I just wanted to know if you had heard of any cases like that or not.

16 You can just answer with a yes or no.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Can you please tell me, on the 26th of April, 1992, when Kula

19 Grad fell, as you said, I think that you said at one point that all the

20 neighbouring villages around Zvornik were alerted by radio to surrender

21 and lay down their arms. Isn't that right?

22 A. I just heard that Kula Grad was liberated. I don't know by whom,

23 how, but this is a broad topic, and of course the propaganda was aimed at

24 letting people know that they need to hand in their weapons and to

25 refrain from putting up any resistance, that there was no point in

Page 2645

1 defending that area.

2 Q. And did you hear this over the radio, or did I understand that

3 incorrectly?

4 A. I don't know if anybody in the village was listening to the

5 radio. I wasn't, but they -- they said that such things were broadcast

6 on the radio. But I heard something else on the radio in a different

7 place. This was around the 30th of May when what happened in our area

8 happened.

9 Q. All right. We're still on April. In your statement you say that

10 on the 29th of April, a unit came to your village - I'm not going to

11 mention the name - and that it was, if I understood you correctly, it was

12 a paramilitary formation together with the JNA unit, which was led by a

13 certain Major Pavlovic. Is that correct?

14 A. That unit with that name, it's a man that I don't know. He's a

15 professional soldier. I got that information from people who were there.

16 A unit of the Yugoslav Army came, and they told me that there was a

17 military -- a Yugoslav flag flying on one their military vehicles and

18 that they wanted the weapons to be surrendered in Pod -- Drinjaca.

19 Q. Can you tell me, if you know, that this Major Pavlovic was a

20 commander of the defence of Zvornik? He was the commander of all the

21 forces in Zvornik. Are you aware of that?

22 A. Well, I didn't know anything about that man at the time. All I

23 knew was what I heard from those people who attended that meeting when

24 the weapons were being handed over. I didn't know anything about him. I

25 just heard some things in stories people were telling during the war and