text:
Page 15311
1 Tuesday, 5 October 2010
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everybody in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone.
11 May we have the appearances, please.
12 MS. PIDWELL: Good morning, Your Honours.
13 Tom Hannis, Belinda Pidwell, and Crispian Smith for the
14 Prosecution.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
16 For the Stanisic Defence team, Slobodan Cvijetic,
17 Ms. Tatjana Savic, and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
19 Dragan Krgovic, Igor Pantelic, and Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for
20 Zupljanin Defence.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
22 We have been alerted that there are some preliminary matters
23 before the witness resumes his cross-examination.
24 MS. PIDWELL: Just one very short item, Your Honours. We don't
25 have any cross-examination estimates for two of the witnesses that are
1 scheduled to testify later this week, and I'm wondering if I could be
2 provided with them during the course of the day. They're the first two
3 of the new witnesses which have been added as a result of the adjudicated
4 facts decision, and we -- they're viva voce. So it would be appreciated
5 if we could have the estimates to know exactly what to say to the witness
6 when they arrive and to liaise with VWS about their length of stay.
7 And I'm also wondering, we have -- the next witness is ST-098,
8 Ewa Tabeau. The current estimate I have for her provided by the Defence
9 quite a while ago was four hours each for cross-examination, and I'm just
10 wondering if that has been revised in any way during the course of the
11 preparation so we can schedule the balance of the witnesses accordingly.
13 So -- yes, Mr. Krgovic, you're in a position to respond?
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as for these two
15 witnesses testifying about adjudicated facts, the Defence team has a
16 dilemma. Specifically the witness scheduled to witness [as interpreted]
17 this week about an adjudicated fact which is very short, only two and a
18 half hours are scheduled. If the OTP, in accordance with the Chamber's
19 ruling, wants only to show that adjudicated facts and establish the
20 circumstances for which the witness was called, we may not have more than
21 25 minutes of cross-examination. But if the OTP use two and a half hours
22 and extend their examination-in-chief, we will apply for additional time
23 to cross-examine the witness.
24 That's why we think that the OTP should shorten the time allotted
25 to them for the examination-in-chief and focus only on the adjudicated
1 facts, because that's how we understand the ruling of the Bench, namely,
2 that both the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination will deal
3 only with the adjudicated facts. Given that, we don't expect to have
4 many questions for the witnesses that will come to testify about that.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of the
6 Stanisic Defence, I would like to say something about the witnesses
7 called to testify about adjudicated facts.
8 My estimate is one session for each of them, and that is a
9 generous estimate. We may actually need less.
10 As for the expert witness, we applied for four hours, as
11 Ms. Pidwell said, but that is also a very generous estimate. We expect
12 to use much less, indeed. But it certainly depends on what we are going
13 to hear in the courtroom.
14 But, anyway, we will certainly not exceed four hours.
16 Ms. Pidwell, now you know, or don't know, where you stand. We
17 will see.
18 MS. PIDWELL: I guess that's the best -- that's as good as it's
19 going to get at this stage.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: It would perhaps be useful if we can have
21 confirmation from Ms. Pidwell that the scope of the examination-in-chief
22 will only be the adjudicated fact.
23 MS. PIDWELL: Well, Your Honours, we're very aware of the terms
24 of your ruling, and our interpretation is that it's the adjudicated fact
25 plus contextual evidence to provide the context of the -- of the fact.
1 So we're aware of that, and that's the basis on which we're proceeding.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe we should make
4 good use of the time before the witness comes in.
5 While examining one of the previous protected witnesses, and I'm
6 referring to ST-215, the Trial Chamber admitted a document of the
7 Defence. The page reference is 14.962 of the transcript, and it was
8 given the exhibit number 1D384, MFI. This mark for identification was
9 applied because on that day we couldn't provide an English translation.
10 In the meantime, however, I have been informed that the translation is
11 ready, so my motion would be to remove the MFI tag.
12 JUDGE HALL: So ordered. I'm trying to avoid the use of the term
13 de-MFI, which is the jargon of the Tribunal. It seems to be such an ugly
14 concept, but we all know what we mean.
15 MS. PIDWELL: While we're on this topic, perhaps I can clarify
16 one matter as well.
17 Your Honours will recall yesterday the issue of the -- exhibiting
18 the newspaper article of the 17th of July, and it was admitted on the
19 basis of the date only and not the contents. As it turns out, that
20 article has previously been tendered through a previous witness who was
21 able to speak to the contents of the article. It was -- it's actually
22 P1378. And accordingly, in order to avoid any complications in the
23 future in regards to this article, I seek leave to withdraw the exhibit
24 that was tendered yesterday on that limited basis, because it's already
25 in evidence.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So ordered.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can the Registrar indicate the number we had put
3 yesterday? Did you check ...
4 MS. PIDWELL: [Microphone not activated]
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Miskovic, good morning to you, sir. I trust
8 that you are recovered from --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
10 JUDGE HALL: -- from yesterday and that you are able to go on. I
11 would remind you that you're still on your oath.
12 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
13 WITNESS: SIMO MISKOVIC [Resumed]
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Miskovic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Mr. Miskovic, yesterday we broke off when we discussed the talks
19 with representatives of Kozarac. I asked you about the level of these
20 talks and partly about the topics discussed and also about the
21 participants.
23 Q. You said to me then that the talks were held at the local level.
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. And that nobody outside of Prijedor took part.
1 A. Nobody but us. That was our organisation and it was our concept,
2 so nobody had any influence on that, nor any suggestions. Whether
3 anybody subsequently applied the same rules, I don't know. But it was
4 our idea. I apologise.
5 Q. Mr. Zupljanin did not take part in these talks about Kozarac?
6 A. No, he didn't. As I said so. Only on one occasion when we were
7 in Omarska, and I tried to reach him once after talking to a
8 Radovan Karadzic. A man whom I knew from before the war as a colleague,
9 I met him only once, but we had no connections whatsoever.
10 Q. And you took a personal interest in resolving the issue of
11 Kozarac. If -- you would know if Mr. Zupljanin had taken part?
12 A. Yes, I certainly would have. Not only about him but anybody else
13 too. That's quite normal.
14 Q. Did you have an opportunity to read Nusret Sivac's book: "How
15 Large is the Carsija of Prijedor"?
16 A. No, I haven't read it, but I've heard of it. But I have no need
17 to read of these things because I was directly involved.
18 I heard that my name is mentioned there too, probably because I
19 was a protagonist of the events. I hope I'm not being mentioned in a
20 negative context.
21 Q. Well, you may want to read it after all.
22 A. I don't think so. If I do reading something, I'll read something
23 more serious. I met Sivac later, two years ago, actually. He was a
24 communications man with the police. He worked with us, and he also was
25 a --
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Krgovic,
2 just one moment, please.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think we should clarify the transcript where
5 the witness gives evidence about the -- about Kozarac and the question
6 whether Mr. Zupljanin knew about it. And he said:
7 "Nobody but us. That was our organisation and it was our
8 concept, so nobody had any influence on that, nor any suggestions."
9 I skip one -- one line.
10 "... it was our idea. I apologise."
11 And the "I apologise" could be misunderstood. The witness just
12 coughed and said "I apologise" because he coughed, and nothing else.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, while we are on this particular
15 issue of whether or not Mr. Zupljanin was involved in the planning of the
16 events in Kozarac, could I ask the witness whether Mr. Zupljanin was
17 subsequently informed of these events? Because I think you told us
18 yesterday that the local police was involved in that operation, so I
19 assume that at some point Mr. Zupljanin would have been informed.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said it was our idea, and I
22 was saying so talking both to the Prosecution and to the Defence, it
23 means that we organised all activities independently with all structures
24 from the Prijedor municipality to prevent confrontation there. And that
25 was the context of all the activities.
1 As for the activities in Kozarac, talks were held, and I -- and
2 the context of these talks was explained yesterday, about those insignia,
3 et cetera, the functioning of the police, the police station in Ljubija
4 and in Kozarac after the takeover of power and everything.
5 As for the activities and the operation, the shelling of Kozarac,
6 that is, the military operation, it was a military operation. The
7 military did it. So that was along the military lines of command.
