1 Friday, 23 May 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I looked through my notes,
8 and I would ask you to give me a little more time to complete the
9 cross-examination of this witness, or the first part of it.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE MAY: We'll give you half an hour.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll do my best.
13 WITNESS: WITNESS B-161 [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
16 Q. [Interpretation] You said in connection with this event that you
17 were informed about that some people were being killed. I'm talking about
18 the matter that we were discussing yesterday when we adjourned. You said
19 this occurred in mid-July 1993, didn't you?
20 A. 1995.
21 Q. 1995. I am so sorry. I keep making that mistake.
22 I asked you whether you informed anyone about it.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who did you inform?
25 A. I said that I went to Mali Zvornik for us to find somebody whom we
1 could ask what was going on and that we went there together, that is, to
2 the headquarters of the army in Zvornik. We knew the brigade -- Zvornik
3 Brigade chief. The officer on duty told us that the gentleman was
4 undergoing treatment - his name is Dragan Obrenovic - but that he had come
5 for the weekend and that he was already on the frontline for the past
6 three days.
7 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. We can't hear --
8 JUDGE MAY: We need the microphone.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Did you go to the Zvornik police to inform someone about such
11 a -- such an important and terrible event that you were talking about.
12 The witness is making for my microphone to be switched off, and it
13 isn't going off.
14 A. We went to see the army, because I saw military people doing these
16 Q. So you didn't have any contact with the police.
17 A. No, we didn't communicate with the police.
18 Q. I don't understand why you didn't go to the police, since you
19 worked in the police.
20 A. I said that I saw that soldiers were committing the crimes, and
21 also we knew the man who was one of their commanders and we wanted to
22 enquire what was going on, as this was happening in an area that I was
23 familiar with.
24 A. Very well. Now, tell me, who did you inform about what you
25 learnt? What in fact did you learn? Because you say that this man was
1 undergoing treatment, you only saw this one man. What more did you find
2 out on the spot?
3 A. I said yesterday that I found out who was doing it and who had
4 ordered it.
5 Q. You saw one man doing it and he said who had ordered it.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you learn anything more than that?
8 A. Nothing more.
9 Q. Well, what happened then? Did you inform anyone about what you
10 had learnt?
11 A. We had no one to inform. People were all out on the -- in the
13 Q. Did you then go back to Serbia?
14 A. Yes, I returned to Belgrade.
15 Q. When did you arrive in Belgrade?
16 A. That same evening.
17 Q. Did you inform anyone in Serbia?
18 A. We had no one over there to inform either.
19 Q. Wait a minute. This is not a matter for a private session. You
20 are an official of the Ministry of the Interior who went there and learnt
21 something. True enough you went there in your private capacity, but you
22 learnt something that was important. Didn't you think it necessary to
23 write a report about it, to send it to your superiors in the ministry?
24 A. I think a service was very much in evidence over there. That is,
25 people who were responsible to report about such things from the police
1 and from the political arena.
2 Q. So you didn't consider yourself to be competent to report to
3 people above the chain of command.
4 A. The leadership of the police was always against my going there,
5 even though I had a need to go there, I wanted to go there.
6 Q. So you did not inform anyone up the chain of command in the
7 Ministry of the Interior of Serbia?
8 A. I did not.
9 Q. Let us not waste any more time. Let us go on to clear up a few
10 brief points. I checked through the information that I have once again
11 yesterday, and you stated a number of things here which are absolutely not
12 true, and I will now prove it to you, that this is something that you
13 should have known. So I'll ask you a few questions to that effect.
14 You said that in the headquarters of the SDS certain people were
15 mistreated and killed. According to information I have, no one was
16 killed, absolutely no one. Even Muslim witnesses did not testify to any
17 such thing, that anyone was killed. There were some people killed in the
18 fighting in Bijeljina, and there's a book written about that too.
19 Q. Did you check any of that information ever?
20 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. You put a series of questions.
21 First of all, it's suggested that nobody was killed, as I
22 understand it, in Bijeljina, in the headquarters of the SDS. Briefly, is
23 that right or not?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Bijeljina, behind the SDS
25 building, several tens of people were killed.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I am going to prove that you're not telling the truth for reason
4 that I can only guess about.
5 You also went on to say that Arkan brought with him 86 members of
6 the Serbian Volunteer Guard in the circumstances that you described upon
7 the invitation of the local leadership, et cetera. You said 86, didn't
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. According to my information - and you should know exactly how many
11 he brought - there was a total of 24 of them, and one of them has a
12 nickname Hans and he's a close relative of yours; isn't that right?
13 A. I never heard of that nickname, and I don't have a single relative
14 with that nickname.
15 Q. I'll tell you in a minute that that is not true. But first let me
16 ask you: Are you involved in any killing?
17 A. I was never involved in any killing.
18 Q. Were you supposed to go on trial in Belgrade in connection with a
20 A. That is the problem of the state. It is not my problem.
23 MR. GROOME: The witness has said prior to --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Groome.
25 MR. GROOME: Has said prior to his testimony that this matter he
1 would ask would clearly identify him and is asking that this be taken in
2 private session.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
4 MR. GROOME: And I would ask the following -- the last sentence be
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Private session.
7 [Private session]
13 Pages 21111-21119 – redacted – private session
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.
2 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you were shown a document yesterday, the
4 document which is tab 7, and a document of the state security service is
5 mentioned, and the date mentioned is the 23rd of March, 1992. That's
6 right, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Just a moment, please. Yes.
9 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- let the witness have the document.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You can see the date, can't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is that the date which was fixed so as to refer to a point in time
14 which came after the recognition of the European Union of Croatia and
15 Slovenia but before they were recognised in the United Nations and before
16 the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina; that's right, isn't it?
17 A. Sir, who recognised what, when, and where, I really don't know. I
18 didn't follow all that.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, have you taken a look at the document? Was it
20 perhaps you yourself -- have you seen the document? Have you taken -- had
21 a look at it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Well, then I'd like to draw your attention to page 2, paragraph 2,
24 one but last paragraph -- actually, in the English version, it is the last
25 paragraph on page 2. Have you found it?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. You said the last paragraph on page 2, is that it?
2 Q. The penultimate paragraph.
3 A. You mean, "The Bihac area," beginning with that?
4 Q. Can you read it out to the Court, please.
5 A. Yes.
6 "The Bihac area is undoubtedly one of the significant accesses of
7 influence of intelligence and propaganda on the Croatian security service
8 as well as the other foreign services, especially those of Germany and
9 Austria. To demonstrate this, we give the example from 1991, when the
10 JNA, just around the Bihac airport, discovered five illegal radio stations
11 whose employees worked for the benefit of Croatia and one of them was
13 Q. Now, I should like to ask you a question which -- for which I
14 should like to go into private session.
15 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. There are two documents of all the other documents, and according
1 to the transcript or minutes from the previous trial -- or rather, when
2 you made statements to the investigators, you handed them over to the
3 Prosecution, didn't you?
4 A. Well, I'd like to see the documents.
5 Q. Well, the only two documents that you did hand over. I don't want
6 to stipulate them, in tabs 10 and 11.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'd ask that questioning on those two
8 documents be postponed until the waiver is secure.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Then I should like to put it this way: Do you happen to
12 know -- do you know that both the authorities of Republika Srpska and also
13 the top military organs of the Army of the Federal Republic of
14 Yugoslavia -- or rather, the Army of Yugoslavia, issued orders
15 for -- issued orders to the fact that paramilitary units should not be
16 allowed to act?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was it thanks to decisions of this kind that arrests were made,
19 those that acted contrary to those orders?
20 A. Yes.
21 THE INTERPRETER: That were in the Yellow Wasps. Interpreter's
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. When you spoke about Captain Dragan - and I have this in your
25 statement, the one you gave in February 2003, that is to say, quite
1 recently - I don't want to repeat all the things you've already brought up
2 here, but you said among other things that after you had seen the killing
3 of the man in the river, you say, "I got into my car straight away, a
4 vehicle of the MUP of Serbia that I was using and that had license plates
5 marked 'M' and via the steel bridge I drove off to Zvornik. I saw
6 Captain Dragan sitting in a jeep and his driver and organising the
8 How far is it from the place where this man was killed and the
9 place you saw Captain Dragan?
10 A. Approximately 700 metres.
11 Q. All right. But you also said that you learnt from somebody one
12 month later, only one month later, about the manner in which this man was
13 killed; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Well, how could you have told that to Dragan the same day and
16 criticised him for that and said, "You crazy man, what are you doing"?
17 A. Yes. I and many other citizens saw that with my very own eyes.
18 We saw the training being organised.
19 Q. Yes. But you learnt about this just one month later, what had
20 actually happened. You didn't know at the time you saw Dragan, and you
21 attacked him in the way -- as if you knew about it.
22 A. Well, the way he was going about this was not logical.
23 Q. What? Going about what?
24 A. The training he was conducting.
25 Q. Yes. But he blamed -- you blamed him for the killing of that man.
1 How could he be blamed if the man was killed in quite another area,
2 one -- a place where he was not?
3 JUDGE MAY: I don't think the witness ever said that he blamed
4 Dragan at the time for killing the man, but I may be wrong. That wasn't
5 the impression I got.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
7 JUDGE MAY: Let's ask the witness to clarify, shall we?
8 Did you blame Dragan at the time for the killing of the man?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it was very close by.
10 We saw an organised group of armed persons led by Captain Dragan who were
11 doing some sort of training, engaged in some sort of exercise. And as I
12 know the whole area around there, it wasn't logical to me that any
13 terrorists who could have entered a small town like that, a town which is
14 no more than 1 kilometre in diameter and just a few dozen metres wide, and
15 there's no terrorist who would be able to do that.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not going to
17 insist on that. We have the transcript. You can take a look at it.
18 That's how I understood the witness and that's what he said. But you will
19 be able to check it out and decide on the matter.
20 Q. Yesterday you mentioned Mr. Sainovic.
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. You mentioned him in just one spot in your two statements,
23 including -- and in your statement of February you make no mention of him,
24 but in your first statement, on page 1, you said that you knew that
25 Slobodan Milosevic as president of Serbia was the head and Nikola Sainovic
1 as prime minister of Serbia. And that's all you say in your statements.
2 You never mention Sainovic before. How do you explain that?
3 A. I mention Sainovic in the portion in which I said that I did
4 indeed have contacts with Tomica Raicevic, and I told him about what was
5 going on at the border between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and then he
6 suggested that I come to see him at his home because on that very evening
7 Saja would be coming by, as he called him. He called him Mr. Saja.
8 Q. Well, we've heard that and I don't want to dwell on that. We
9 understand that. All I'm interested in is this: Why didn't you say any
10 of what you've just said in February of this year when you were asked by
11 the investigators or interviewed by the investigators?
12 A. I don't know what they asked me, and if they asked me something I
13 knew about, I told them.
14 Q. All right. You've just said you saw him?
15 A. Yes, I did see him.
16 Q. You saw just one killing as you yourself described in the river.
17 Did you tell him that?
18 A. No. That killing took place after 1995.
19 Q. I see, after 1995. So you were not able to tell him anything you
20 yourself saw personally.
21 A. I told him about the group of citizens, the civilians that I saw
22 fleeing to Serbia on the bridge.
23 Q. You couldn't tell him anything about seeing any single crime
24 yourself, eyewitnessing a crime.
25 A. I didn't tell Sainovic that I had seen a crime. I saw a situation
1 when panic-stricken civilians were fleeing and shouting and saying that
2 there was killing going on over there, nothing more than that.
3 Q. Very well. Thank you. My last question: In answer to a question
4 from Mr. Groome, you said that in Belgrade, in front of the building in
5 which Arkan's party was headquartered, there were armed men.
6 A. Yes, half of Belgrade saw them.
7 Q. Did half of Belgrade see two civilians without weapons or two
8 civilians with machine-guns and some weapons?
9 A. For a while they had machine-guns and weapons, and then the
10 service reacted and then they put on civilian clothes. This went on for
12 Q. But when they're there in civilian clothes for years.
13 A. Yes. There was a period when they were with Hecklers and in
15 Q. Weren't they always in civilian clothes?
16 A. No, sir. There were periods when they were in uniforms and
17 periods when they were in civilian clothes.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. GROOME: [Previous interpretation continues] ... If that's the
20 last question.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's very hard to be very careful
22 about switching on and off the microphones, but it was not out of any
23 malicious intent that I did that.
24 JUDGE MAY: We accept that, because all -- we'll all have to get
25 used to this.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
3 Yes, Mr. Groome.
4 Re-examined by Mr. Groome:
5 Q. Sir, I have just a few questions for you. I'd like to return to
6 Prosecution Exhibit 450, tab 7. I believe you still have it in front of
7 you. I'd ask you to -- this is the document that you've told us. The top
8 of it reads "Cooperation action," and it's a Federal Secretary for
9 Internal Affairs state security document dated 23rd of March, 1992.
10 Could I ask you in your own language to read just the first
11 sentence under "General knowledge about the entire region." It's tab 7,
12 and the -- the Serbian version is after the English version.
13 A. "Some general knowledge linked to the region as a whole. It is a
14 key evaluation that the ratio forces, if we were to disregard JNA
15 potentials, is in favour of the Muslims, both in terms of the number of
16 fighters and the maximum they could engage would be 60.000 and more and
17 also in terms of the quantity and quality of weapons that are at their
18 disposal, mostly light weapons but very sophisticated ones, and according
19 to the latest reports they have managed to increase the number of light
20 guns to around 20."
21 Q. Now, my question to you is: Is this a correct reading of this
22 report, that the -- the most important evaluation in it, this document
23 called "Cooperation", is an assessment of the potential Muslim forces that
24 existed in the region should a conflict break out?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I now want to draw your attention to -- I believe it's the top of
2 page 8 in your copy there, the original. And the paragraph begins "The
3 situation in the municipality of Bosanska Krupa."
4 A. Yes, I see it.
5 Q. All right. Now, I wanted to draw your attention to the latter
6 part of that paragraph. I'll read you the English version of the precise
7 passage I want you to comment on. I'd ask you to follow along in the
9 It says: "Just in case and during the last days they are ready to
10 block also areas of relevance in the city itself, in case the decision to
11 join the Banja Luka sector, i.e., the CSB of Banja Luka is activated."
12 And please read the rest of it if you need it for context. But the
13 question I put to you is: Does a fair reading of this sentence indicate
14 that at the time that this document was generated a plan already existed
15 for the division of the police forces of Bosanska Krupa?
16 A. Yes. But I'm not familiar with these documents. I don't know
17 what was going on over there.
18 Q. Now, the next area that I'd like to ask you a question about is
19 Mr. Tapuskovic has asked you about your statement and what you -- what he
20 asserts you failed to say in your statement. I want to read you one
21 sentence from your statement and ask you to comment -- do you recall
22 making this statement to the investigators. And this is your statement
23 from 2002.
24 "I went directly to Rajcevic's house as I knew that this way word
25 would get to Slobodan Milosevic through Sainovic."
1 Do you recall making that statement to an investigator of the OTP?
2 A. Yes, I remember it very well.
3 Q. Now, you've been questioned on the fact that there was a
4 prosecution of the Vukovic brothers, the members of the -- the leaders of
5 the Yellow Wasps. I'm going to ask you to clarify one matter regarding
6 time. You've testified that you saw cars belonging to Arkan's men and you
7 were able to identify them because they had this emblem of a tiger
8 displayed on them. My question to you is: Your observations of those
9 cars, were they before or after this time -- this meeting that you had
10 with Sainovic when you informed him about what was going on in Zvornik?
11 A. I saw the vehicles before and after for some time they were
12 present in that area, for a lot of time.
13 Q. Were you ever personally aware of an investigation or prosecution
14 of any members of Arkan's men for what occurred in Zvornik just as the
15 Vukovic brothers were prosecuted for what happened in Zvornik?
16 A. I never heard that anyone was -- any member of Arkan's group was
18 MR. GROOME: I have no further questions.
19 JUDGE MAY: Witness B-161, that for the time concludes your
20 evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You will in
21 due course be recalled to deal with other matters.
22 If you'd like to withdraw.
24 MR. NICE: Before he does, may we go into private session. It
25 touches on the general programming of witnesses. But the first thing I
1 want to say is something that I'd rather say just before the witness
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
4 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 MR. NICE: Your Honour, if I --
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.
2 MR. NICE: Your Honour, the difficulties with Mr. Kristan, the
3 constitutional law expert, are as follows: He is Slovenian. He would
4 much prefer to give evidence in that language. And although he obviously
5 speaks B/C/S extremely well, if he is comfortable only in Slovenian -- and
6 I don't think it's -- I don't think it's, as it were, a political point.
7 I mean, he is genuinely more comfortable in that language -- it's unfair
8 to press him to give evidence in B/C/S.
9 The Slovenian interpreters originally contacted to be here all of
10 this week have, I understand, been stood down and can't be contacted
11 today. I'll be correcting if I am wrong on that.
12 THE INTERPRETER: You're not wrong, Mr. Nice.
13 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... if they are
14 arranged for Monday and Tuesday. The difficulty there is
15 Professor Kristan has to be in Ljubljana on Monday evening for Tuesday and
16 flights have been booked, so that his evidence, even if started on Monday,
17 if it were to go over to another day, could not be concluded next week.
18 So that's the next difficulty that we face.
19 JUDGE MAY: Can I raise a point before we leave Dr. Kristan for
20 the moment, which is the matter raised by the amicus, which we certainly
21 would wish to have addressed. We think it raises quite a serious point
22 about his -- the admissibility of his evidence as an expert, on that part
23 which he was involved.
24 MR. NICE: Absolutely. Yes. Certainly. Well, we can certainly,
25 whatever happens, perhaps deal with that today so that the matter can be
2 So there's the problem with Dr. Kristan.
3 The Court will recall that Mr. de la Brosse is due to come back on
4 Monday morning at 9.00 to conclude. I think it's an hour-plus or two
5 hours of cross-examination. I don't know what his availability is for the
6 balance of the week, but I recall that it's a Wednesday, that's his
7 teaching day, and I think it's a late teaching commitment, which takes
8 care of Wednesday and Thursday. At least, it did last week, I think. And
9 therefore, there may be a problem with his being here any other day other
10 than Monday or Tuesday. But we haven't spoken to him about that yet.
11 There is a witness who's available to start, and we don't want to
12 spend time that's avoidable -- that's available for use elsewhere in
13 discussing procedural matters once we can cut through the problem. There
14 is a witness, B-024 that will start now, but that witness would inevitably
15 go into Monday.
16 So in the absence of being able to start the constitutional law
17 expert today, such as part of it as might be admitted as expert, then the
18 Chamber is faced with this dilemma: If it starts, presumably it would be
19 the next-most attractive option, B-024, unless it wants to go to wrapping
20 B-024 around another witness, which is something it's not inclined to do,
21 we would understand, B-024 would go into Monday, possibly eliminating the
22 chance of concluding de la Brosse on Monday and certainly eliminating the
23 chance of starting and concluding Kristan on Monday.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I was saying I wanted to make a point about the
2 difficulty which you obviously have and which the accused will have in
3 getting witnesses here. There is clearly a logistical problem, because
4 the witnesses are elsewhere. But it seems to me that it must mean
5 something to give evidence before the International Tribunal, and
6 sometimes when I hear some of the reasons being offered I really wonder
7 whether there is a proper appreciation by the witnesses of the importance
8 of giving evidence before the Tribunal. In some cases, I think it must
9 take precedence over some of the duties which they have otherwise. I'd
10 think the Prosecutor should bring that to the attention. This is an
11 important tribunal, established by the Security Council, and giving
12 evidence here has a special significance.
13 And, you know, we can't work all the time to the convenience of
14 witnesses, because quite often the accused is quite severely prejudiced in
15 my view by this chopping and changing. And I wish you would bring to the
16 attention of your witnesses that there is a special significance and
17 importance in giving evidence here, and they must take that into
18 consideration when they weigh it against their other duties, some of which
19 may appear to be relatively ordinary.
20 MR. NICE: Your Honour's words will of course be relied on when we
21 discuss with witnesses the degree to which we should allow their interests
22 to overrule the timetable requirements of the trial.
23 Two points really: Of course, our powers of compulsion are
24 non-existent. Second point: The vast majority of witnesses find
25 themselves inconvenienced and frequently entirely privately overrule that
1 inconvenience in favour of giving evidence here, sometimes staying here
2 for very great periods of time. And otherwise, as the Chamber will recall
3 with some of our better-known witnesses like Lord Ashdown, abandoning
4 their diaries when it's necessary to allow their evidence to be continued
6 So we will, of course, rely on those observations, but in the
7 balance I must say that the vast majority of witnesses put up with very
8 substantial inconvenience in order to assist the Chamber, and it's only a
9 few, limited in number, who have commitments that they feel sometimes have
10 to take them away in the middle of evidence.
11 So far as the constitution law expert is concerned, I believe - I
12 haven't actually further confirmed this with him, because it hasn't been
13 at the top of my agenda- but I believe he is due to receive an award on
14 Tuesday from the European -- a European body, and it's been scheduled for
15 a long time, and it's no doubt that something that can't suddenly be
16 changed to another day.
17 JUDGE MAY: Well, may one answer be this, for the moment, to
18 dispense with his evidence. It doesn't seem possible that we're going to
19 reach it to do B-024 now, with a view to finishing that, and
20 Mr. de la Brosse on Monday.
21 You might also care to reflect on Dr. Kristan's position, now that
22 it's been brought to our attention, we hadn't appreciated the point, I
23 have to say, but though it was in the report, but the force of it has now
24 been brought home to us, as to whether he really is an appropriate witness
25 on matters concerning the autonomy of Kosovo. He might be on other
1 matters. Of course I speak for myself entirely. But on the federal
2 matters, of course he's -- he's a totally impartial expert. But the
3 difficulty which the amicus has raised, although I again speaking for
4 myself don't necessarily agree with the solution at the moment - I think
5 that's subject to argument - the difficulty which they raise does seem to
6 be a real one if one is going to put weight on what the witness says. You
7 might want to reflect on that.
8 MR. NICE: I've been reflecting on it, and obviously it's a matter
9 I'd rather dispose of sooner rather than later, in order to plan ahead.
10 And there are perhaps three short points I can make now and then get on
11 with some evidence, which is obviously what we must do. And I think the
12 three points are, first of all, these are matters of impeachment -- or
13 they can be used as matters of impeachment; he will certainly be able to
14 take the Court through matters of legislation, pointing out what
15 legislation can have a bearing on the issue. It then being a matter for
16 the Chamber and the Chamber said this, in relation, for example, to the
17 issue of Croatian statehood, the Chamber being in a position itself,
18 having seen the relevant legislation, being satisfied what it is, to make
19 such further determinations as it wishes.
20 And the third point, I'm trying to find the reference for it. I
21 don't know if it's yet turned up. The third point, the Chamber may
22 recall - I do - that I explained at an earlier stage, months and months
23 ago, that it has proved extremely difficult to find people who were
24 willing in the state or states with which we are concerned to give
25 evidence about constitutional law, and this is a very highly placed and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 obviously highly qualified person, whether there's a problem with his
2 being interested in way that's entirely visible. But it was difficult to
3 find people to come and assist the Chamber.
4 Now, this witness is extremely knowledgeable. He's given a great
5 deal of time and effort to preparing the report. This is an area where
6 probably there can be allegation of bias against anybody, depending on
7 which nationality they -- which nation or which state they come from. His
8 is entirely visible, and therefore it's easier to deal with the question.
9 And it's our submission to you very shortly that it's entirely appropriate
10 to hear from him because you'll be able to make the distinction of -- of
11 those passages where he manifestly has no interest and those where the
12 argument might be pressed against him that he does.
13 And, of course, he is Slovene, so that his interests as a
14 Slovenian are at least different from those that might be associated with
15 anybody who was Serbian or from Kosovo or anything else. So those are a
16 few of the points I would raise more particularly. And we would certainly
17 press you to take his evidence, for all sorts of reasons, not the least
18 that he's done a great deal of work and he's an extremely learned man who
19 can take you through the legislation.
20 But Your Honour, that then leaves outstanding the last witness.
21 As we are in public session, I need say no more about that now as to the
22 return date for his evidence. The Chamber would probably want me to come
23 back -- or somebody to come back later this morning and tell you what the
24 position is there. Obviously the sooner that evidence can be dealt with,
25 the better.
1 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just a moment, Mr. Milosevic.
5 What we propose to do is to deal with this issue which has been
6 raised by the amicus on the admissibility or the appropriate way of
7 approaching the expert's evidence. At least if we can do a ruling on that
8 or at least hear the argument on it. Speaking for myself, I think it may
9 be more sensible than to go on with the witness, at least the part
10 that -- finishing him and any other witnesses there may be on -- on
12 THE ACCUSED: Can I make --
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll hear you on this, Mr. Milosevic.
14 What we were going to discuss, you may have seen the paper that
15 has been put in by the amicus on the appropriateness of the expert
16 evidence given by Dr. Kristan. Yes.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you will bring whichever
18 witness forward you like, and I will cross-examine every witness, so
19 that's not the problem. But I would like to draw your attention to the
20 fact that -- how shall I put it -- that it is inappropriate and impolite,
21 I should also say, to keep changing the order.
22 Yesterday you said that Kristan would be testifying today. Last
23 night, after the close of trial, they brought me this binder into my cell.
24 Have a look at it. And it refers to Kristan. It is the Kristan binder,
25 for me to be able to read through it during the night. We now hear that
1 it won't be Kristan who's testifying but Witness B-024. I really don't
2 understand this. If you, upon my insistence, established here some sort
3 of - how shall I put this - basic order, that is, to give us the list of
4 witnesses at least seven days in advance, how can we then in such an
5 inappropriate way function the way we're doing? So I left the courtroom
6 with the knowledge that Kristan will be testifying, and to bear this out
7 the employee waiting in the Detention Centre and he doesn't work after
8 5.00, so the registrar told him to wait after his working hours and bring
9 me this enormous binder, which refers to Kristan and constitutional
10 matters. I have to spend the whole night studying it, which I did, and
11 now we hear in the morning that it won't be Kristan who's going to testify
12 but B-024, and we don't know at all when Kristan is going to come in and
13 testify. We have an interrupted witness today, and we have an interrupted
14 other witness, Mr. de la Brosse. He seems to be coming in on Monday. And
15 now we have B-024 and so on and so forth. So I insist that some order be
16 put into all this, something that will put all of this into frameworks of
17 appropriateness and proper conduct.
18 And quite simply, if somebody doesn't have the right witness at
19 the right time, then they won't be able to do any patchwork and mend and
20 fix a programme by making changes all the time. So quite simply, I think
21 that to be highly inappropriate and out of order, Mr. May.
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We hear what you say.
24 MR. KAY: Did the Court want to address the Dr. Kristan
25 argument --
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we do.
2 MR. KAY: -- At this stage.
3 The point that occurred to us was that there was a clear conflict
4 of interest where a Judge has performed a role, a judicial office, in
5 fact, at the highest level of his country, and been involved with the
6 decision-making process, then being used as an expert with the role of
7 instruction and guidance to this Court.