8 Whether the police took part in it, and, if so, to what extent, I don't
9 know, because it was a military operation. The military had all the
10 equipment used there, and they commanded everything and all that. And
11 that's how it was in other parts of Prijedor too.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I owe an explanation to
14 Judge Harhoff.
15 I asked this line of questions because this witness whose book I
16 mentioned writes that Mr. Zupljanin was involved in the talks in Kozarac,
17 and that is the reason why --
18 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honour, the witness has said he hasn't read
19 the book. And I'm wondering if it's appropriate for him to be listening
20 to this line of explanation from my learned friend.
21 JUDGE HALL: I hear your objection, Ms. Pidwell, but I'm not sure
22 that any harm is done inasmuch as when he said he hadn't read the book,
23 he said he was involved in the incident, so I don't see a problem.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have just finished
25 with that line of questioning. I just want to explain why I asked the
1 witness about that event.
2 Q. Mr. Miskovic, speaking about these meetings and the appearance of
3 certain people in Prijedor, let me ask you, you have certainly heard of
4 General Subotic?
5 A. Yes, I have. I knew Goran Subotic. In Banja Luka, at meetings,
6 he held some sort of position at the top. I don't know which position.
7 I know that later on he was in charge of pensions and medals and other
8 things, but I wasn't with the party anymore.
9 Q. In August 1992, and in September, did you hear that Mr. Subotic
10 came to Prijedor, together with Mr. Zupljanin?
11 A. No. I only know that General Talic once came. I remember that.
12 I was leaving the Municipal Assembly building and he was just parking his
13 vehicle and coming out of it, and he had brought military camouflage
14 uniforms, summer uniforms. I remember that, and I got one. And that's
15 why I can be seen in many pictures and on the radio in that period. And
16 General Talic came once. I don't know whether he ever came again though.
17 I was invited to come to the corps command because I often
18 reacted to the looting and other crimes such as smuggling and so on, so
19 people from the region would be summoned to come to the corps command to
20 find out what's going on. And then the issue was raised how it's
21 possible that the trucks can go through all the 50 check-points from our
22 territory to Serbia, whereas I cannot even take a pin through those
23 check-points.
24 Q. Yesterday the Prosecutor showed you a video. That's not the
25 video showing the occasion when you visited, and you didn't see the
1 people that were with you then?
2 A. I don't remember which video you're referring to. But I was
3 there only once, and we clarified that with the Prosecution and the
4 Defence. Just once. At Trnopolje and Keraterm, those are places I never
5 went to.
6 Q. When the delegation from Banja Luka arrived, the -- the visit of
7 that delegation in -- to Omarska on the upper floor was all recorded.
8 You saw it; right?
9 A. Yes, a camera recording was made. And I wonder how come that
10 footage isn't there.
11 Q. Part of my question is missing.
12 You saw it later on television of RS; right?
13 A. Yes, yes. And it was in the local newspaper, the
14 "Kozarski Vjesnik."
15 Q. When you were at that meeting on the upper floor in Omarska, as
16 far as I understood your testimony, two topics were discussed, to your
17 memory. The functioning of the investigation centre and the examination
18 techniques; right?
19 A. I don't know. I don't remember all the details because it was a
20 long time ago. But the briefing was mostly about the conditions in the
21 facility and the activities that had been taken. And also ongoing
22 activities.
23 Q. And when the situation in the facility was discussed, none of the
24 participants from the delegation or from there said that the conditions
25 were bad and nobody complained about anything. Everybody said basically
1 that it was consistent with the given circumstances and conditions?
2 A. Yes. Those were the circumstances under which the facilities
3 operated at the time. And those who managed the facilities said all the
4 best, that everything was working well, that everything necessary has
5 been supplied, et cetera.
6 Q. And it was your understanding then, in Prijedor, was that all
7 these investigation centres, as they were called, had been established so
8 that people who were suspected of involvement in armed operations needed
9 to be screened to find out who was responsible?
10 A. That's what I understood, that the professional police was
11 inquiring into the involvement of every individual so that charges be
12 brought against those who are found to be responsible and the others
13 released. That's how -- how the normal police procedure would run. Now,
14 if that procedure was really observed, I don't know. I didn't know many
15 things. You -- you told me that there were no criminal complaints filed,
16 and that surprises me. I didn't know at the time that not a single
17 criminal complaint has been filed.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one correction to the
19 transcript. The witness said: You told me that there were criminal
20 complaints filed, and I didn't know at the time that criminal complaints
21 were there.
22 Q. Is that what you said?
23 A. Yes. You said a few days ago that criminal complaints were filed
24 against individuals with the District Prosecutor's Office, and I was not
25 aware of that.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, I'm not exactly clear about what we
2 are talking about here. I don't know if Mr. Krgovic can clarify.
3 Criminal complaints filed by whom against whom? That seems to be an open
4 question.
5 But, Mr. Miskovic, are you able to give an estimation as to the
6 number of persons detained at Omarska when you went to visit the place?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the criminal complaints,
8 that relates to criminal complaints against persons who had been brought
9 to the investigation centre in Omarska, and the criminal complaints are
10 normally filed by the police officers who interrogated these people,
11 active-duty and reserve policemen.
12 Now, as for the estimate, it is very difficult for me to
13 estimate - I'm not good at that - but let's say, roughly, from what I've
14 seen, there could have been 150 to 200 people. I don't know. It would
15 be really silly of me to give any definite number, but that would be a
16 rough figure.
17 There was a fence between us and there was a line of people on
18 the other side of the fence. They were lined up. But I'm really
19 surprised that there is no video footage. Everything was recorded,
20 including the meeting in the conference hall, and I thought you had that
21 material.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: To your recollection, did the staff at the
23 Omarska camp provide you with any information about how many people were
24 detained there at the moment?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean at the meeting?
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. You told us yesterday that you were given
2 an introductory speech by the camp command. And so I wonder if, during
3 that speech, information was provided to you as to the number of persons
4 detained at the time.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now in hindsight, 20 years later, I
6 cannot remember that discussion. But as soon as the delegation arrived,
7 the host - in this case, the warden of the investigation centre - gave a
8 briefing about the centre, the number of people, the activities
9 undertaken, and the measures taken against individuals. I can only
10 suppose that that's what we had come for. It was not to take pictures.
11 It was an official delegation visiting the centre. And on behalf of the
12 centre, their manager made a report, and that's what he should have
13 covered. He could not have talked about anything else.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one follow-up question, Mr. Miskovic.
15 Did the delegation tour the facility, the camp? Did they go
16 around, see what happened? Or did they only go upstairs to the meeting
17 room and -- and then left?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was literally the way you put it
19 at the end. We got out of the car, we climbed the stairs, got into the
20 conference room, received the information that I just mentioned. After
21 that, we got back into the car and left.
22 I don't know where the others went, but I went to Prijedor.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: And -- and you -- when you say you left, that
24 applies for you as well as for the Banja Luka delegation?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes, certainly.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nobody -- nobody toured any other
3 buildings. We only got upstairs, went into that room, went down the same
4 stairs, and left. I don't know if anyone came to visit later, but that
5 visit passed exactly as I said.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Miskovic, just one more thing regarding this visit.
10 You told us about your knowledge at the time, that it was an
11 investigation centre, that people suspected of involvement --
12 A. People assumed to have been involved.
13 Q. Yes, people thought to have been involved in the armed insurgency
14 were being screened, interrogated, to see whether evidence existed and in
15 relation to whom?
16 A. Yes, that's what I understood, and that's why in all my evidence
17 I said that in my eyes it was an investigation centre because these
18 people were interrogated by professionals who were trained. Now to what
19 extent triage was made, whether it was made, I don't know. But
20 professionally speaking, that's the way it is.
21 Q. And that's what the delegation from -- from Prijedor was told,
22 wasn't it?
23 A. I'm telling you I can't remember after 20 years. But I suppose,
24 judging from the context, that it was the only thing that could have been
25 talked about, because the director of the centre could have only made a
1 briefing about that; the situation in Omarska and the problems. Now,
2 what details he covered, I don't remember anymore. If you had asked me
3 earlier, I would have recalled it better.