8 JUDGE MAY: Instruction? I doubt that. An expert doesn't
9 instruct the Court. I mean, he gives evidence about his expertise.
10 Instruction is taking it too far.
11 MR. KAY: Well, the purpose of calling an expert and how you fall
12 into the category of being an expert and the need for expertise is to
13 instruct and guide Judges on matters with which they are not familiar and
14 need special assistance. Otherwise, in our submission --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It depends on how you interpret "instructs."
16 MR. KAY: Yes. I am not telling -- I am not saying that he has
17 to -- has to -- I can't even complain about translation.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It comes from a Latin word, which in any event
19 means "to guide, to lead."
20 MR. KAY: Yes. I can't complain about the translation.
21 But there is a clear conflict of interest, because in effect what
22 is happening is he would be judging himself and justifying his own
23 decision and role in the decision-making process.
24 From my position, I have been able to consider that aspect of his
25 report. I must say I don't know how far it goes and how far his further
1 involvement in other aspects relating to the constitutional law went, and
2 that may be something that emerges during cross-examination by others. If
3 that does, we may have a greater problem on our hands than the one I've
4 already identified, which was obvious and apparent to me, having been
5 pointed in that direction been others.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: The issue that you identified is the one relating
7 to the -- the autonomy?
8 MR. KAY: Yes.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: There is also the right to self-determination, in
10 which he had also expressed views in court and had provided an opinion.
11 MR. KAY: That is right. The proposals.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 MR. KAY: Seeing his background within the constitutional court,
14 there may well be further consultative roles that he has played a part in
15 as part of the issues of the day in Yugoslavia that do not become revealed
16 in the report. As judges are consulted about many things and often
17 provide advice and assistance to government bodies and agency and take
18 part in such roles, I do not know how far his remit has been beyond the
19 obvious within the report. So what I am saying is that this has been
20 identified but there may be a bigger problem that I'm unaware of, and I'm
21 not saying that it is the absolute scope of the issue.
22 But the point is that an expert witness does come into a courtroom
23 with a particular standing and role. There is a difference between this
24 kind of witness from that, say, as the inventor of the Lion intoximeter or
25 alcohol meter. I'll call him Mr. Lion who comes to court and explains the
1 workings of his machine that he invented and why it gives the readings
2 that it does, which is the kind of expert involved in a manufacturing
3 process, production of an instrument. This is a judge with a background
4 of legal opinions, and his opinions were not necessarily held by everyone.
5 His was a -- a dissenting judgement. That is a different kind of expert
6 as a judge from someone who has made or created something.
7 And whereas in the category of the inventor there may be a good
8 case for permitting him to give evidence in an expert way --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, I give you two scenarios: Might it be
10 compared with, say, a very distinguished doctor who performs a heart
11 operation, something goes wrong, and a case arises in court? He's called
12 as an expert in relation to the procedures that he employed. That might
13 not be the best example, because there he might actually be the defendant.
14 But the other scenario: A distinguished doctor performs a heart
15 operation using a particular procedure. There is another heart operation
16 sometime later on which is performed using perhaps a similar procedure,
17 and something goes wrong, and a case arises out of the second operation.
18 Now, the first doctor is called in court to give evidence not only about
19 the procedure employed by the second doctor but also about his own
20 procedure, which then almost becomes an issue in the case, you know. And
21 I tend to see it -- to see this situation as being somewhat analogous that
22 the -- the judge is being called to give expert evidence in relation to a
23 matter that is an issue in the case and in which he was an active
24 participant. So that the necessary distance that you look for in an
25 expert from the event in issue would be missing, it seems to me, at least
1 in relation to the issues are identified the question of autonomy in which
2 he dissented and the question of the right to self-determination on which
3 he provided opinions.
4 MR. KAY: I would submit that the distinction between the two
5 cases is in fact the route Your Honour was going down first of all, and
6 that is that the first doctor could well be a defendant in relation to
7 a -- a negligent suit for malpractice or whatever. And it would be
8 inappropriate for him to be viewed as an expert. At the trial of another
9 doctor, he is more removed and less proximate to the issue before the
10 Court and therefore is giving the benefit of his expertise so far as his
11 successful operation was concerned.
12 Dr. Kristan, of course, was immediately involved, took part in the
13 deliberations, argument perhaps between the judges, exchange of papers and
14 notes, which means that he is not one step removed. If this was an issue
15 involving a -- a replica state elsewhere, with similar constitutional
16 issues, one could see then the point. Or if this was an issue that had
17 arisen after his term of office and involved constitutional matters that
18 arose after 1992, whereby he was providing his expertise. But this is an
19 area that has been of a fundamental nature to this case. We have heard a
20 great deal about it.
21 JUDGE KWON: Let me understand this a little bit clearer. What
22 you are asserting is not that the -- Dr. Kristan shouldn't be heard at
23 all. What you are opposing is that he's to be heard as an expert. So you
24 are not opposing we hear him as an ordinary witness. Am I right?
25 MR. KAY: Yes, I've never suggested that his evidence does not
1 fall within the category of being relevant and probative, under Rule 89.
2 But what I have suggested is that as an expert witness, which is a
3 separate part of the Rules, Rule 94, carrying with it all that goes as
4 lawyers and judges understand expert witnesses is a category that is
5 inappropriate, and we submit that it is not an unimportant distinction.
6 JUDGE MAY: If you're saying that, what would be the point of
7 calling him if he's not an expert?
8 JUDGE KWON: And there would be little differences if he's to come
9 at all.
10 MR. KAY: Well, to echo someone else's words, that's not my
11 problem. That's for them to decide and work out. That's not my problem.
12 It's a problem that has to be -- be faced if he is desired to be called
13 and what he says as an ordinary witness can be challenged and contested.
14 But it's a very unusual position, in my submission, where an expert
15 witness in this situation will be called effectively giving his opinion
16 and judgement about his own dissenting opinion as an expert.
17 JUDGE MAY: If he was an ordinary witness, he couldn't give his
18 opinion. That's the whole point of the expert, is that he gives an
19 opinion. The ordinary witness can't.
20 MR. KAY: And therein lies the dangers, because he would be giving
21 an opinion. If he's to be called to advise you about various
22 constitutional matters which are also within his report and refer the
23 Court to the relevant passages and documents without an opinion, then as a
24 witness he can do that.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, how would you answer the submission that
1 might be made that the matter could be resolved from the point of view of
3 MR. KAY: In my submission, that's a very, very difficult way of
4 judging it, because you're in effect saying that the opinion that's going
5 to be given -- well, let me think back over that again. In effect, you're
6 saying that he's coming in as an ordinary witness then. It's --
7 JUDGE MAY: No. Suppose he came in as an expert, gave his
8 evidence as an expert, but the point was made, the point which Mr. Nice
9 made, that these are matters of impeachment, as he put it, i.e., going to
10 the weight effectively of the evidence. He was treated as an expert, and
11 these matters were made and regarded as matters of weight. When assessing
12 that evidence, would he have any weight at all, I suppose one could ask?
13 MR. KAY: Yes. It's -- it's a concept that we wouldn't normally
14 apply to expert -- you would have challenge over the -- the issues. But
15 if the status and role of the particular witness is open to question, in
16 relation to these particular issues because of his direct personal
17 involvement, you come to the issue of unreliability, which is the
18 undercurrent by which the matter should be judged.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE MAY: I see the time. Do you want to reflect on things --
21 MR. KAY: I know Mr. Tapuskovic wants to ask me something, and
22 perhaps if we can have an opportunity to speak together in French.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
24 MR. KAY: It's difficult in court.
25 JUDGE MAY: Why don't we adjourn now for 20 minutes.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.
4 MR. KAY: There's nothing further I need add, having spoken to
5 Mr. Tapuskovic, save for this: On the matter of weight, having reflected
6 upon that, in effect then the Court is really treating him as an ordinary
7 witness on the issues, in my submission.
8 MR. NICE: I don't know if the accused wants to contribute
9 anything himself.
10 JUDGE MAY: No.
11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's a number of, I think,
12 misapprehensions here. This is a witness who in our respectful submission
13 should plainly be heard. Before I develop those arguments briefly, can I
14 suggest what may at first sight seem to be a rather close analogy and then
15 perhaps show that it isn't.
16 The recent election of President George W. Bush was preceded by a
17 very famous hearing in the United States Supreme Court where the judges
18 divided on what would seem to be or thought to be by some political
19 grounds. The decision was made. If any of those learned justices were in
20 court asked to identify the laws upon which the decisions were made, the
21 materials upon which the decisions were made, the whole background legal
22 structure of the United States, its courts, its decision-making processes,
23 is there any doubt that they would be expert and indeed very high experts
24 in that area of potential evidence? In our respectful submission, of
25 course they would.
1 Does that then at the very least sustain an argument that this
2 witness must be allowed to give evidence of all those materials upon which
3 he is plainly an expert? Arguably, yes, but in fact I can go further,
4 because although the analogy seems at first sight strong, it's not as
5 strong as all that, and the differences between the two positions favour
6 more rather than less of the evidence of Dr. Kristan being given. For in
7 this case, where you might expect there would be division within the Court
8 on political grounds, in fact no decision was rendered.
9 What happened in relation to revocation, and we can see this at
10 paragraphs 112 and onwards of the report, was indeed no decision was
11 rendered, but various judges had opinions as to whether the matter should
12 be brought to conclusion but no conclusion was ever reached.
13 JUDGE MAY: At --
14 MR. NICE: Paragraph 121, I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE MAY: But paragraph 112 contains the witness's proposals,
16 various proposals that he made to the court on that issue. And the matter
17 was before the court, the matter of the revocation was before -- rather,
18 the amendments to the Serbian constitution, an allied subject, was before
19 the court, page 22. And the witness dissented, page 23. So he has an
20 involvement in it.
21 MR. NICE: Yes, he has an involvement. But it's in the material
22 matter that we're looking at on revocation, he just like competing experts
23 on either side of all sorts of potential issues hold a opinion. He's held
24 the same opinion for a long period of time. He expressed it. And no
25 action was taken on it. He's also, of course, fully able to identify and
1 has fully done so all the contrary opinions that were expressed at the
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the point you raised is something which
4 I've been considering, because the report does indicate, as you say, that
5 no decision was taken. But he himself describes his dissenting opinion.
6 What is it dissenting from then? Is it dissenting from the other
8 MR. NICE: The others whom he also identifies, yes. But it's
9 not --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, to my mind, it doesn't matter. It doesn't
11 matter whether a decision was actually taken or not. I mean, he has
12 clearly expressed his views on the matter, which differed from the others.
13 And it seems to me he must come to the exercise that you asked him to be
14 involved in, heavily influenced by that so-called dissenting opinion, you
16 MR. NICE: I respectfully differ. If you had -- let's go back to
17 one of the examples that we've been considering, the expert in the medical
18 negligence action. Before you get to find your expert witness, it may
19 come to you that that particular doctor has already expressed outrage at
20 the operation was conducted. He may have gone to press and said this is
21 an extraordinary act of negligence by Dr. X or Dr. Y, and our profession
22 should be ashamed of it. So he's already expressed an opinion. You go to
23 him and say, "Well, perhaps you'd like to be an expert in this case," and
24 he said, "I certainly would. It's always been my opinion this is an
25 outrage, and I'd like to be the person to give evidence about it." It's
1 no different from what we've got here. The fact that the man has been
2 consistent in his opinion is I would have thought rather more in his
3 favour than anything else. And the fact he is who he is means that he's
4 better placed than anyone else to give evidence as his report reveals of
5 the contrary opinions, as well as would the justices of the Supreme Court
6 of America -- the United States of America be able to give evidence of all
7 the underlying materials in a neutral way.
8 JUDGE MAY: But the point -- sorry.
9 JUDGE KWON: If I can make a comment on your earlier comparison to
10 the United States Supreme Court, regarding the presidential election. I
11 think that the Supreme Court justice of the Supreme Court of the United
12 States would not volunteer to come to the court as the -- either as an
13 expert witness or an ordinary witness to come -- to give evidence about
14 what he decided. It's very inappropriate, in my opinion, for a judge to
15 come to the court later and give evidence what they talked inside. What
16 is your observation?
17 MR. NICE: That's an entirely different issue, of course. He does
18 not regard it as inappropriate. He's, of course, an academic as well as a
19 judge. His position have been publicly known for a long time, and what
20 he's revealing is not anything that is other than publicly available, so
21 that there's no -- there's no embarrassment there and I don't think
22 there's perceived to be any embarrassment.
23 The position of the United States Supreme Court would of course be
24 different because there a final decision would -- had in fact been
25 rendered, and it might be unrealistic to expect either the minority or the
1 majority to express an opinion on their own judgement. But that's not the
2 position here.
3 And this is a country where of course there could be some
4 expectations of divisions of opinion along all sorts of lines, in places
5 like the constitutional court, and it may well be that what this Chamber
6 wants more than opinions on legality is to be acquainted with the
7 materials and to know how the materials were relied upon by the
8 complete -- by the competing arguments.
9 And I don't know if the Chamber has had an opportunity of looking
10 at the charts that came last night with the summary of the evidence?
11 Because it may be that they will also help you --
12 JUDGE MAY: It did not come to us until this morning.
13 JUDGE KWON: Is it in the bundle?
14 MR. NICE: It's coming now, I think. Well, then why don't we
15 distribute those. This will more clearly identify --
16 If one could be given to me as well, I would be grateful.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Do the interpreters have the document?