4 Q. Regarding the condition of the buildings in Omarska that you
5 toured, those were newly built facilities; they were in good condition at
6 the time?
7 A. I was commander of the section in Omarska when preparations were
8 made for extraction of the ore. I worked on the expropriation of land
9 and similar matters, so I know exactly who the contractor was. It was
10 Hidrogradnja company from Sarajevo. I was on good terms with that
11 business because of my role. And those buildings were built at that
12 time. They were fresh, newly built, including all the appointment and
13 equipment for that sort of facility. At the time, it was a modern
14 building.
15 Q. Mr. Miskovic, I will show you now a document --
16 A. And you can see that on the footage, that those were solid, good
17 buildings.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] P602 is the document we need
19 displayed to the witness.
20 Q. Mr. Miskovic, this is a report of the commission that was set up
21 in August 1998.
22 A. What do you mean 1998?
23 Q. I meant -- sorry, I meant 1992.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the last
25 page. In Serbian, it's page 16.
1 Q. This is a report made by a commission. Do you know any of the
2 people named here?
3 A. I know Vaso Skondric. We studied together. Vojin Bera, I know
4 him. Ranko Mijic, I know him. And Jugoslav Rodic I also know; he worked
5 in the security service. I know all of them. They are all from the
6 police.
7 Q. Do you know, Mr. Miskovic, that these people came to Prijedor
8 more than once and that they toured the investigation centre?
9 A. I don't know. They did not approach me. They did not contact
10 me. I'm seeing this document for the first time.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown the fourth
12 page of this document in Serbian.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could it be enlarged a bit?
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. On page 4 the condition of the facility in Omarska is described.
16 I'll read out to you just one passage that begins with the words:
17 "Since this was a relatively new facility which had all the
18 necessary living and residential conditions for a larger number of
19 persons (offices, halls, toilets and washrooms, kitchen and dining-room,
20 constant supply of drinking water, a large number of showers, constant
21 supply of electricity, a generator, and so on), no alterations were made
22 to the building, but the existing premises were used instead for the
23 accommodation of and work with the prisoners."
24 Is this a correct description of that facility, to the best of
25 your knowledge? Did you really see that? Does that hall exist? And all
1 the other conditions stated here?
2 A. You know, I just said a moment ago I was a section commander in
3 Omarska when this was built, and preparations were made for the
4 extraction of the ore. But I never went inside the building, and I don't
5 know the layout inside, what the conditions were. But I suppose that
6 these buildings were later adapted for the accommodation of workers who
7 were probably using washrooms and bathrooms, et cetera. That probably
8 existed, although I didn't see it. All I saw during the visit was the
9 conference hall where I went with the delegation. That's all I saw of
10 the inside. And that building was made for that purpose, so it probably
11 had all this. I just didn't go in.
12 Q. Mr. Miskovic, while we're talking about the conditions, in the
13 summer before the corridor was opened, in the summer of 1992, what was
14 the situation inside the city of Prijedor itself, regarding electricity,
15 water supply? What were the prevailing conditions for the other
16 citizens?
17 A. Well, electricity and water supply were a problem. We had
18 occasional supply and occasional blackouts. And I tried, in Celpak at
19 the time, to reactivate a power plant that was not in use at the time.
20 And I remembered one man who had been abroad and then came back to
21 Prijedor, and I asked him if there was any way of reactivating that power
22 plant, and he said he to go and see for himself. He went to see the
23 manager. He said it was impossible to reactivate it.
24 And my next idea was to try mini power plants on the Sana River,
25 that he should analyse that possibility as an expert. So we were looking
1 for alternative sources of energy in the territory. But nothing came out
2 of that, and the situation was with -- was characterised by shortages.
3 Q. And the water supply depended on a pump so that when the pump was
4 not working, due to lack of electricity, there was no water either.
5 A. It's the same today. There are large wells near the River Sana,
6 water is pumped out of the river, and currently we got a grant from the
7 Swiss government to finance a project of providing potable water to the
8 city of Prijedor in a different way. Omarska, for instance, always had
9 problems with water. And after all the visits and talks where I
10 participated, we tried to improve the water supply, but it never
11 happened. And now, finally, thanks to this Swiss project, it will have a
12 reliable water supply, finally.
13 Q. And the situation for the citizens of Prijedor was not really
14 good until the corridor was broken. There was no or very little food and
15 other needs?
16 A. Well, with the food, yes, at first we had enough supplies. But
17 once they were exhausted, then it was a problem. The water-related
18 problems were -- I felt them myself. My family had to go get water in
19 buckets and then fill the washing machine. I made a well, which is
20 something we're still using, but that's not drinking water, of course.
21 And from the waterworks system, we used that water for drinking.
22 Q. Let me ask you something in relation to the question put by
24 You said that at the time you didn't know about criminal
25 complaints or reports being submitted. Now I will show you a document
1 and then ask you whether you know about the incident that's described in
2 this complaint or report.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 2D03-1189.
4 Can we please enlarge it? It's a rather poor copy.
5 A. I see the report.
6 Q. Are you familiar with the incidents?
7 A. Asim Mujic; Alagic; Devljak; Mithad Kadiric; Murir Kadiric;
8 Samir Cehic; Edin Celic; Bahrija Mulalic; Bajro Borovac;
9 Ferid Crljenkovic; Latif Karagic; Besim Memic; Ermin Dedic; Suad Mrkalj;
10 Mirsad Kadiric, Kina; Sakib Ejupovic; Jasmin Alisic, aka Jama;
11 Hajrudin Ganic, aka Gane; Ibro Grozdanic, aka Geolog; and Sakib Ejupovic,
12 all from Prijedor, are on the run because of a suspicion that all the
13 persons listed under item 3 committed a criminal act of armed rebellion
14 under article 80; yes, I can see that.
15 Q. Yesterday you mentioned that you negotiated with one of the
16 Kadirics in Kozarac. Is any of them here listed?
17 A. No. That was Fikret Kadiric who was a police station commander,
18 and he's not here on the list. He was not accused of this.
19 Q. Would you please take a look at the last page of the document and
20 tell me whether you can recognise the signature block.
21 A. It's Radmilo Zeljaja. That's his signature. So this was
22 submitted by the military police. I don't know about this incident.
23 Q. Did you know that the army also carried out some investigations
24 and proceedings?
25 A. Well, I did say that we had civilian and military police and each
1 of the institutions carried out their part of the work.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 2 of this
3 document on the screen.
4 JUDGE HALL: While that page is loading, Mr. Krgovic, I alert you
5 that you have nine minutes left.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm completing my
7 cross-examination. This is the last topic. I'll finish within my time
8 allotted to me.
9 Q. Mr. Miskovic, do you see this segment where it is mentioned --
10 and start reading from the second paragraph.
11 A. "Before the attack on Prijedor..."
12 Is that the part?
13 Q. That this involves a criminal report against people who attacked
14 Prijedor, which then caused the avalanche of incidents and consequences.
15 A. I can see from the report that it's from that time-period, that
16 the persons mentioned there are the persons who were involved. I knew
17 only one name. I didn't know who was else with him. I knew about all
18 that even before there were attempts through Mr. Sadikovic to get in
19 touch with him and because we knew each other from before the war and
20 tried to sort things out. And I did mention that I went to the barracks
21 and -- to talk to him after the attack, but I don't know whether he felt
22 ashamed; did he feel bad that he didn't take my advice that I sent
23 through him through Dr. Sadikovic. He just left. And so this is about
24 the relevant period.
25 Q. And then further in the text, we see that groups that took part
1 in the attack, they are described. Do you know that they came from
2 across -- from the other side of the Sana River?
3 A. Yes, that's correct. A colleague of mine, she lives in one of
4 the flats, in one of the three buildings where you had people from
5 different ethnic groups, and she told me that she had recognised a
6 colleague of hers who was limping, and she saw him crawling next to the
7 building. I only heard it from her. I didn't see it myself. She also
8 told me his name, but that I forgot.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether
10 I have provided you with sufficient grounds for this, but I would like to
11 tender this document.
12 MS. PIDWELL: Objection, Your Honours. This witness said that he
13 didn't -- wasn't aware of any criminal reports that had been filed in
14 Prijedor, whether civilian or military, and even though he can talk a
15 little bit, very generally, about the -- the contents of the -- purported
16 contents of this document, he can't speak to the truth of it, and he
17 can't speak to the authenticity of it. And it's -- I'm anticipating it's
18 being tendered to prove that criminal reports were, in fact, filed. And
19 he can't give any evidence on that issue.
20 JUDGE HALL: My question to Mr. Krgovic is -- on his application
21 to tender the document, is to what end?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, precisely because
23 during my examination of the witness, and also during the
24 examination-in-chief, he said that he didn't know about any criminal
25 reports but that he found it strange. And I wanted to illustrate that
1 there were such complaints and that for the purpose were the
2 investigations carried out in investigation centres and so on. But if
3 the Trial Chamber is of the opinion that it is sufficient -- that there
4 isn't a sufficient nexus established, then we can maybe MFI the document
5 and then introduce it through another witness. But I do believe that
6 document is relevant because it demonstrates the cause of all the later
7 incidents, what the witness talked about, the attack, and then
8 disarmament of the military -- of -- of the Muslim paramilitary
9 formations.
10 So this is the purpose of this document. There are two reasons,
11 rather. The first one that I mentioned is that I tried to establish a
12 link with statement by this witness that there were criminal reports;
13 and, secondly, all the facts, attack on Prijedor, the reasons for the
14 later conflict. All that can be seen from this document.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, the Chamber is wondering if this
17 criminal report is made against anyone who was detained at Omarska, and,
18 indeed, whether the criminal report comes out of the interrogations that
19 were carried out at Omarska.
20 Is there any evidence of this?
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm afraid we will
22 have to then wait for a witness who will come who will talk about this
23 very topic. It is a man who was a member of this mixed team consisting
24 of public and military security services, and he will be able to speak
25 about that.
1 I tried to avoid putting this question to this witness and keep
2 only discussing the adjudicated facts, but I thought maybe because the
3 witness is familiar with the events and because he could recognise the
4 signature of Mr. Zeljaja, that it would be better to use him to introduce
5 this document, but ...
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we will -- thank you. So we will
8 wait. Thank you.
10 Q. Just one more question, Mr. Miskovic, for the end.
11 You told us about your - how shall I put it? - disagreements with
12 the leadership in Prijedor and with your disapproval of what was going on
13 in Prijedor. You told us that you had problems in your attempts to
14 replace the top echelons of Prijedor authorities.
15 A. Yes. We even had Municipal Assembly sessions in order to achieve
16 this. I told you, or I told the Prosecutor, that even the military would
17 come to the assemblies carrying rifles headed by their commander, and
18 that was, in a way, pressure exerted against us. Their intention was to
19 make sure that these people would not replaced, but in the end we
20 succeeded. I think I described this to you during my testimony. I think
21 it was while I was answering to the Prosecutor's Office.
22 Q. And then you said that the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor managed
23 to replace Simo Drljaca through assistance of Krajisnik?
24 A. Yes. We initiated that, and he did arrive. He used his
25 authority and assisted us to have Simo Drljaca replaced.
1 Q. Because he had support both by the local military, the political
2 structures such as Stakic and the others, and it was very difficult to
3 have him replaced.
4 A. Well, not the politics. The political structures were for his
5 replacement. But he did have the government structures and the military
6 behind him. I'm talking only about the leadership segment. There was
7 coordination and cooperation between them. And that's why things went
8 the way they went.
9 Q. And the official position of the party of the SDS, of the
10 Executive Board, yourself, was that you did not stand behind Simo Drljaca
11 or the municipal authorities; am I right?
12 A. Well, we wanted to replace the leadership. I explained why. It
13 took us a while achieve it. The president of the Executive Board, we
14 managed to replace him without too many problems. However, the last one
15 that we had replaced was Mr. Drljaca, who was the chief of MUP. And as I
16 explained, it was only through the assistance of Mr. Krajisnik that we
17 succeeded.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Miskovic.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
20 questions for this witness.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Miskovic.
25 A. Good day.
1 Q. My name is Slobodan Cvijetic, and I represent Mr. Stanisic.
2 Mr. Krgovic exhausted most of the questions relevant for you. We
3 have an agreement whereby we try and focus our questions in this way, so
4 my cross-examination will consist of only making a few clarifications in
5 relation to your testimony so far.
6 Yesterday you were asked by Madam Pidwell -- or, rather, after
7 she put a question to you, you asked whether you would be allowed to
8 portray the genesis of the events which was something that reflected your
9 fears of something like that happening again --
10 A. And fears of the people.
11 Q. -- and the steps you took to achieve that. And then in answering
12 to my colleague Mr. Krgovic, you provided a further explanation of all
13 that.
14 However -- we've been monitoring the transcript. And I know
15 you're aware of the way you speak, and because of that, two crucial
16 things failed to make the transcript. We'll deal with those, and then
17 we'll drop that subject.
18 You will agree with me that the area of the municipality of
19 Prijedor and Kozara was an area where, in the course of the
20 Second World War, the largest genocide against Serbian People was
21 committed anywhere in former Yugoslavia.
22 A. I cannot define it precisely like that. First of all, I don't
23 hail from Prijedor; I hail from Kljuc. But, yes, I went to school there
24 since 1959. We have a house there, and we've been living there ever
25 since. However, the historical facts that we studied about in school and
1 the documents that were being shown then, various visits to Jasenovac's
2 memorial area, then stories by people from Kozara region about their
3 memories. All that comprises my knowledge of the so-called Kozara epos.
4 We also had to study Stojanka Majka Knezopoljka's poem by
5 Skender Kulenovic, and then --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last
7 sentence in his answer.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After 18 years only -- only after
9 18 years the first soldier from Knezopolje could join the army, because
10 there were no one of the right age. But there were two modes of
11 suffering of people from Kozara: One was in the -- one of the groups
12 were those who were part of the 1st Partisan Brigade who were fighting
13 elsewhere; and then also there was another group who remained in the
14 Kozara region and who were taken by Ustashas to Jasenovac camp, whereas
15 children were taken to camp for children in Jastrebarsko.
16 At that time, in Yugoslavia, all the citizens of Yugoslavia had
17 an opportunity to learn about one such story. It was an actress,
18 Frajt - I forget her first name - but after 25 years only she learned of
19 her identity. It was a family from Bosanska Gradiska. She went there to
20 meet the survivors, I think it was an uncle of hers, but she was very
21 grateful to the Frajt family that gave everything necessary to have a
22 normal life. But she is an illustration of how the children had
23 suffered, children who had ended up in the Jastrebarsko camp. Some of
24 them were killed and some were given to families that couldn't have
25 children. So that's the tragedy that remained in the memories of the
1 people from the Kozara region.
2 With new generations, this seemed to have been forgotten. There
3 were new generations there that forgot about all that, but then they
4 found themselves again in a situation, a similar situation, in 1991.
5 Just a moment. For these reasons, I pointed this out to
6 Mirza Mujavic [phoen]. I warned him: Let's not do that. You know what
7 happened in the area. Let us not stir up old fires. He went to
8 secondary school with me and by chance his father and my father did their
9 military service in Varazdin. Life is funny. So it was my moral
10 obligation to warn him about that.
11 It was the same with Fikret Kadiric. I also tried with him. If
12 you read the documents, will you see that I contacted everybody and
13 warned them of this, not to take these things lightly and think that some
14 things can be done without consequences.
15 Q. Thank you. I believe that we have now established the historical
16 link with the events that ensued. We don't have to repeat that anymore.
17 I believe it's sufficiently clear now.
18 Let me ask you something else now. The way I understood
19 Variant B, or the way you explained it to us, in essence, it was the
20 establishment of Serb authorities and Serb municipalities in area where
21 the Serbs were the majority population. Or, in other words, the
22 establishment of Serb municipalities by peaceful, political means, which
23 means by establishing a municipality, or Municipal Assembly, and all
24 other bodies that would function in that part of a particular
25 municipality where the Serbs were the majority population.