18 JUDGE KWON: Since nobody did hear it, it seems that nobody heard
19 it, the interpreters asking to have the document.
20 MR. NICE: And so they shall.
21 But this is first of all to explain what we really want this
22 witness for. And then you'll see the, in a sense, limited degree to which
23 these opinions are a central part of his evidence.
24 What we want him to help you with - and you've seen charts which
25 may be similar to but not identical with these in the past - what we want
1 him to help you with, from his knowledge of all the materials, is how, in
2 a fairly simple way, the constitution of the SFRY operated. And so that's
3 chart number 1. It deals with matters, most of which you'll be familiar
4 with. How it operated so far as control of defence is concerned; that's
5 chart number 2. How it operated so far as police were concerned; that's
6 chart number 3. How it was changed between 1988 and April of 1992; and
7 here in the legend you'll see two of the issues upon which expressions of
8 legality may be drawn from his materials, the revocation of autonomy of
9 Kosovo, number 2, and number 4, the decision on the imminent threat of
10 war. But again, opinions that he expresses will simply be opinions that
11 you can yourselves, as experienced, qualified lawyers, trace back to the
12 raw materials, namely the legislation, insofar as you judge it appropriate
13 to do so.
14 Then number 5 is Serbia's constitution, the 1990 constitution.
15 And again, this is simply to show, within limits, how things operated so
16 far as the division of responsibilities for the police, the armed forces,
17 and the volunteers. And indeed you'll see question marks at two places,
18 indicating the way in which he will draw to your attention how the
19 legislation may have left unclear and uncertain matters that you may be
20 concerned with.
21 And then number 6, the 1992 FRY constitution, again with some very
22 familiar bodies described, and within an identification for your
23 assistance of the articles in which the competencies may be found.
24 Now -- and then number 7 is not so much an exhibit as an
25 aide-memoire, a time line.
1 Now, it's that --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I should express the hope that nothing
3 that I said was being interpreted as meaning that Dr. Kristan's lack of
4 expertise in one area would invalidate or vitiate the entire report.
5 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful for that.
6 So this is -- this is the heart of the evidence. Now, in the
7 course of it, we would like of course to focus on those couple of
8 problematic areas, where he can take you to the materials, he can take you
9 to his opinion, if permitted, he can take you to the opinions of others.
10 And it would then be for the Chamber to decide in due course, A, whether
11 it needed to make a definitive decision on the state of the law of another
12 country, arguably something it will be always cautious about doing, but
13 that if it does do it will have to make -- have to do it itself with its
14 own judgement.
15 And I add parenthetically the Court will recall that I raised
16 tissue of Croatian statehood and the role of Mr. McCormack, and His Honour
17 Judge May, drew to my attention, that this may well be an area where it
18 would not be so much for expertise but a matter for this Chamber on the
19 materials, it being a matter of law, guided by argument, for example, by
20 Mr. McCormack or by us or indeed by Dr. Kristan, though he's not being
21 invited to deal with that and it's not covered in his report. But the
22 position is entirely analogous. So it's our respectful submission that
23 the appropriate way to approach this evidence would be to take the report,
24 and when he gives evidence, if we come to a place where it's thought that
25 he's giving final expert opinion on something that the Court is concerned
1 he may have an interest in, then as Mr. Kay would suggest it becomes
2 simply a question of fact. This is an opinion he expressed, here with
3 competing opinions for you, the Judges, to decide. And that's a
4 satisfactory resolution of that as a problem and probably in line with
5 what you may do on strict pure matters of law in any event.
6 Mr. Groome reminded me, but I'm sure we all have this at the back
7 of our minds, witnesses regularly give evidence that is both expert and
8 factual. To take His Honour Judge Robinson's point -- well, to pick up
9 Mr. Groome's analogy, the policeman who deals with the drunk driver, and
10 gives both evidence of fact and evidence of opinion built on his
11 experience in dealing with either drunks or with devices that reveal
12 states of intoxication.
13 To take His Honour Judge Robinson's example about the doctor who
14 may be a defendant in a negligence suit, of course when he's giving
15 evidence about what he himself has actually done, that's evidence of fact.
16 But at any time he could be slipping into evidence derived from his own
17 learning, dealing with earlier procedure --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I gave the example only to disown it.
19 MR. NICE: Well, there it is. I've --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I was relying on the second example that I gave.
21 MR. NICE: One way or another, Your Honour, it's -- it's
22 absolutely commonplace for witnesses of fact to give evidence of expertise
23 in part and for witnesses who are called primarily as experts also to give
24 evidence of fact in part.
25 JUDGE MAY: Pretty unusual for a judge though, I should think.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. NICE: Yes, it may be unusual. I'm not so sure. Judges and
2 former judges are increasingly secured for other functions these days.
3 Gone are the days of the departure to the never-neverland of absolute
4 anonymity of the English judge, as it were, who doesn't come back to sit
5 as a -- we've had judges in England that have come back to practice, I
6 think. And certainly, they've come back to arbitrate. And although I
7 can't immediately retrieve it, I've -- I think I even have recollection of
8 English judges giving opinions on matters. But I may be wise to be
9 cautious about that.
10 In any case, even if it's usual, there's nothing improper in it.
11 And there's no suggestion from Mr. Kay nor from the accused that there's
12 any improper motivation in what this witness done.
13 JUDGE MAY: I hasten to say that everything in this discussion
14 works on the basis that of course there is good faith and no suggestion of
15 anything else.
16 MR. NICE: And I come back to the point that I made that it proved
17 extremely difficult -- it may have had something to do with the regime in
18 place at the time, I simply don't know -- it proved extremely difficult to
19 find lawyers who at the appropriate level of experience and learning, who
20 were willing to give evidence on these matters, and we needed a fairly
21 broad cover of topics, and this witness is ideally placed to cover all the
22 topics we need because his learning and, indeed, experience covers those,
23 and he can bring to you a wealth-materials, he could index a wealth of
24 materials, and he could always been arrested by me - and I can perhaps
25 look at the conclusions to see if they need any prospective amendment - or
1 by the Chamber. He can always be arrested at a point where the Chamber
2 decides either, A, we don't want to hear this at all; or B, we hear this
3 but we treat this in the way perhaps Mr. Kay was suggesting, as a matter
4 of fact that this opinion was expressed.
5 And I return to the point that as a matter of fact this was not a
6 judgement; this was an opinion that was expressed in the course of a very
7 different type of legal proceeding from that which some of us are
8 familiar, and it didn't get to being incorporated by acceptance or
9 rejection in judgement. It simply lay along with the other opinions has
10 one of the competing views held at that time, so that in our respectful
11 submission in due course - I mean, it looks likes like not today,
12 certainly not today - may this witness be heard on that basis.
13 I've forgot to ask him at the break what the reason was for his
14 not being available on Tuesday. I may have got an email to that effect.
15 But I understand --
16 JUDGE MAY: Shall we come back to that? Let us deal with the
17 matter --
18 MR. NICE: Yes. I'll just check if my colleagues --
19 No, thank you very much.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE MAY: Judge Robinson will give the ruling of the Trial
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber has before it a motion by the
24 Prosecution for the admission of a report from Dr. Ivan Kristan under Rule
25 94. Dr. Kristan is being proposed as an expert witness.
1 Let me say immediately that there can be no question about
2 Dr. Kristan's qualifications and the level of his expertise. It is clear
3 from his curriculum vitae that he's a distinguished professor, highly
5 However, the amicus has raised, and in this regard the Chamber
6 expresses its gratitude to the amicus for raising this point, the amicus,
7 as I said, has raised a question as to what it calls a conflict of
8 interest but which I think might be better characterised as the level of
9 disinterestedness that one looks for in an expert, disinterestedness in
10 the issue before the case. It arises in this way: The report is broken
11 up into several parts. The first part relates to the revocation of
12 Kosovo's autonomy, and the second part to the right to self-determination
13 and secession and the Republic of Kosovo.
14 In relation to the first part, while Dr. Kristan was a member of
15 the constitutional court, there was litigation on this issue. It turns
16 out that several opinions were expressed by members of the Court and
17 Dr. Kristan himself has characterised what he did as expressing a
18 dissenting opinion. As Mr. Nice points out, however, the report indicates
19 that no decision was taken by the Court on that issue.
20 In relation to the right to self-determination and secession,
21 there was also litigation, and Dr. Kristan again put forward proposals on
22 the issue. The amicus argues, and we think with some merit, that
23 Dr. Kristan's role as a judge in the court disqualifies him in relation to
24 this aspect of the report.
25 An expert witness will guide the Court, and for that reason it is
1 important that the Court be in a position to rely on the evidence that he
2 gives. The Chamber is of the view that in view of the role that
3 Dr. Kristan had in the litigation before the constitutional court it is
4 inevitable that he will come to this issue quite influenced by his
5 participation in the court proceedings, which in effect become -- have
6 become an issue in this case.
7 It is rather like a doctor being called as an expert witness, then
8 part of the issue in the case relates to certain procedures that he had
9 used in a particular operation. The Chamber is therefore of the view that
10 Dr. Kristan's involvement in the court proceedings, in relation to these
11 two aspects of the report, leaves him in a position where we cannot be
12 satisfied that the level of disinterestedness which an expert should have
13 in the issue before the Court is present. The distance, the remoteness
14 from the issue before the Court is missing in this case. However, that
15 does not disqualify Dr. Kristan from being an expert in relation to other
16 aspects of -- the Chamber thinks it is proper to sever the first two parts
17 that I have mentioned, that is, the revocation of Kosovo's autonomy and
18 the right to self-determination and secession from the rest, and the
19 ruling, therefore, is that Dr. Kristan's expert evidence will not include
20 those two parts and will be confined to the rest of the report.
21 MR. NICE: I'm obliged.
22 Dealing with the question of timetable, I understand and would
23 advance this on his behalf as an expression of his respect for the
24 Chamber, that he's receiving an award in Yugoslavia -- in Slovenia, coming
25 from another country, organised months or so ago and involving people from
1 another country coming to Slovenia for the ceremony whereby he is to be so
3 We had, of course, planned on his evidence being concluded this
4 week, and indeed we'd planned on Slovenian interpreters being available
5 for the whole week. It's always impossible to forecast how long
6 cross-examination will take, and in the event it wasn't possible for him
7 to be concluded this week that led to the interpreters being, I think,
8 released by Registry, and they planning for the interpreters to come on
9 Monday and Tuesday, not having been aware that he has to be away on Monday
10 night in order to be at the ceremony on Tuesday.
11 I, of course, remind myself of His Honour Judge Robinson's words,
12 but men of distinction who receive awards are not only participating in
13 something that reflects on them but it also involves others, and it would
14 be difficult for him, I suspect, simply not to be there.
15 JUDGE MAY: The upshot is that Dr. Kristan is available but there
16 are no interpreters today, so what the accused was told turned out to be
17 wrong, i.e., to be ready for him today.
18 Witness B-024 is ready, but no doubt we'd go into Monday in any
19 event. And Dr. de la Brosse has to come back for at least an hour and a
21 MR. NICE: On Monday.
22 JUDGE MAY: Possibly, on Monday.
23 The accused has a point when he says that things are not
25 MR. NICE: And let me say at once that I shoulder responsibility
1 for not having thought yesterday of the possibility that the Slovenian
2 interpreters would have been stood down and wouldn't be available. And I
3 take full responsibility for that. I should have thought of it.
4 At the time when I first thought of it was, I think, at 4.00 this
5 morning, when I was turning to the report for other reasons.
6 JUDGE MAY: 4.00 this morning?
7 MR. NICE: Yes. I woke up and suddenly realised that I hadn't
8 thought about that.
9 JUDGE MAY: A great deal of industry seems to have been expended
10 last night in one way or another on an event which doesn't seem to have
11 come about.
12 Well, it's questionable to say what we can best do to -- to
13 inconvenience everybody the less.
14 MR. NICE: May I propose on the basis that he really is not
15 available on Tuesday that we simply schedule him for another day, hope
16 that we can save the waste of expenditure on Monday and Tuesday, get on
17 with B-024, de la Brosse, and the other witnesses scheduled for next week,
18 and so as I don't have to speak too many times, may I also say that it's
19 in my mind if this seems sensible to refer or to seek to refer questions
20 on the two issues that this witness will not be allowed to give evidence
21 on to Mr. McCormack with the materials so see if it's something that he
22 may be able to assist the Chamber in argument, along similar lines that
23 he's been able to take in relation to Croatian independence.
24 JUDGE KWON: Given the difficulties we face, do you think it's
25 inappropriate to ask the witness to speak in Serbian?
1 MR. NICE: B/C/S?
2 JUDGE KWON: B/C/S.
3 MR. NICE: I have asked him that this morning: He does speak
4 B/C/S, obviously not as perfectly as Slovenian. And he was reluctant,
5 because I think he feels that precision in -- in legal matters is
6 desirable, and he would find it less easy to be sure he was conveying
7 things precisely. We can ask him again. That's -- and then we could have
8 the Slovenian interpreters on Monday.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].
10 JUDGE MAY: We think the best course -- in addition, I should add
11 to the other problems, we understand there are difficulties about the
12 witness leaving on Monday, Dr. Kristan, we have just been told by the
14 MR. NICE: I've just been told that, having earlier been informed
15 there was a night -- an evening flight out.
16 JUDGE MAY: There apparently is not one.
17 So the simplest course, we think, would be to call the other
18 witness, B-024, try and conclude him. It may not be possible. If the
19 accused wants time to prepare his cross-examination, of course he -- we
20 will consider that. But at least we'll call his evidence in chief.