1 Have I correctly understood the essence of the implementation of
2 that variant in the Prijedor municipality?
3 A. Well, that's partly correct. It's a fact that Variant B, in
4 Prijedor municipality, envisaged the establishment of authorities and a
5 Serb municipality. I said as much answering the Prosecutor's question.
6 However, the Serb municipality was never established in Prijedor
7 because of subsequent events. However, representatives of the
8 authorities were appointed, and there are documents from the meetings
9 that were mentioned. Kuruzovic was at the head of the TO; Simo was at
10 the head of the police; Stakic was supposed to take the position of
11 Assembly president, because in the existing authorities he was deputy;
12 and Simo Kovacevic was supposed to become president of the Executive
13 Committee. But all that was only on paper.
14 The document reads: In case of danger for the Serbian People,
15 take action to prevent that from happening. And that was the purpose of
16 all our activities. So only if the Serb people should be in danger.
17 Only in that case, these structures would be activated.
18 Q. Now I must be clear. When -- when I said "where the Serbs are
19 the majority population," I meant the local communes and that part of the
20 municipality where the Serbs were the majority population; right?
21 A. It was supposed to be like that, but it was never implemented.
22 And I explained as much. It wasn't done so as not to irritate the other
23 side. And then check-points were set up; I explained all that in detail.
24 And all that was successful. There were no incidents. I explained that
25 as well.
1 Q. That's why I asked you to explain the genesis of the attempt to
2 divide the area. So it was done pursuant to an agreement with the Muslim
3 side, and you went about it until that telefax arrived. So the talks
4 were successful until that moment, and then things were -- started going
5 wrong.
6 A. The talks were not about the division but about preventing
7 confrontation, that all of us, in our structure, should keep a lid on
8 those who were more extreme in their views. On the Serb side is -- some
9 White Eagles appeared, but we immediately locked them up. Everybody who
10 tried to stick out and do anything out of the ordinary was immediately
11 neutralized.
12 Q. Now, if you take into consideration the information received from
13 the -- from military security about the preparations of the Muslims for
14 armed conflict and if you consider the undisputed fact that the
15 municipality of Prijedor was attacked - and it was a well-organised
16 military attack by the Muslim forces - you will agree with me when I
17 conclude that taking over power in Prijedor municipality would
18 have some -- been something the Muslims had done, unless the Serbs had
19 been faster.
20 Do you agree with me that there was a real jeopardy of that
21 happening?
22 A. The events there, such as shirking some solutions, avoiding them,
23 could give rise to suspicion that they had afterthoughts, a hidden
24 agenda. But I was in no position to know about that.
25 The first information I received about the organisation of armed
1 units was received from Slavko Ecimovic. And through Dr. Esad Sadikovic,
2 I tried to find out whether he knew what that was leading to. And I was
3 surprised that such a person was at the head of all that and that he's
4 willing to engage in such activities. I've already explained what --
5 what I mean. I have no need to repeat.
6 However, the attack on Prijedor one month after the takeover of
7 power, in that attack they came up to 50 or 70 metres from the MUP or the
8 Municipal Assembly of Prijedor. That alone speaks for itself. This was
9 a well-organised and well-targeted military operation. But their
10 unrefutable -- there is unrefutable evidence that they launched this
11 massive attack. I don't know, however, how many people they have, but
12 the military structures certainly do.
13 Q. Thank you. I'm done dealing with this topic.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honour, I believe it's
15 time for the break anyway, so I will move on to another topic after the
16 break.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We would resume in 20 minutes.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Let us continue. I noticed that you stated to Ms. Pidwell that
22 the JNA played a role in all the events in Prijedor. I understood you to
23 say that you said that, at that time, you involved the JNA in the talks
24 as the only legal and official armed force on which you could rely as a
25 guarantor of an agreement.
1 A. Since all units were subordinate to the command of the JNA, and
2 that's been shown in the evidence led by the Prosecution, Commander Arsic
3 and his deputy were involved in the talks, and they were the only armed
4 force.
5 You may remember a document showing that the JNA was unwilling to
6 protect -- in case the JNA was unwilling to protect the Serb people in
7 the area, then we would call upon all Serbs who were in the ranks of the
8 JNA and the police to leave their units, to establish an army and a
9 police to protect the people in the area. But that has already been
10 elaborated during the direct examination.
11 The subsequent events show that they, indeed, became active, and
12 all units were under their command and control. There was a unified
13 command. And there were no -- no others out there who acted on their
14 own. All units were under the command of the army, the JNA.
15 Q. In accordance with the principle of unified command in combat
16 activities, that is, indeed, so. There is only one command at the top of
17 the pyramid; right?
18 A. Yes. All units were subordinate to the JNA command in Prijedor,
19 and the commander was Colonel Arsic.
20 Q. Thank you. Let us clarify the wartime police stations which you
21 spoke about.
22 The information about the wartime police stations and their
23 establishment is something I found in military rules and regulations.
24 Please explain to me this process of establishing such wartime police
25 stations and the drafting of men to serve there. Is that done by the
1 military body in charge?
2 A. In Yugoslavia, until the war broke out in 1991, the organisation
3 was such that there was the military department, as we called it, which
4 assigned a wartime assignment to everybody so that everybody knew where
5 they belonged, what their position was, where they should report in case
6 of war or imminent threat of war. And the same applied to the police.
7 According to my wartime assignment, I was commander of the
8 reserve police station, Prijedor 2; I explained that already. And that
9 was in force since the early 1970s. There was also training done,
10 because people were assigned to those positions who, in peacetime, did
11 other jobs. But when there was imminent threat of war, they were
12 reassigned to carry out other jobs and take other positions and be ready
13 to do that at any given moment. That is the concept of reserve forces of
14 both the military and the police.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Line 13 should read "other jobs,"
17 rather than "over jobs." That's what the witness said.
18 Q. When I asked you this question, I had in mind the answers you
19 provided to the Prosecutor but also what your statement given to the
20 Tribunal reads.
21 Your position of command of a wartime police station and the
22 personnel other -- personnel assigned to you was actually your wartime
23 assignment?
24 A. Yes. Our wartime assignment, that was given to us by the
25 military department. That's what we called the body that took care of
1 the wartime assignments of able-bodied men, of the able-bodied
2 population.
3 Q. So let us be precise. That is your wartime assignment, your
4 military assignments, that you get from the military body in charge?
5 A. It was called the Department of All People's Defence. That was
6 its name. And there was a hierarchical structure in place from the
7 Federation, through the republics, down to the municipality.
8 Q. I will finish with this topic. I was mistaken in believing that
9 it can be found in the evidence of the Prosecution, but now I see that
10 you applied for some sort of certificate. And it says that at the time
11 when you were commander of the wartime police station --
12 A. For three months.
13 Q. -- it is entered into your military ID as participation in a war;
14 am I right?
16 Q. Thank you. I will not search for this document because I have a
17 hard time finding it.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us show the witness another
19 document, Your Honours, 1D00-0924.
20 Q. Mr. Miskovic, I hope you can read it. Or do you want us to
21 enlarge it?
22 A. I can read it.
23 Q. Read it to yourself and then I'll ask you about it.
24 A. I've read it.
25 Q. As you can see, this is a conclusion of the Crisis Staff dated
1 6 June 1992. The blockade remains in force. Obviously it was imposed
2 earlier.
4 Q. And the procedure is outlined for leaving Prijedor municipality.
5 Do you remember the conclusion?
6 A. No, I don't. I didn't know about it earlier. Now, having read
7 the conclusion, I can see that it existed.
8 Q. All right. You don't know the document. But do you know about
9 the blockade and the limitation of movement?
10 A. Yes, of course. I explained the circumstances. There was also a
11 curfew.
12 Q. So my question is, so this blockade and the limitation of
13 movement and the curfew applied to all citizens, irrespective of their
14 ethnicity; right?
15 A. Yes, yes. Even to me.
16 Q. Even leaving the Prijedor municipality without a permit wasn't
17 possible, even for you. So if you wanted to go to Banja Luka, you had to
18 apply for a permit; right?
19 A. Yes. I needed a permit to leave Prijedor. Or if I wanted to go
20 to Serbia, also I needed a special permit.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, it's not entirely clear to me why
22 this blockade was upheld. Judging from the dates of the Crisis Staff's
23 conclusion, this happened just shortly after the attack on Prijedor by
24 the BiH army. So what would the purpose be of preventing people from
25 leaving the town?
1 Mr. Miskovic, can you help us out here?
2 A. The way I see it is that control was imposed over movements of
3 citizens in order to know who was leaving the town and who was coming in.
4 That's my assumption.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Indeed, that is what we can read from the
6 Crisis Staff's conclusion.
7 But my question is: Immediately after the town had been subject
8 of an attack, presumably in the attempt to take over the control of
9 Prijedor, why would you prevent people from leaving -- I mean, if I, as a
10 normal citizen, had been living in Prijedor at the time, the only thing I
11 would have had in mind would be to -- to get out of there as soon as
12 possible before the next attack would come.
13 A. What you say is absolutely correct. But there was a blockade in
14 all areas. Just on the way to Serbia, there were 50 check-points you had
15 to pass through. Everyone had to be physically checked and his papers
16 had to be inspected. Some Muslims took other people's documents and
17 travelled to Serbia that way, if they had errands or business there, and
18 then they would return in the same way. Many went to Belgrade, and I
19 would run into them in Belgrade. They were waiting for all this to blow
20 over, in order to return, again, with other people's identity papers.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
24 Q. The last thing I want to show you -- in fact, a video was shown
25 to you, and I think it was stopped showing a picture of Omarska camp, and
1 I think you recognised it. I have a much better quality photograph.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I hope the Trial Chamber and the
3 Prosecution won't mind that I didn't announce it because it's just a
4 photograph.
5 Q. But it would be a good thing for you to look at it and to tell
6 us, on your visit to Omarska, where you went.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'll give you the number:
8 ERN R093-1252.
9 Q. Mr. Miskovic, I think this is a very good image, a very good
10 quality photograph.
11 A. From the air.
12 Q. Yes, from the air.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if we could give this
14 electronic pen to Mr. Miskovic for him to show us where he entered and
15 which part of the camp the delegation actually visited.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see where the stairs are,
17 on which building. I suppose it's this one here, judging by the position
18 of the people who were there.
20 Q. Put a circle around the building where you actually went inside.
21 A. I suppose it's this one.
22 Q. And put number 1.
24 Q. Very well. That is, then, the building into which you had gone.
25 A. I suppose so. But there were stairs on the side.
1 Q. Can you draw from which direction you came?
2 A. I don't know how the car drove in. But the car stopped just
3 outside the building, we went straight inside, up the stairs ...
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I know that I did
5 not announce this document, but it's a photograph that would complement
6 the testimony of this witness. He had told us a lot about this visit,
7 and he has just explained about where exactly he went. And I would like
8 to tender it.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, I wonder if we could have the
10 witness also indicate just where he was able to observe the line of the
11 prisoners. I think the prisoner -- the witness said that he saw a line
12 of some 150 to 180 prisoners lined up somewhere.
13 Mr. Miskovic, could you indicate on the photo where that was?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If this is the photograph of the
15 facility which we visited - but I'm not sure it is - then the citizens
16 were standing here, in this area, outside. And as we were climbing up
17 the stairs, we saw them.
19 Q. Could you put number 2 there.
20 A. And if this was this building here, then they would have been
21 lined up here. 3 and 4.
22 I can't see, because this is an aerial photograph. It looks like
23 a map on this image. I don't see any elements that I could use to
24 determine in which part we went in. I don't see even the gate.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if the Trial Chamber
1 is satisfied with your answer and if this clarifies the position enough.
3 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
4 There's something I'm not clear about. Did -- Mr. Miskovic, did
5 I understand your answer to Judge Harhoff's question to be, in effect,
6 that the building that you had originally marked as 1, that it is either
7 that or the building that you marked as 3? Is that the effect of your
8 answer?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just said it. I'm not sure which
10 building it was. If it's building number 1, then the people were lined
11 up as I marked with 2. If it was the building number 3, then the people
12 were lined up as shown in 4. Because I can't see those stairs.
13 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... okay. Well,
14 bearing in mind that you can't see the stairs, are you able to say,
15 nevertheless -- well, I suppose I should ask, as a preliminary question,
16 whether the room into which you entered had been those which overlooked a
17 portion of the yard. Can you remember?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember. That room did not
19 overlook this part of the yard where the prisoners were standing. It
20 overlooked the other side.
21 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you. In
22 which -- Thank you. In which case I needn't ask the question I intended
23 to ask. Thank you, sir.
24 THE REGISTRAR: And for the record, Your Honours, the exhibit
25 number is 1D385.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Finally, Your Honours, I just
2 forgot to tender the previous document concerning the measures of
3 blockade. It is true that the witness said he was not familiar with the
4 document; but he was familiar enough with the measures of blockade. He
5 described what they consisted of and to whom they applied, and I believe
6 this could be relevant.
7 I therefore suggest that 1D00-0924 be admitted into evidence.
8 JUDGE HALL: What does that add to the oral testimony of the
9 witness though? I mean, the witness has described the events and
10 measures that were in place, so what does the document add?
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it adds the
12 identification of who prescribed these measures, who adopted, who passed.
13 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D386, Your Honours.
16 Q. Mr. Miskovic, thank you for answering my questions.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
19 JUDGE HALL: Cross -- re-examination.
20 Before Ms. Pidwell begins, for the record, the order admitting
21 the last-mentioned document as an exhibit was by a majority;
22 Judge Harhoff dissenting.
23 Re-examination by Ms. Pidwell:
24 Q. Sir, yesterday you were asked some questions by Mr. Krgovic, and
25 I wanted to ask you just some clarifying questions now about those.
1 You spoke about the meetings that you chaired in your role as the
2 president of the SDS, and you said that there was never any talk about
3 violence amongst -- against Muslims, about expelling them or any
4 discrimination.
5 Do you recall making that statement?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. Now, I want to show you a document that -- that we looked at
8 together.
9 MS. PIDWELL: It's P ...
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MS. PIDWELL: It was admitted -- sorry, under P377.
12 Sorry, Your Honours.
14 MS. PIDWELL: It's P1619. Sorry, P1619.
15 Q. Do you recall discussing this document, sir, which was the
16 minutes of the Municipal Board meeting on the 9th of May?
17 A. Yes, yes, I remember that.
18 Q. And you'll see --
20 Q. -- under the heading of Milan Kovacevic, that there was a
21 discussion about the replacement of staff which had been carried out with
22 all the SDA leaders removed from their functions in the
23 Municipal Assembly.
24 Do you see that?
25 A. Yes, I can see that.
1 Q. Were any SDA leaders replaced under the direction of the
2 Municipal Board?
3 A. This is not an order of the Municipal Board. This was done by
4 the Crisis Staff after the takeover. The date is 9 May, so it was after
5 the takeover and after the institution of the Crisis Staff. They did
6 this. And as I said in my previous testimony, these are officials,
7 officials. Those who held certain posts. Other employees remained in
8 their places until the conflict broke out. I explained that even
9 earlier, when you asked me the same thing. It's not in dispute.
10 This was just discussed, in fact, reported, at the session of the
11 Municipal Board.
12 Q. Yes. But the -- the SDA leaders who took over, took over on the
13 day of the takeover, didn't they? Not at this later date on the -- on
14 the 9th of May?
15 A. That was just the inner circle, the main officials, the president
16 of the Municipal Assembly, and a few other people whom I can't remember
17 now. But these are just officials, not employees. And it says
18 "officials" here.
19 Q. Yes, but were any Serb officials removed from their posts?
20 A. I can't really remember. I think there were such cases too.
21 Perhaps not immediately. Perhaps a bit later. If I can remember,
22 Spiro Marmas [phoen], the recording secretary, I think he was also
23 replaced. I think that happened too. But I can't give you any names. I
24 wouldn't have been able to tell you about this either, if you hadn't
25 shown me this document.