21 MR. NICE: Certainly.
22 Before I sit down, not only for today but also to vanish, for I
23 can't unfortunately be here on Monday or Tuesday, it falls to me to inform
24 you that the witness list that the accused will have been working on will
25 have to be changed, and we'll send a as soon as may be.
1 The historian, Audrey Budding, has for personal reasons, namely
2 she's been seriously unwell and in hospital, to be postponed. And the
3 next witness, B-176 -- or not the next witness, one of the next week's
4 witnesses, B-176, for reasons we can I hope go into in closed -- in
5 private session, is not going to be available. It appears to be from the
6 limited information coming to me along the lines of some previous
7 witnesses who have not been available.
8 But I'll give the accused and the Chamber the earliest possible
9 notice of that and hope that the Chamber will forgive my absence on Monday
10 when Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff will be able to deal with the re-examination of
11 de la Brosse.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to request that I be
15 given the order of witnesses from Monday onwards, for next week. I'd like
16 to have it today. I'm not quite clear on this. I know that de la Brosse
17 goes ahead on Monday, but I know something specific and concrete apart
18 from that.
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes. When can that list be available?
20 MR. NICE: Half an hour.
21 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
22 Yes. We'll call the witness, please.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls B-024, a protected
25 Your Honour, while we're waiting for the witness to be brought
1 into the chamber, if it would be possible to have an exhibit number
2 assigned to a binder of 14 exhibits.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, Prosecution Exhibit 451.
4 MR. GROOME: And if I could just point out a small change to
5 the -- the pseudonym sheet. At the bottom of the pseudonym sheet, there's
6 a -- a name key with three names. There's one meeting that the witness
7 will testify about that, if he is granted permission to refer to this name
8 key he believes he can do it in open session without compromising his
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
13 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: WITNESS B-024
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Please take a seat.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'd ask that we begin by showing this
20 witness Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 1.
21 Examined by Mr. Groome:
22 Q. Sir, I'd ask you to take a look at this document and simply ask
23 you is that your name on the first line of that document?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I'm going to ask that that be tendered under --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Groome, please.
2 MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that that be tendered under seal and
3 further that it be left on the chair -- or on the table in front of the
4 witness during his testimony.
5 Q. Sir, at the start of your testimony, I'm going to ask you whether
6 you know certain people and then ask you what you know about those people.
7 The first person I would like to ask you about is a person by the name of
8 Marko Pavlovic. Do you know such a person?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you describe how it is you know him?
11 A. I first met him through Radislav Kostic during the war conflicts
12 in Baranja, part of Croatian territory.
13 Q. Did there come a time when you learnt that Marko Pavlovic had
14 another name?
15 A. Yes. I got to know him under his real name.
16 Q. And what was that?
17 A. Branko Popovic.
18 Q. Can you describe for us when it was you first met Marko Pavlovic.
19 A. I think it was in 1991.
20 Q. And how long after you initially met him did you learn his real
21 name was Brano Popovic [sic]?
22 A. I became acquainted with him under his real name, Branko Popovic,
23 and I knew that when the clash broke out in Zvornik he started to
24 introduce himself using another name.
25 Q. Did he ever indicate to you why he would use an alias around the
1 time that the hostilities broke out in Zvornik?
2 A. We never discussed that.
3 JUDGE KWON: Did he say his real name is Branko or Brano? Let me
4 clarify this.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's Branko.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Now, when he was in the -- the Zvornik area, where would he stay?
8 A. Before the conflict, that was the Hotel Jezero, situated in Mali
9 Zvornik. And once the conflict began, I think he used some flats in
11 Q. Do you have any knowledge regarding whether he met with members of
12 the Yugoslav People's Army at that hotel before and during the early
13 stages of the conflict?
14 A. I didn't personally see him meet with any people, but he did
15 inform the headquarters and staff that he had good contacts with the JNA.
16 Q. Did he indicate to the headquarters which particular members or
17 the names of the particular members of the JNA he had good contacts with?
18 A. He mentioned the commander of the Tuzla Corps, for example,
19 General Savo Jankovic, and Lieutenant-Colonel or Colonel Dubajic, and some
20 other men whose names I can't remember exactly now.
21 Q. Can you tell us with as much precision as you are able when it
22 was -- or what period of time he was referring to when he said he had good
23 contacts with General Jankovic, the commander of the Tuzla Corps?
24 A. That was the period six months before the war conflicts broke out
25 in Zvornik, in fact.
1 Q. And when in your view did the war conflicts break out in Zvornik?
2 A. Well, round about -- from the 6th to the 9th of April, between
3 those dates.
4 Q. And is that in 1992?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. Do you know a person or did Mr. Pavlovic ever reveal to you
7 contacts he may have had with a person by the name of Dragan Suka?
8 A. Yes, he did have contacts with him, with the person you mentioned.
9 Q. Who is or who was Dragan Suka at that time?
10 A. As I worked in the police, I knew that he was a member of the
11 state security in Loznica.
12 Q. Do you know what position he held in the state security service of
14 A. I don't know exactly how they were set up organisationally
15 speaking, but I think he was the chief for the municipality or perhaps for
16 the neighbouring municipalities as well.
17 Q. Did Mr. Pavlovic indicate to you with what frequency and over what
18 period of time he had these contacts with Mr. Suka?
19 A. We didn't discuss that very much, but I saw them together. I knew
20 that they had been together a couple of times.
21 Q. You have testified that you met or were introduced to Mr. Pavlovic
22 by a person by the name of Rade Kostic. Can you describe for the Chamber
23 what you know about the relationship between Marko Pavlovic and
24 Rade Kostic?
25 A. Well, what I know is this: Pavlovic was included in the war
1 conflicts, involved in them, the ones that took place in Croatia, in the
2 Baranja region of Croatia, and also that - to a certain extent that was
3 the impression I gained - he listened to Rade Kostic. He seemed to be his
4 assistant in a way.
5 Q. For what -- or over what period of time did you have contact with
6 Marko Pavlovic?
7 A. That was in the period -- in a four or five-month period prior to
8 the conflict in Zvornik.
9 Q. And did you continue to have contact with him after the conflict
11 A. Yes, I did, for a time, while I was a member of the Crisis Staff.
12 And afterwards I worked in the economy, but Zvornik is a small place and
13 we all had contacts more or less.
14 Q. Can you give us an estimate of the entire period of time over
15 which you've known Marko Pavlovic? Is it a year, less than a year? Or
16 can you give us a precise answer to that question?
17 A. I'm not sure I understand the question fully, but I've known him
18 since 1991. I knew him during 1992 as well. He left the area, I think it
19 was in July of 1992, and I saw him twice after that again.
20 Q. Drawing your attention to 1991 and 1992. Based upon your
21 observations of him and the activities he was engaged in, did you form an
22 opinion with respect to who he worked for?
23 A. Well, according to what I knew, his best contacts were with the
24 Yugoslav People's Army.
25 Q. Did you ever learn or -- I'm not asking you about his contacts,
1 but he himself. Did you ever learn or did you have an opinion about who
2 he himself worked with or any organisation he was associated with?
3 A. I don't know that.
4 Q. Were you ever present when Mr. Pavlovic made a phone call after
5 which something significant arrived in the municipality of Zvornik?
6 A. Yes. Mr. Pavlovic, in front of the whole Crisis Staff, called up
7 some telephone numbers that I didn't know, weren't familiar to me, and he
8 contacted officers from the JNA. And I know that the result of all that
9 was the arrival of the -- of some logistical goods necessary for the
10 Territorial Defence of Zvornik at that time.
11 Q. Can you be more precise? What exactly were these logistical
13 A. Well, to begin with, we lacked ammunition and weapons, uniforms as
15 Q. At the time that Mr. Pavlovic made this phone call in front of the
16 Crisis Staff, did he represent to the people present that he would be able
17 to secure the logistical equipment, including ammunition and weapons?
18 A. Yes. That was quite clear from his conversations. And it
19 instilled respect within the Crisis Staff that we had the right man and
20 the right sort of support.
21 Q. What period of time elapsed between the time he made this phone
22 call and the arrival of the first of these shipments of logistical goods?
23 A. Well, it was all done within the space of 24 to 48 hours.
24 Q. And can you give the Chamber some sense of the quantity of goods
25 that arrived by perhaps describing the number of -- of trucks or, if you
1 know, the specific quantities of goods, please tell us.
2 A. I really can't say. I wasn't involved with those affairs, so I
3 really don't know.
4 Q. And if you would, please give us your most precise recollection
5 about when this occurred.
6 A. This occurred in the period between the 6th of April, 1992 up
7 until the 20th of April, 1992. And I don't know how this was organised
8 after that.
9 Q. I'd like to now draw your attention to this Rade Kostic that
10 you've mentioned. Can you please describe who he is and the circumstances
11 under which you know him.
12 A. He was born right near Zvornik, in Serbia, in the municipality of
13 Mali Zvornik. And I knew him privately, while he was the commander of the
14 police station in Darda in Croatia. And then later on I know that he took
15 up some official post in the Ministry of the Interior in Serbia.
16 Q. Your knowledge regarding the post he took up in the Serbian
17 Ministry of the Interior, is that because he told you that that's where he
19 A. He just said he worked in the Ministry of the Interior. He didn't
20 tell me any details about it. But I knew that he worked in the state
21 security service. What post he held and what his assignments were, he
22 never spoke much about that.
23 Q. Is he alive today?
24 A. No. Rade Kostic died in 1995.
25 Q. Did you attend his funeral?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can I ask you to list some of the more prominent people who
3 attended Rade Kostic's funeral.
4 A. Well, amongst the people I knew, there was Mr. Stanisic,
5 Bogdanovic, Arkan. There were many people from political circles and
6 cultural circles as well.
7 Q. I'm going to ask that you look at the monitor in front of you.
8 MR. GROOME: And I'd ask the usher maybe to assist in setting the
9 monitor so he can see the photograph.
10 Q. This is a still from Prosecution Exhibit 390, tab 18 -- sorry, tab
11 6. It's a video. This is just one still.
12 Do you recognise the memorial that's depicted there?
13 A. Yes, I do. That is the memorial of the late Rade Kostic.
14 Q. I want to now ask you about a person by the name of Brano Grujic.
15 Do you know him? And please tell us the circumstances under which you
16 know him.
17 A. Well, I do know Grujic. Grujic worked in Zvornik. And as Zvornik
18 is a small town, we know each other and we've known each other since we
19 were children almost.
20 Q. My apologies. There's one additional question I'd like to ask you
21 with respect to Rade Kostic: Did you and Rade Kostic ever have a
22 conversation regarding Arkan? And if so, can you summarise what that
23 conversation was?
24 A. When the war conflicts broke out in Bijeljina, Kostic phoned me up
25 and told me that I was to go to Bijeljina and to report there to the Dom
1 Kultura or cultural centre in Bijeljina in order to secure logistical
2 support for his unit which was to cross into Zvornik.
3 Q. At the time that Mr. Kostic gave you these instructions, do you
4 know whether he was acting in his professional capacity or his official
5 capacity as a member of the state security service or in his personal
7 A. I'm not quite clear on that, because generally I had private
8 relationships with Kostic, and I had very little contact on an official
9 level with him.
10 Q. Now, once again, drawing your attention to Mr. Grujic. Did
11 Mr. Grujic ever discuss with you his relationship with
12 Mr. Jovica Stanisic?
13 A. He told me that he had been with him only once at a meeting in
14 Mali Zvornik.
15 Q. Did he indicate when that meeting was?
16 A. I think it was in 1992, but I don't know exactly when.
17 Q. And what, if anything, can you tell the Chamber regarding
18 Mr. Grujic's relationship to the Bosnian Serb leadership of Republika
20 A. Well, Grujic was the president of the Serbian Democratic Party,
21 since its inception in Zvornik, right up until almost 1995. So by virtue
22 of his office, he had contacts with the leadership at Pale. However, I
23 think that the popular deputy Mijatovic had more contacts than he did.
24 Q. Mr. Mijatovic is the next person I'd ask you to speak about. Can
25 you describe what his position and role was in Zvornik.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Jovo Mijatovic was a member of parliament, a deputy elected at the
2 elections in 1991, and he was a national deputy right up until 1995.
3 That's the office he occupied. And pursuant to the decision of setting up
4 municipalities according to B variant, he was president of the parallel
5 Municipality of Zvornik.
6 Q. Are you aware of any meeting that he attended with Arkan in the
7 Hotel Jezero in Mali Zvornik?
8 A. Yes, I am aware of that. In those days, the Serbian Democratic
9 Party's political aim was to try and come to an agreement with the SDA as
10 representing the Muslim people. And as the Crisis Staff, we sent
11 Mijatovic and Ivanovic to attend a meeting in Mali Zvornik because the
12 situation was already such that the Muslims couldn't reach our
13 headquarters in Karakaj and we couldn't reach their headquarters in
14 Zvornik. So we sent them to negotiate at the Jezero Hotel in Mali Zvornik
15 for us to try to come to some sort of agreement if possible.
16 Q. To your knowledge, was an agreement reached at that meeting
17 between the local leadership of the SDS and the SDA?
18 A. We tried to reach an agreement, but after the recognition of
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina it was virtually not possible to come to any kind
20 of agreement. But we tried at the local level to reach an agreement, but
21 the meeting in Mali Zvornik was interrupted. Mijatovic and Ivanovic told
22 us later on at the staff, with the incursion of Arkan and his officers who
23 beat up all the negotiators. In fact, the Serbs more than the Muslims.
24 And that is how that meeting came to an end.
25 Q. And why were the Serb negotiators beaten by Arkan?
1 A. Probably to instil fear in the Bosniak, Muslim side. And later on
2 he came to the headquarters at the Alhos facilities in Karakaj and he
3 threatened us. He started shouting, "Who gave you the authority to sell
4 out and divide and with the Muslims Serbian land?" And he started
5 slapping people.
6 Q. What became of the agreement that had been reached between the SDS
7 leadership and the SDA leadership?
8 A. Could you repeat your question, please.
9 Q. You said to us before Arkan's arrival that an agreement had been
10 reached between the respective leaderships of the two parties. What
11 became of that agreement?
12 A. We tried to reach some sort of an agreement at the local level,
13 not to do anything stupid and to wait for a solution for Bosnia as a
14 whole. However, that agreement fell through and Arkan prohibited the
15 Crisis Staff from having any contact with the Muslim side.
16 Q. Could I ask you in just a sentence or two, just to describe in
17 very general terms in your view what was the relationship between the Serb
18 community and the Muslim community prior to the outbreak of tensions
19 between the two?
20 A. Ever since the elections, when the nationalist parties won,
21 relations became more complicated and they became very tense, and this
22 tension culminated with the recognition of the independence of Bosnia, and
23 this was a climax after which it was not possible to reconcile the peoples
24 of Bosnia again.
25 Q. I'm going to ask that you take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 451,
1 tab 2. I'd ask you: Do you recognise that document?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Can you please summarise what that document is.
4 A. This is a decision banning the sale of real estate, issued by the
5 Serbian Municipality of Zvornik on the 15th of March, 1992, prohibiting
6 the Serbs from selling their land and property to non-Serbs.
7 Q. Can I ask you to read the sentence that begins on the top of the
8 right-hand page.
9 A. "Privately owned real estates by ethnic Serbs cannot be traded to
10 other ethnic groups on the territory of the municipality."
11 Q. Was this order or decision observed and enforced?
12 A. Well, this decision was issued by the parallel Serbian
13 Municipality of Zvornik, but I don't think that there was any sale of
14 Serbian land because this was issued only some 15 or 20 days before the
15 war began.
16 Q. Are you aware of a -- a fax that was sent by Momcilo Mandic around
17 the 4th of April?
18 A. Yes. At the time, I was the commander of the police station and
19 we did receive a dispatch.
20 Q. Can you please describe in substance what was in that fax.
21 A. The substance was, of that fax, was reference to the Cutilheiro
22 Plan, when Izetbegovic, Karadzic, the leadership, agreed on some sort of a
23 division of Bosnia, and then the fax emanated from that plan, ordering all
24 members of Serb ethnicity in the police to cross over and join the Serbian
25 police, which was organised on the basis of a table that he had drawn up,
1 and we were told that this would be financed with the funds of the Serbian
2 Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it was called at the time.
3 Q. At the time you saw this fax, did it -- did it indicate something
4 to you or did you believe it was an indication of something to come?
5 A. The situation was already extremely complicated and tense to a
6 high degree among the ethnicities, so actually this marked the final
7 division of the MUP. And it's like glass; once you break it, you can't
8 put it together again.
9 Q. And what happened to the Serb members of the local Zvornik MUP
10 after receipt of this fax?
11 A. I was the leading representative of the Serbs in the police, and
12 they all got together in my office and vice versa, with the chief of
13 police -- in the chief of police's office all the Muslims got together.
14 And that was when the SUP was divided up.
15 Q. And where did the Serb members of the -- of the Serbian police go?
16 A. We went together with the Crisis Staff to the Alhos building in
17 Karakaj, which was about 5 kilometres from Zvornik.
18 Q. And where was the headquarters of the Serb part of the Territorial
20 A. At first, both the TO and the Crisis Staff and the police were all
21 together in the Alhos building.
22 Q. I want to now show you Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 3 and ask you
23 to take a look at it and ask you do you recognise it.
24 A. Yes. That is the dispatch we received on the 31st of March, 1992,
25 signed by the Assistant Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Momcilo Mandic.
1 Q. I want to now draw your attention to the influx of arms, weapons,
2 and ammunition into the Zvornik municipality. I would ask you to give us
3 a brief summary at this point on did arms come into the municipality and
4 in general terms how did they arrive at the municipality?
5 A. Yes, weapons did come into the municipality. There were many
6 different ways, many different channels, and the conflict was visible
7 virtually everywhere.
8 Q. Were some of the means that were used to arm people, did you
9 consider them legal means to arm people?
10 A. Well, in addition to legal arming, the Muslims mostly purchased
11 weapons from Croatia; whereas, we received them through the JNA.
12 Q. The arms that you received through the JNA, can you describe in
13 greater detail how they were received -- requested and received by people
14 in the municipality.
15 A. I do know that in Zvornik municipality there were several
16 channels. The Muslims didn't join the JNA, and then when the Serbs filled
17 in the vacancies, they received weapons. But that was in order. That was
18 regular. However, talking about irregular, secret ways, we were
19 frightened, being the minority in that area. We went to see the president
20 of the assembly commission for relations with Serbs outside Serbia, as the
21 commission was called in those days, and we requested aid in weapons
22 because we felt we were in jeopardy.
23 Q. Who was the president of that assembly commission?
24 A. Mr. Pudarevic [as interpreted].
25 Q. Do you know his first name?
1 A. Yes. Radmilo Bogdanovic.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Correction.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. Can you please describe what happened after meeting with him.
5 A. We presented our positions, describing the situation we were in.
6 We asked him to help us. And he told me that in the next ten days or so,
7 Kostic would call me to organise this.
8 Q. And did Mr. Kostic call you after that meeting?
9 A. Yes. Six or seven days later, I was called up by him and given
10 instructions what should be done, and these were more or less as follows:
11 We drove a truck to the parking lot of the Belgrade fairgrounds. We left
12 it there full of fuel, and the keys were in the vehicle. And then in the
13 afternoon we would come back and find that same truck loaded, usually with
14 wheat, flour, and it would have a fictitious invoice because this was
15 still within the framework of a single state. There was no control at the
16 borders. We would drive this back to Zvornik, and then we would count the
17 quantity of weapons, and the Crisis Staff would agree to distribute it
18 among Serbian villages on the basis of an acceptment of the degree of
19 danger they were in.
20 Q. How many times did you personally participate in the importation
21 of arms into Zvornik in this manner?
22 A. I participated twice.
23 Q. And can you estimate for us the quantity of weapons that were
24 imported on both of those occasions?
25 A. I think on those two occasions, between 200 and 300 pieces of
1 weapons. Between 200 and 300 pieces.
2 Q. And with as much precision as you're able, can you tell us when
3 these two events occurred?
4 A. I participated, I think, at the beginning of 1992.
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, would that be a convenient place?
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll adjourn now.
7 Witness B-024, we're going to adjourn now for 20 minutes. Would
8 you remember in this adjournment and any others there may be during your
9 evidence not to speak to anybody about it until it's over, and that does
10 include the members of the Prosecution team.
11 We'll adjourn.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. Sir, I want to ask you a few more questions about the importation
17 of arms into Zvornik. Are you aware of any participation that
18 Brano Grujic had in this activity?
19 A. I am aware of the first quantity that arrived. It arrived through
20 a contact of his.
21 Q. Can you please tell us when that shipment arrived.
22 A. I don't remember exactly, but it was in the autumn of 1991.
23 Q. And can you tell us what was involved in that shipment and from
24 where did it come.
25 A. Grujic told me that this was organised with some people in Serbia,
1 and there were about 30 pieces of automatic weapons.
2 Q. Are you familiar with a person -- a colonel in the Yugoslav
3 People's Army by the name of Colonel Milosevic?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what, if any, involvement did he have in the importation of
6 weapons into Zvornik?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you please describe what role he played or how he was
10 A. I think that a member of the Crisis Staff had close relations with
11 him, and he sent a certain quantity. I think he was somewhere in
12 Romanija. I don't remember exactly which unit. And he sent a certain
13 quantity of weapons from there, which again through the Crisis Staff and
14 the SDS in Zvornik was distributed.
15 Q. What is the earliest point in time that you're aware of that
16 weapons were being imported illegally into Zvornik?
17 A. The first shipment that was brought by Grujic.
18 Q. And that's the one, you said, in the autumn of 1991?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, of the -- all of the weapons that were brought into Zvornik
21 in these various manners that you've described, are you able to estimate
22 the percentage of the total number of weapons that belonged to the JNA?
23 A. Well, most of it was from the depots and warehouses of the JNA.
24 Maybe -- at least two-thirds of it.
25 Q. I'd ask you to now turn your attention to the distribution of
1 these weapons. Can you describe what happened to these weapons once they
2 were brought into the municipality of Zvornik.
3 A. It would be located in one of the ethnically pure Serb local
4 communes, and then the Crisis Staff would sit down and agree on the
5 distribution, on the basis of their assessment of the degree of danger.
6 Q. And once this assessment was made, what would physically happen to
7 the weapons?
8 A. Well, then from these centres where the weapons were stored,
9 individuals of local communes would come, usually SDS leaders. They would
10 pick up certain quantities and then distribute them in their own local
12 Q. Would they have to sign documents or receipts indicating that they
13 received a certain number of weapons?
14 A. In those days, we kept records, and everyone did have to sign.
15 Q. Can you tell us, when is the earliest point in time that you are
16 personally aware of weapons were -- weapons were distributed in the
17 fashion you've described?
18 A. In the autumn of 1991.
19 Q. Now, if I might turn your attention to the issue of media
20 coverage. Can I ask you to characterise the media coverage that you
21 observed coming from Belgrade in the autumn of 1991 and early 1992.
22 A. The media, as there was a war on already in Croatia and the
23 structure of the population was well known in Bosnia, and the media were
24 divided. They routed each for his own side.
25 Q. Are you aware of any media coverage that you observed coming from
1 Serbia regarding Zvornik that you knew to be materially false?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So as far as you're concerned, the events in Zvornik as depicted
4 on Serb media were accurately depicted?
5 A. Do you mean at the beginning of the war or before the beginning of
6 the war?
7 Q. Let's take both of those separately. Prior to the war's start,
8 did you -- the events from Zvornik that you saw on TV, were they
9 accurately depicted?
10 A. Up until the beginning of the conflict, Zvornik was not very much
11 in the focus of attention of the media. At least, I don't remember it
12 being focussed on by the media.
13 Q. Then allow me to draw your attention to after the war started, the
14 events that concerned Zvornik, were they accurately depicted in the Serb
15 media in your view?
16 A. The media reported regularly about all events on the battlefronts,
17 and in those days there were things that were spoken of and there were
18 things that the media did not report about but that happened on the
20 Q. Can you give us an example of one of those events as it pertained
21 to Zvornik.
22 A. For instance, I know that the Belgrade media never reported on
23 prisons for Muslims in Zvornik, for instance, that there were killings of
24 civilians, though these things were common knowledge.
25 Q. I want to now draw your attention once again to the autumn of
1 1991. Did there come a time when you attended an SDS rally in Sarajevo?
2 A. Yes, I did attend a large meeting of the SDS at the Holiday Inn in
4 Q. And when was that rally -- when was that meeting held?
5 A. I think it was around the 19th or 20th of December, 1991.
6 Q. And can you please identify any of the prominent members of the
7 SDS leadership that were present during that meeting.
8 A. I do remember that there was Karadzic, Krajisnik, Mrs. Plavsic,
9 and some others.
10 Q. During the course of that meeting, was there anything distributed
11 to some of the people present at that meeting?
12 A. Yes. To the presidents of municipal boards of the party a
13 document was distributed, roughly indicating how we should behave should a
14 crisis occur in the future.
15 Q. What did you and others refer to this document as? Did this
16 document have a name?
17 A. It did have a lengthy title, but we called it Plan A and Plan B.
18 Q. Plan A -- was it called Plan A or Plan B because it had two
19 scenarios, either Plan A or Plan B?
20 A. Yes. Plan A was the plan for the municipalities in which the
21 Serbs had a majority, and Plan B was for the municipalities in which the
22 Serbs were in the minority.
23 Q. And were the presidents of the Crisis Staff instructed to
24 implement Plan A or Plan B based upon the ethnic make-up of their
25 respective municipalities?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that the witness be shown
3 Prosecution Exhibit 434, tab 4. It was used with an earlier witness. I
4 believe copies have been provided to the Chamber.
5 Q. Sir, do you recognise that document?
6 A. Yes, I do. This is the document you asked me about.
7 Q. And is that the document the presidents of the Crisis Staff
8 received in December of 1991?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Another witness has gone through the plan and discussed it in some
11 detail, but could I ask you to describe for us, was this plan implemented
12 in Zvornik?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And which variation of the plan was implemented in Zvornik?
15 A. We were a municipality in which the Serbs were in the minority,
16 which meant Plan B.
17 Q. After December of 1991, with what frequency did the -- the members
18 of the SDS and the Crisis Staff meet in Zvornik?
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just for a clarification, that was
20 Prosecutor's Exhibit 434, tab 3, not tab 4.
21 MR. GROOME: My apologies.
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, Ms. Wee informs me that at that time it
24 was just marked for identification.
25 THE REGISTRAR: It was marked for identification, correct.
1 MR. GROOME: So based upon this witness's testimony, we would be
2 tendered it into evidence at this time.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's admissible.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. My question to you is: After the receipt of this document, with
6 what frequency was it referred to with respect to instructions of how to
7 implement it in the municipality of Zvornik?
8 A. Among other things, the plan envisaged duty service every day in
9 the party and daily meetings of the Crisis Staff, so that we discussed
10 this almost on a daily basis.
11 Q. Now, aside from Zvornik, are you aware that the plan was used and
12 applied in other municipalities?