1 In businesses, Serbs were replaced. One person was removed to
2 make place for another. People resisted. That happened too. For
3 instance, the director of the post office, Marko Pavic, who is now at the
4 head of the municipality of Prijedor, he was removed as director, and
5 Slavko - I can't remember the last name - was appointed in his stead.
6 So, yes, people were replaced.
7 Q. And the Serbs who you are talking about who were replaced, they
8 were replaced with people who were submitting their names forward on
9 behalf of the SDS; is that correct?
10 A. Serbs. Yes. This was the core staff. But many people were
11 replaced who were not even members of the SDS. For instance, the
12 director of a large -- of a large enterprise. There was no general rule.
13 Q. Sir, let's have a look at another document.
14 MS. PIDWELL: P377, please.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, line 6, page 41, I don't
16 think the witness's answer is properly recorded. As far as I understood,
17 the witness said that many people were not replaced even if they were not
18 members of the SDS. Perhaps Ms. Pidwell can --
19 MS. PIDWELL: [Previous translation continues] ... I appreciate if
20 my friend wouldn't tell the witness what he thinks he heard, but rather
21 just ask us to clarify that, please.
22 Q. Sir, I'm going ask the question again, and I'd ask to you repeat
23 your answer, please.
24 The Serbs who you were talking about being replaced, they were
25 replaced with people whose names had been submitted on behalf of the SDS;
1 is that correct?
2 A. They were members of the SDS. They were members of the SDS. But
3 I said there were also cases when executives were not members of the SDS
4 but they were not members of the S [as interpreted], like director of
5 Zitopromet, Vaso Cvijic. Marko Pavic, at the time, was not a member of
6 the S; he was director of the post services. And he would later become
7 member of the SDS in 1993, and he would occupy the highest post.
8 Q. Let's have a look at P377, please.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: Sorry, again, just the same. [Microphone not
10 activated] ... the same mistake. This part is really missing.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
12 be asked to not only speak clearly but to enunciate as well.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ...
14 MS. PIDWELL: I'm really in Your Honours' hands with this matter.
15 I wonder whether we need to seek independent verification of what the
16 witness has said, because it's twice that the Defence have intervened.
17 And I'm not sure whether it's with -- the interpreters have not caught it
18 or whether it's a different interpretation of what was said.
19 JUDGE HALL: Well, inasmuch as what the interpreters had last
20 said, perhaps verification isn't going to assist. If -- if, in fact, the
21 tapes are indistinct.
22 So, Mr. Witness, you heard what the interpreters have indicated,
23 that there is a problem in getting clearly what you are saying. So
24 the -- Ms. Pidwell, I would ask you to try one more time.
25 And, Mr. Witness, I would remind you of what the interpreters
1 said, to speak into the microphone and speak as distinctly as possible so
2 that there is no confusion.
3 MS. PIDWELL:
4 Q. Sir, we were talking about people being replaced from their
5 posts, and my question was: The Serbs who you said were being replaced
6 in their posts were being replaced by people whose names were being
7 submitted on behalf of the SDS. And can you try and please provide your
8 answer for a third time, slowly.
9 A. Those people were members of the SDS. They were nominated by the
10 government, as reported by the president of the Executive Board,
11 Mico Kovacevic, that is, the Crisis Staff. There were Serbs, executives,
12 directors, who were replaced. Let's take the director of postal
13 services, Marko Pavic, who is currently at the head of the municipality
14 of Prijedor. He was then replaced by the -- as post office director by
15 another man. There were cases when directors were not replaced, although
16 they were members of the SDS -- although they were not members of the
17 SDS. And I took as an example the director of Zitopromet, Vaso Cvijic,
18 who remained the whole time in that post.
19 Is it okay now?
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... third time,
21 yeah. Finally, that's the correction.
22 MS. PIDWELL:
23 Q. And when you say Marko Pavic was replaced, was he replaced by
24 another Serb or was he replaced by someone of another ethnicity?
25 A. By a Serb, a member of the SDS. Later, in 1993, as I said, Marko
1 would come to occupy a top post in the SDS party in Prijedor. But at
2 that time, he wasn't a member.
3 MS. PIDWELL: Can we now have a look at document P377, please.
4 Q. Sir, this is a document dated the 28th of May. It's a dispatch,
5 a telegram, to SJB chiefs from Stojan Zupljanin, stating that employees
6 who did not sign the declaration shall be dismissed as of 15 April 1992.
7 Do you see that?
8 A. I can't see that. Perhaps the letters can be enlarged, although
9 part of the text is very faint.
10 All the employees who did not sign the solemn declaration --
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have two
12 objections: First, I don't see how this follows from my
13 cross-examination; that's one objection. And then when you make a
14 determination and after hearing from the Prosecutor, I can make the other
15 objection.
16 But there was no question in my cross-examination on this topic.
17 And the witness, by the way, was not in the police at the time, so I
18 don't see how he can answer.
19 JUDGE HALL: That, too, occurred to me, Ms. Pidwell. How is this
20 relevant in re-examination?
21 MS. PIDWELL: I prefaced the -- this line of questioning,
22 Your Honours, by taking you to the -- the portion in the transcript,
23 15277 onwards, where the witness talked about there being no
24 discrimination against Muslims, no -- no -- no expulsions or measures
25 taken or discussed in SDS meetings about these measures being taken. And
1 he's -- so I took him to the first document which was when, in my
2 submission, there was a discussion of a discriminatory nature. And then
3 when he said that this only applied to the leadership, this document
4 shows that it actually filtered down to employees and other members. And
5 that's where I was going with this.
6 JUDGE HALL: Let me hear Mr. Krgovic's second objection.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't want to
8 object to the line of questioning. My question about the meetings of the
9 SDS was about the period before the takeover of power, and it -- the
10 question was: At those meetings, before the takeover of power, was there
11 talk of discriminatory measures? That was the line of my questioning.
12 I was focussing narrowly on that topic. With no question of mine
13 did I deal with the topic of the events after the takeover of power. You
14 will not find that anywhere in my cross-examination.
15 And, secondly, when the document was read to the witness, only
16 part of the sentence was read to him, but not all of it.
17 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Pidwell, it seems to me that there is merit in
18 Mr. Krgovic's objection.
19 MS. PIDWELL: Well, Your Honours, the -- the questions that were
20 formulated by Mr. Krgovic from my recollection were not specific to the
21 period before the takeover. If I can -- if you bear with me,
22 Your Honours, I can take you to the appropriate portion in the
23 transcript.
24 JUDGE HALL: Well, in any event, broadening this out, isn't it
25 the -- a matter for inference and argument at the end of the day? How
1 are the answers of this witness at this point going to assist?
2 MS. PIDWELL: Well, Your Honours, he has made some pretty broad
3 statements about no discriminatory measures being put in place, and my
4 questions were focussed on that, to clarify that.
5 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, but within the confines of -- of --
6 the witness's knowledge of the -- if that's not stating the obvious. But
7 I don't wish you to wonder too far afield.
8 MS. PIDWELL: Certainly, sir.
9 Q. Mr. Miskovic, were you aware that police employees who did not
10 sign the loyalty oath were dismissed from the new police force in
11 Prijedor?
12 A. I understood your question to be, initially, as whether the SDS
13 had on its agenda discriminatory measures toward other ethnicities,
14 and --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... please answer the
16 question --
17 A. -- to that I replied --
18 Q. Please answer the question that I've just put to you, which
19 was --
21 Q. -- which was: Are you aware or were you aware that police
22 employees were -- who did not sign the loyalty oath were dismissed?
23 A. Well, they are mostly policemen who I know. I met them even
24 afterward. And, certainly, I got that information from them. And
25 earlier, I wanted to explain, because you had also asked me about that.
1 Q. Thank you. I want to move on to another topic now.
2 You were questioned a number of times yesterday about the
3 situation in Prijedor after the takeover, which occurred on the
4 30th of April.
5 Do you recall that?
7 Q. And you described the situation in Prijedor as being calm until
8 the 30th of May, when the Muslim forces attacked again.