13 A. Yes. It was distributed to all the municipalities in Bosnia and
15 Q. Did the plan envisage the creation of a Crisis Staff?
16 A. Yes, the plan envisaged a Crisis Staff at the level of Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina and also Crisis Staffs at municipal levels, and these
18 instructions also explicitly stated who would be members ex officio as
19 members of the party, which members would become members of the Crisis
21 Q. Who was head of the Crisis Staff in the Bosnian-wide level?
22 A. At the level of Bosnia, I don't know. But in Zvornik it was
23 Mr. Grujic.
24 Q. Do you know who was head of the Crisis Staff at the regional
1 A. I'm not quite sure. I think it was when Semberija and Majevica
2 were formed as Serbian Autonomous Regions pursuant to these instructions
3 that it was Djuro Jeserovic --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the name.
5 MR. GROOME:
6 Q. Could you please repeat the name for the benefit of the
8 A. Djojo Arsenovic, I think it was.
9 Q. I'm going to ask you to tell us in a little greater detail about
10 the Crisis Staff of Zvornik. First, can I ask you to tell us how many
11 members -- or how many people made up the Crisis Staff of Zvornik?
12 A. I know that this varied in our case, because clearly the plan was
13 implemented in different ways in different municipalities. But it varied
14 between 10 and 15 members of the Crisis Staff, among whom 7 or 8 were
15 always members, permanent members.
16 Q. In the Zvornik Crisis Staff, can you tell me the names of
17 the -- the most or more prominent people in the Zvornik Crisis Staff?
18 A. There were Grujic certainly, Stevan Ivanovic, Jovo Ivanovic,
19 Jovo Mijatovic, Stevo Radic, myself, and some others.
20 Q. And did the Crisis Staff meet on a daily basis during the spring
21 of 1992?
22 A. Not every day, but very frequently.
23 Q. Can you give the Chamber some sense of the types of business that
24 were discussed during Crisis Staff meetings?
25 A. Well, generally, they discussed the political and security
1 situation in our municipality and also measures to implement the plan, how
2 far we had got there, according to Plan B.
3 Q. After discussions in Zvornik about how far the plan had been
4 implemented, would the results of that discussion be passed upward to the
5 republican level?
6 A. Well, according to this plan, it was our duty to inform any major
7 occurrences taking place with respect to security. And I didn't -- I
8 wasn't in charge of the contacts towards the republican staffs and
9 headquarters, so I don't know how that evolved.
10 Q. Did there come a time in April when the Crisis Staff was reformed
11 into a temporary government?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And would it be fair to say that all members of the Crisis Staff
14 were of Serb ethnicity?
15 A. Yes. I think that in Zvornik there was a specific feature
16 according to which at the beginning a member of the Crisis Staff and
17 temporary provisional government was a leading cardiologist from Zvornik,
18 and his name was Mr. Muhamed Jelkic. I did see him at the headquarters,
19 and I think he was there because he was forced to be.
20 Q. I'm going to ask that you look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 4.
21 And I'd simply ask you: Do you recognise this document?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what is this document?
24 A. These are the conclusions of the 22nd of December, 1991. Amongst
25 others, we have the names of people here elected to the Crisis Staff.
1 Q. Now, you've mentioned Mrs. Plavsic, Biljana Plavsic, in your
2 testimony earlier. Was there a time in the spring of 1992 that you met
3 her in Zvornik municipality?
4 A. Yes. In fact, at the Crisis Staff in the Alhos factory building
5 in Zvornik.
6 Q. And when precisely did you meet her?
7 A. Well, it was actually twice. The first time, one or two days
8 prior to the conflict in Zvornik; and the second time, two or three days
9 after the conflict in Zvornik had broken out.
10 Q. At this point in time, I'd like to just focus on the -- the
11 meeting prior to the conflict breaking out. And I'd ask you to describe
12 for us who else was present at the Crisis Staff at that time.
13 A. Well, most of the Crisis Staff members were present. There was
14 Pejic, Arkan's officer. We had the rank of major, and we called him Major
16 Q. Approximately how many people all together?
17 A. Well, in the whole headquarters, there were a lot of people. But
18 where she sat in that office, perhaps seven or eight persons.
19 Q. And were you present during the discussions that took place in
20 that office?
21 A. Yes, in part.
22 Q. Can you please summarise for us the discussions that took place
23 while you were present in that office.
24 A. We informed them of the political and security situation in
25 Zvornik, and she was interested in whether we had carried out all the
1 preparatory steps according to Plan B for crisis situations.
2 Q. And what, if anything, was she told?
3 A. Well, we wanted to congratulate ourselves and say that we had in
4 fact carried out all the preparations pursuant to Plan B.
5 Q. And what, if anything, did she say after hearing that report?
6 A. The situation was rather one of confusion. She was still in the
7 Presidency in Sarajevo together with the other Presidency members, and she
8 said that we'd keep in contact -- be in contact and follow the
9 developments of the situation.
10 Q. I want to draw your attention once again to the meeting at Hotel
11 Jezero that you described earlier for us, that you described as Arkan as
12 being present. Can I ask you to describe all of the other people who you
13 are aware were present at that meeting.
14 A. At the Jezero Hotel, there were two meetings that were held. One
15 was the one I attended, where an attempt was made to reach an agreement
16 with the Muslims. And representing the Serb side was Grujic, Radic,
17 Ivanovic, both Ivanovics, I myself, and an officer, a JNA officer. He was
18 a captain at the time, and his name was Dragan Obrenovic.
19 On the Bosnian side, the Bosniak side, the Muslim side, there was
20 the president of the SDA as well as the head of SUP, Osman Mustafic was
21 his name, and then the head of the TO, Alija Kapidzic, there was
22 Izet Mehinagic, and perhaps a few others, I'm not quite sure.
23 Q. Was Marko Pavlovic present?
24 A. No, Marko Pavlovic was not present at that particular meeting.
25 Q. I want to ask you some questions with respect to Arkan. Did you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 have dealings with Arkan prior to him coming to Zvornik?
2 A. No, I did not. I heard of him just a few days from the newspapers
3 reporting on the events that had taken place in Bijeljina.
4 Q. Can I ask you to tell us what you know about Arkan's presence in
5 Bijeljina, how that came to be, if you do know.
6 A. I don't know anything about that really. I can't say.
7 Q. Did there come a time during the takeover of Bijeljina that you
8 went to Bijeljina?
9 A. Yes. I went to have a meeting with Arkan at the Dom Kultura or
10 cultural centre in Bijeljina, and the conflicts were already ongoing
11 there. There was shooting in town. I went to the cultural centre and
12 waited there for about an hour or an hour and a half, at which point he
13 turned up.
14 Q. When you say "he," are you referring to Arkan himself?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who did he arrive with?
17 A. Well, he arrived with a group of his combatants. And I saw that
18 where there was a luncheon given for those combatants in the cultural
19 centre, everybody suddenly got to their feet and stood to attention.
20 Q. How did you know or -- sorry, how did you know to go to the Dom
21 culture centre to meet Arkan? Who told you that's where you would meet
23 A. I have already said that Kostic told me this over the phone. He
24 told me to go to Bijeljina, to set up contacts with him, and to ensure
25 logistics, because his unit was going into Zvornik and had to be
1 accommodated and put up there.
2 Q. Can you tell us what transpired during the course of that meeting
3 in the Dom culture centre?
4 A. In actual fact, I said who'd sent me. He asked me what the
5 situation was like in Zvornik briefly. And then he called a short man,
6 introduced him as Major Pejic, and told me that he would be leading the
7 group of people assigned to go to Zvornik. This lasted barely two or
8 three minutes. It was a brief meeting.
9 Q. Did he indicate who assigned them or Arkan's men to go to Zvornik?
10 A. No, we didn't discuss that.
11 Q. Did you see the license plates on the vehicle that Arkan used to
12 arrive at this meeting?
13 A. Yes. He crossed to Karakaj from Mali Zvornik, and the license
14 plates were those of the Federal SUP. I recognised them because they
15 began with a "M" and then a number, and the first number was the number 9,
16 and I knew that was the license plate for the Federal SUP.
17 Q. So that the record is clear, the time that you saw Arkan in the
18 vehicle was in Zvornik and not Bijeljina; is that correct?
19 A. I saw his vehicle first in Zvornik. I didn't see how he arrived
20 in Bijeljina.
21 Q. What happened after the meeting?
22 A. His unit and I with it crossed the Drina River on a ferry at
23 Badovinci, we crossed into Serbia. And then we went to Banja Radalj,
24 which is where there is a hotel. The hotel is about 10 kilometre from
1 Q. Approximately how many of Arkan's men did you cross from Bijeljina
2 into Serbia with?
3 A. It was a small group of about 20 men.
4 Q. Were they armed at the time they crossed into Serbia?
5 A. Yes. They had long-barreled weapons.
6 Q. And the place that you described yourself as waiting, I believe
7 you said Banja Radalj. Approximately how far in Serbia did you have to
8 travel to get to that location?
9 A. From where we had crossed with the ferry up to Radalj is about 50
10 to 60 kilometres.
11 Q. During the course of that trip, both crossing the border into
12 Serbia and driving through Serbia, did you have at any time see uniformed
13 members of the Serbian police during the course of your journey?
14 A. No. Because it was already dark, and we drove in the course of
15 night, so I didn't notice any policemen.
16 Q. What happened when you arrived at Banja Radalj?
17 A. They stayed behind and I went on to Zvornik. The next day we had
18 a meeting together, and they informed us that there was a group of Arkan's
19 men, about 20 of them. If a conflict should break out -- and they said
20 that they were there to help the Serb people if a conflict should break
22 Q. This meeting that you had with them the next day, was that at --
23 in Banja Radalj or was it somewhere in Zvornik?
24 A. No, it was in Zvornik.
25 Q. Just one additional question about your observations in Bijeljina:
1 During the time that you were in Bijeljina, did you see a person known as
3 A. I didn't see Mauzer in Bijeljina. I didn't even know that such a
4 person existed at the time.
5 Q. What happened after the meeting that you had in Banja Radalj with
6 members of Arkan's Tigers?
7 A. I didn't have a meeting with them in Radalj. I just left them
8 there. They stayed on. And later on Mr. Pejic would come to the Crisis
9 Staff meeting in Zvornik. We never actually had any meeting in Radalj
11 Q. And what was discussed at the meeting with the Crisis Staff with
12 Mr. Pejic -- or Major Pejic?
13 A. Well, when they were put up in Radalj, the next day a conflict
14 broke out in Sapna and several soldiers were killed and discussions were
15 made for defence preparations and a possible clash.
16 Q. Can you tell us the members of the Crisis Staff that were present
17 when this meeting was held with Major Pejic?
18 A. All the members of the Crisis Staff were there from the list, most
19 of them, at least.
20 Q. What happened after this event that you've described, this -- I
21 believe you described as several soldiers being killed. Did anything
22 happen after the Crisis Staff learned news about that event?
23 A. The killing of the soldier happened on the day or the next day,
24 when the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina was proclaimed. And at the
25 time, that was something that was quite unacceptable to us. So according
1 to Plan B, we set ourselves apart and formed a parallel government in
2 Karakaj at the Alhos factory premises.
3 Q. What happened after you establish that parallel government?
4 A. Well, soon afterwards, the incident took place where the
5 negotiations in Mali Zvornik fell through and where a decision was made
6 according to which Zvornik should be occupied, taken over militarily.
7 Q. Where was the decision taken to occupy or take over by military
8 force the municipality of Zvornik?
9 A. Arkan and Pejic, who led this on his behalf, they ordered the
10 Crisis Staff to launch the operation.
11 Q. Can you tell us where -- were you present when that decision was
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Where was that decision taken?
15 A. The decision was taken in the Alhos building, in the office used
16 by the general manager, the director.
17 Q. And when was it taken?
18 A. That was -- I think it was the 7th of April, 1992.
19 Q. What happened after that decision was taken? Was there any
20 further discussion about the implementation of that decision?
21 A. Well, various volunteers started arriving, and we were ordered to
22 collect together as much -- as many people as we could from the
23 Territorial Defence. And there was a subsequent decision the next day; I
24 think it was on the 8th of April in the morning, at perhaps 6.00 a.m. Or
25 rather, it was implemented from 6.00 a.m. onwards.
1 Q. So the decision was taken on the 7th of April to militarily occupy
2 Zvornik, and the implementation of that decision began at 6.00 the next
3 day, the 8th of April; is that correct?
4 A. More or less, yes, according to my information. Because I was
5 wounded at the time, and I was at the headquarters in my slippers. I
6 wasn't actually on the ground, in the field.
7 Q. Now, you've mentioned volunteers started arriving. From where did
8 the volunteers come?
9 A. Mostly from Serbia. I think that some of them were from
10 Bijeljina, because that's the first time I saw the man you mentioned a
11 moment ago, Mr. Mauzer.
12 Q. Can you give us some sense of how many volunteers arrived from
14 A. The inflow was quite uncontrolled. And according to my
15 information, more than 100.
16 Q. And these volunteers, as you called them, were they associated
17 with any named organisations or groups?
18 A. According to my information, apart from Arkan's group, the others
19 didn't have groups of their own at that time. There were sporadic cases,
20 individual cases.
21 Q. And do you know if when these people arrived in Zvornik, whether
22 they came with their own weapons or whether they were issued weapons once
23 they arrived?
24 A. I know that they were issued weapons at the TO headquarters in the
25 Alhos building.
1 Q. After the decision was taken on the 7th of April, how soon after
2 that did these volunteers begin to arrive in the municipality of Zvornik?
3 A. Well, some groups were already in place, ever since the conflict
4 broke out. But within the space of 24 hours or 48 hours, they started
5 coming in in larger numbers.
6 Q. Can you please describe to the Chamber how it was that the
7 military takeover of Zvornik occurred.
8 A. What I can tell you is this: I spent the morning at the
9 headquarters. I was injured and I was in my slippers. And you could just
10 hear, because it's very close by, and I received information that the
11 units of the Territorial Defence and the volunteers had occupied Zvornik
12 and placed it under Serb control.
13 Q. What, if any, involvement or support did the JNA or the Yugoslav
14 People's Army have in the military occupation of Zvornik?
15 A. For this operation itself, I have no information that the JNA took
16 part in the attack itself on that first day against Zvornik.
17 Q. Did there come a time after the first day when the Yugoslav
18 People's Army was involved in the -- in the attack on Zvornik?
19 A. What I know is this: Later on, some 20 days later, when Kula was
20 taken control of - and that is situated above the hydroelectric power
21 station at Mali Zvornik - is that a unit from Yugoslavia took part in
22 taking control of Kula.
23 Q. Now, the people that you've described as volunteers, after the
24 initial takeover of Zvornik did they -- did they begin to form
25 organisations of named groups that you could tell?
1 A. Yes. It is common knowledge that they grouped afterwards,
2 established formations, and the formations took the names of their leaders
3 by and large. And it is also common knowledge that some of them were
4 incorporated into the police and some became a part of TO.
5 Q. Can you tell us the names of these groups or as many of these
6 groups as you can recall?
7 A. I have heard of several, but it was common knowledge that Gogic's
8 unit was in the police. And in the TO there was Zuca's unit, Pivarski's
9 men, Niski's men, the White Eagles, Beli Orlovi, and perhaps some others.
10 Q. Zuca's unit, do you know Zuca's full name?
11 A. I read about that in the papers later. I didn't know it at the
12 time, but I know now that his name is Vojin Vuckovic.
13 Q. How were these people that came into Zvornik and participated in
14 the attack on Zvornik, where were they accommodated?
15 A. There were different localities. I know that some were put up in
16 Karakaj in some barracks that were empty. Later on, others took over the
17 Muslim houses that had been vacated and left empty. But the TO sorted
18 their accommodation, generally speaking.
19 Q. And was there a bus link established to transport them from Serbia
20 into Zvornik?
21 A. The bus link was never interrupted, because the bus line from
22 Mali Zvornik always operated towards Belgrade and Uzice, because it was
23 the territory that had not been engulfed by the war.
24 Q. And who was responsible for paying the buses that were
25 transporting these volunteers?
1 A. I know that the provisional or temporary government paid for the
2 transport vehicles and the ones used to bring in the volunteers.
3 Q. These people you call "volunteers," were they ever paid money by
4 the municipality for their participation in the takeover of Zvornik?
5 A. Yes. They were paid regularly, like all the other members of the
6 TO and the police.
7 Q. I'm going to ask that you look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 5.
8 This is a document encompassing several documents. I'd ask you to review
9 the bundle of documents and ask you: Do you recognise what those
10 documents are?
11 A. Yes. It is a document by which the provisional government issues
12 salaries to members of the TO unit that acted within Zuca's unit.
13 Q. I'm going to ask you to look at the monitor in front of you.
14 There will be one of those documents displayed in front of you, and ask
15 you to read the names after the red bar.
16 A. I can't see any red markings.
17 Q. I draw your attention to number 41 and 44.
18 A. I see. Under number 41 is Vuckovic, Vojin, Zuca; and 44 is
19 Vuckovic, Dusko.
20 Q. Is one of these men the Zuca that you refer to in your testimony?
21 A. Yes, the one under number 41.
22 MR. GROOME: I'd ask that those documents -- we're finished with
23 those -- but that the witness now be shown Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 6.
24 Q. While that document is being put before you, you've mentioned
25 Captain Dragan Obrenovic. And my question to you is: Did
1 Captain Obrenovic ever attend meetings of the Crisis Staff?
2 A. Captain Dragan Obrenovic did not attend meetings of the Crisis
3 Staff up until the beginning of the war; however, once the war started,
4 while I was a member of the Crisis Staff, he did attend meetings.
5 Q. And at the time that he attended those meetings, was he still a
6 member of the Yugoslav People's Army?
7 A. Yes. Dragan Obrenovic was always a member of the JNA, until the
8 Army of Republika Srpska was formed.
9 Q. And was he present during meetings in the Crisis Staff when the
10 discussions regarding the implementation of Plan B were held?
11 A. Well, as I was saying, he was present from the beginning of the
12 war up until I was a member of the Crisis Staff, when the discussion
13 centred on the implementation of Plan B.
14 Q. Did he receive payment from the Municipality of Zvornik?
15 A. Yes. It can be seen from this document that Dragan Obrenovic did
16 receive a salary as a member of the TO of Zvornik.
17 Q. Did the document you're referring to is Prosecution Exhibit 451,
18 tab 6. Could I ask you to describe for us what is that document.
19 A. It is the payments for the month of May to Dragan Obrenovic. And
20 the document was approved by Marko Pavlovic on behalf of the Territorial
22 Q. If I can now turn your attention to what you know about the
23 relationship between Arkan and the Yugoslav People's Army as you were able
24 to observe during the takeover of Zvornik.
25 A. Well, the situation was such that all of us who were in the Crisis
1 Staff, including Dragan Obrenovic, who was a JNA officer, would stand to
2 attention when Arkan walked in together with his officer Pejic, who was in
3 command in Zvornik. And there were some other army officers. But we were
4 surprised to see that all of them stood at attention whenever Arkan walked
5 in or out of the room.
6 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Brano Grujic regarding an
7 incident that occurred between Colonel Milosevic and Arkan?
8 A. Yes. On one occasion, Grujic said that Arkan had slapped
9 Colonel Milosevic.
10 Q. Did there come a time when Arkan left the municipality of Zvornik?
11 A. Yes. He was in Zvornik twice for an hour or two each time.
12 Q. After he left Zvornik, did Marko Pavlovic assume head -- duties of
13 head of the Territorial Defence?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that the witness be shown
16 Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 7.
17 And the usher -- we have three documents to work with in quick
18 succession, so perhaps it might be most convenient to just remain by the
20 Q. Sir, do you recognise what is document -- the document Prosecution
21 451, tab 7? What is that document?
22 A. Yes. This is the decision to form the command of the Territorial
23 Defence of the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik, and Pavlovic is being
24 appointed commander by Grujic as head of the interim government.
25 MR. GROOME: I'd ask that the witness now be shown Prosecution
1 Exhibit 451, tab 8.
2 Q. And, sir, I'd ask you: Do you recognise this document?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what do you recognise that document to be?
5 A. It is the formation of a unified military and territorial command
6 of the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik. And in Article 3, Marko Pavlovic
7 is appointed commander of the military territorial command, and he is
8 appointed to that post by Branko Grujic as head of the interim government.
9 Q. And finally, I'd ask you to take a look at Prosecution Exhibit
10 451, tab 9 and ask you, do you recognise this exhibit?
11 A. Yes. All these documents were published in the Official Gazette.
12 It is a decision banning taking of food from the compound of the
13 headquarters of the interim government, where in addition to the
14 government only Marko Pavlovic could approve any such taking of food. And
15 this was adopted on the 14th of April, 1992.
16 MR. GROOME: Thank you. I'm finished with those exhibits.
17 Q. Sir, are you aware of a unit called the Zvornik Brigade?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When was that unit formed?
20 A. It was formed, actually, when the Army of Republika Srpska was
21 formed, and that would be, I think, at the end of May 1992.
22 Q. Who was the first commander of that unit?
23 A. There were several commanders. I think it was Blagojevic, then
24 Dragan Petkovic, Bosancic. So in 1992 there were several different
25 commanders that replaced one another.
1 Q. Who was the eventual -- was there a commander of that unit that
2 once he became commander remained there for an extended period of time?
3 A. Yes. From the end of 1992 until the end of the war, the commander
4 of the Zvornik Brigade was Vinko Pandurevic.
5 Q. You've just identified several documents giving Marko Pavlovic
6 authority over the Territorial Defence of Zvornik. How long did his
7 command of the Territorial Defence of Zvornik last?
8 A. After Arkan left Zvornik, he took over command of the TO, until he
9 was arrested. I think this was in July 1992.
10 Q. And who arrested him?
11 A. He was arrested by a special police unit of Republika Srpska.
12 Q. And do you know what ultimately happened with that arrest or do
13 you know what charges he was arrested upon?
14 A. I don't know that. I just know that he was in detention for only
15 two or three days in the prison in Bijeljina, upon which he was released.
16 Q. During the military takeover of Zvornik, were there any
17 Territorial Defence members not from Zvornik but from Serbia?
18 A. Yes, there were volunteers from Serbia.
19 Q. I'm not just talking about volunteers that you described before.
20 I'm talking about official members of the Territorial Defence or
21 Territorial Defence units in Serbia.
22 A. I am not aware that anyone was an active participant, except the
23 logistic cooperation which we had with the TO staff in Mali Zvornik.
24 Q. I'm going to ask that you take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 251,
25 tab 10. I'd ask you to look at that bundle of documents and ask you: Do
1 you recognise what that is?
2 A. Yes. From the documents, we see that these are salaries for the
3 month of April for volunteers from Gogic's unit from Loznica.
4 Q. And that is Loznica in Serbia?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, these people you're calling volunteers, would it be fair to
7 say that these are members -- this Bogic's [sic] unit, is this a unit of
8 the Territorial Defence?
9 A. Yes, Gogic's unit. For a while they were within the police of
10 Republika Srpska.
11 Q. Now, in July, in addition to Marko Pavlovic being arrested, were
12 other people arrested in Zvornik?
13 A. Yes. Some other unit leaders were arrested as well. I know that
14 Zuca was arrested and his unit, Niski and his unit, and some others.
15 Q. And who headed the special police unit who arrested them?
16 A. Milenko Krajisnik.
17 Q. And why were these people arrested?
18 A. Well, because they were causing disturbances in town and they
19 could not longer be kept under control.
20 Q. I'm going to ask that you look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 11.
21 And can you tell us, do you recognise this document? And if so, what is
23 A. Yes. This is a bill whereby the interim government is paying for
24 the transport of volunteers to a private transporter from Sapot in Serbia.
25 Q. And where do those volunteer -- does the receipt indicate where
1 those people were being transported from?
2 A. Yes. They were transported from Belgrade to Zvornik.
3 Q. And how much money is reflected in this receipt was due the bus
4 transportation company?
5 A. It says here 80.000 dinars, but there was an inflation and I don't
6 know how realistic that sum is now.
7 Q. Are you able to approximate what that -- what the value of 80.000
8 dinars was in German Deutschmarks?
9 A. I don't think anyone could tell now, because there was really a
10 galloping inflation. It's impossible to calculate.
11 Q. You've mentioned Mrs. Plavsic making two visits to Zvornik. I'd
12 ask you to now tell us, when was her second visit to Zvornik during the
13 spring of 1992?
14 A. That was two or three days after Serbs had taken control of
16 Q. And where did she come to, specifically? What building?
17 A. She came to the Alhos building, where the Crisis Staff was. And I
18 happened to be the only men present. I was still wearing slippers. I
19 couldn't go out. And with her was Princess Jelisaveta Karadjordjevic.
20 Q. And what happened after they arrived at the Alhos factory?
21 A. We were waiting for members of the Crisis Staff to arrive, and
22 then we went to have lunch until they arrived.
23 Q. And during the course of lunch, did you have discussions with her
24 regarding what had taken place in Zvornik?
25 A. Yes. I informed her as far as I knew about the situation in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Zvornik after it was placed under the control of the Serbs of Zvornik, and
2 she enquired as to the extent to which we were implementing the plans, how
3 organised we were. In principle, this was an exchange of information
4 between us.
5 Q. Did she provide you with information regarding what was taking
6 place in other municipalities in Bosnia?
7 A. The situation was rather chaotic, so we spoke about everything,
8 but nothing very substantive.
9 Q. Did there come a time when you were together with her that
10 Major Pejic was also present?
11 A. Yes. When we returned to headquarters, I accompanied her to the
12 office of the Crisis Staff. She greeted Pejic. They exchanged warm
13 greetings. And then she held a meeting with a part of the Crisis Staff,
14 but I did not attend that meeting.
15 Q. When you say she exchanged warm greetings with Mayor Pejic, can
16 you please be more specific?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you please describe exactly how they greeted each other.
19 A. They greeted each other in the traditional fashion amongst us
20 Serbs when people know each other really well. We embrace.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm about to embark on a completely
22 different area.
23 JUDGE MAY: Very well. That's a convenient moment.
24 We ought to consider the arrangements for Monday. How much longer
25 do you think you will be with this witness in examination-in-chief?
1 MR. GROOME: I estimate between 30 and 40 minutes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MAY: Effectively that will be about just over two hours.
3 The question is whether the witness who's returning should be interposed
4 first thing. Do you have any views as to that?
5 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. We'll leave it to the Court's
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will interpose Mr. de la Brosse for the
9 remainder of his cross-examination, which if I recollect rightly is due to
10 last an hour and a half. So that effectively would be the first session.
11 We will then continue with this witness's evidence thereafter.
12 So Mr. Milosevic, when you come on Monday morning, subject to any
13 unforeseen circumstances, Mr. de la Brosse will be here for you to finish
14 your cross-examination, and then we'll go on with this witness.
15 Witness B-024, could you be back, please, on Monday morning, when
16 I hope we'll be able to finish your evidence.
17 We'll adjourn now until then.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
19 at 1.51 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
20 the 26th day of May, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.