9 Do you recall saying that?
11 Q. Were you actually in Prijedor for the month of May 1992?
12 A. I was.
13 Q. And were you aware that the town of Hambarine was shelled in that
14 month?
15 A. Yes, but that was because two soldiers were killed in Hambarine.
16 And since all measures and appeals to surrender the perpetrators of that
17 attack were fruitless, the military dealt with the issue. So the police
18 didn't have anything to do with it. And the military shot from their
19 weapons. And the appeals were broadcast on Radio Prijedor, and many
20 people insisted, called up the radio station on the phone, et cetera.
21 Even Mirza Mujadzic called. I think it was before the takeover of power,
22 but I'm not sure.
23 Q. And, sir, are you also aware that the village of Brezevo was
24 shelled in the month of May?
25 A. There is neither Prezevo nor Brezevo in the municipality of
1 Prijedor. There is no such place.
2 Q. Maybe it's my pronunciation. Brizevo?
3 A. And I don't remember any other occasion of shelling except for
4 that one.
5 Q. Well, you're familiar with the town of Kozarac?
6 A. Yes, I am.
7 Q. And are you aware that the town of Kozarac was shelled?
8 A. Yes, I am. I said as much, replying to a previous question of
9 yours. I went even up to Dera to see some destroyed buildings and so on.
10 But that's what I said earlier.
11 MS. PIDWELL: Can we have a look at document, please. It's
12 P00432/12.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE HALL: You are aware, of course, Ms. Pidwell, that this is
15 a confidential document?
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have not shown this
18 document to the witness, nor did I ask a line of questioning about this
19 report, and I don't know how it can be useful to the Prosecution.
20 The Prosecutor can ask the witness what she wants but not about
21 this document, which I never showed.
23 MS. PIDWELL: Perhaps we can go into private session while I deal
24 with this issue, directing Your Honours about the reasons for the
25 confidentiality and so forth.
1 JUDGE HALL: That's also an answer to Mr. Krgovic's objection
2 about relevance and whether this is something that arises out of
3 cross-examination?
4 MS. PIDWELL: Well, yes, Your Honour. The witness said on more
5 than one occasion throughout the course of his cross-examination
6 yesterday and today that the situation in Prijedor was calm until the
7 Muslims attacked on the 30th of May.
8 Now, it's the Prosecution's case -- and perhaps the witness can
9 take off his headphones for this explanation.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Could you [Microphone not activated] ...
11 MS. PIDWELL: -- that the events in Prijedor in May were not calm.
12 Indeed, a lot of villages were being shelled, mosques were being burned,
13 people were being rounded up, the town of Kozarac was shelled and the
14 inhabitants taken to Keraterm and Omarska. And so this document is a --
15 is a weekly bulletin of the police, stating that those events had taken
16 place. I want to put it to him to see whether he wants to revise his
17 testimony that the situation was, indeed, calm in the municipality at
18 that time.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, but this was a line
20 of questioning pursued by the Prosecution in direct examination.
21 The witness already replied to it in the direct examination. But
22 in the cross-examination, I asked no questions about these events,
23 neither about this report nor anything else. I only asked about
24 Prijedor. I did not ask anything about Hambarine or Kozarac or any other
25 settlement around Prijedor. I asked questions only about the town of
1 Prijedor.
2 The Prosecutor could have pursued this in the direct examination.
3 If the Prosecutor is allowed to question the witness about this, then I
4 seek permission to examine the witness again. The Prosecutor should have
5 asked these questions in the examination-in-chief, rather than in the
6 re-direct, because I never asked questions about these events.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to transcript page
9 15236 of the Prosecution examination-in-chief. That's where the
10 Prosecution stopped and failed to ask any additional questions.
11 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honour, these matters are covered by
12 adjudicated facts. I did not in my examination-in-chief cover any items
13 covered by adjudicated facts because we have the benefit of them and we
14 have the limitation of time. When my learned friend Mr. Krgovic was
15 cross-examining, on numerous occasions he asked the witness about the
16 events in Prijedor and, particularly, after the takeover and relating to
17 the attack by the Muslims.
18 Now, the -- it was raised on no less than three occasions on --
19 during his cross-examination, and the upshot of that was that the witness
20 was trying to say that after the events in Prijedor on the 30th of April,
21 the situation was calm. There were no incidents. There was nothing
22 happening. And he said that on numerous occasions under
23 cross-examination.
24 For example, page 1593 [sic] -- my learned friend asked the
25 question:
1 "... you didn't get a specific instruction on the 30th
2 or" anything "around that date ..."
3 "No, no."
4 So this is 30th of April.
5 "No, no. We just activated what existed on paper ..."
6 And then he carries on to say:
7 "There were no incidents, no conflicts, nothing. Like in any
8 town, there were Muslim and Croat bars and other shops in Prijedor that
9 were not touched. One can prove that. But later on, there was an
10 escalation which had its consequences. But that's a different story."
11 And what I'm trying to establish with Your Honours is that later
12 on, being after the takeover, there was an escalation, and that conflicts
13 did ensue in Prijedor. And that is what I'm trying to clarify in
14 re-examination.
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please proceed, Ms. Pidwell.
17 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, Your Honours, going back to the document,
18 which is a confidential document, we may need to go into private session
19 for my explanation on this.
20 JUDGE HALL: Private session, please.
20 THE REGISTRAR: And we're back in open session, Your Honours.
22 Q. Sir, you have a document in front of you which is headed
23 "Weekly Update" for the period of 8 to 25 May 1992. Do you see that?
25 MS. PIDWELL: And if we could turn, please, to the next page.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you could enlarge it so I can
2 see it.
4 Q. And if can I direct you simply to -- it's an example to the
5 first -- the third paragraph down:
6 "On the territory covered by the centre, there were
7 23 explosions, 24 cases of law and order violations" and so forth.
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 MS. PIDWELL: And if we could turn to the next page --
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Pidwell, before we leave this page, my eye
12 just caught sight of the previous paragraph, which reads that:
13 "The direct cause leading to the escalation of the situation in
14 Prijedor area was an attack by the Muslim paramilitary units on a
15 military vehicle and reservists returning home from the front line."
16 My question to the witness is: Do you recall this incident,
17 Mr. Miskovic?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I recall. It was dealt with
19 in the examination-in-chief and in the cross-examination.
20 It's the situation when the Muslim forces, the paramilitary
21 units, attacked the soldiers belonging to the legal units returning home
22 from the front line. And huge efforts were made to -- to find the
23 perpetrators of that crime. An appeal was launched to the citizens to
24 give information, and some citizens called the studio and commented on
25 the event. That was explained. Both this case and the murder of the
1 Serb police officer on -- on the road.
2 I think that it was all clearly dealt with in Hambarine.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
4 Back to you, Ms. Pidwell.
6 Q. Sir, let's just not spend too long on this document. But if we
7 go to the top paragraph, if we're going backwards, you will see in the
8 first paragraph it reads:
9 "After an extended period of relative [sic] stable security
10 situation in the area covered by the Banja Luka CSB, the past week
11 brought fresh war destruction and new victims. The areas of Kupres,
12 Bosanska Krupa call for additional effort on our part, and we are
13 re-directing our forces to mopping up the area [sic] of Prijedor and
14 Bihac."
17 Q. Is that a reference to more police forces coming into the area of
18 Prijedor because of unrest?
19 A. I can only assume as much. Because I see that this is a wider
20 area.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that
22 there's a problem with the translation of the document. So if I could
23 ask the interpreters to sight-translate this section.
24 MS. PIDWELL: Are the interpreters able to read the first
25 paragraph of the document?
1 If Your Honours require that.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Well, the first paragraph of what appears --
3 no, what appears is the first paragraph on this page of the English
4 translation. Yes.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Our rules require that
6 somebody in the courtroom read out the text and then we can interpret it.
7 MS. PIDWELL: All right. After --
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MS. PIDWELL: I think that requires someone to read out the
10 Serbian text.
11 Q. Sir -- if the witness could -- if you could read the first
12 paragraph that you see in front of you.
14 JUDGE HALL: Could you read it out loud, sir.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "After an extended period of a
16 relatively calm security situation in the area of the Banja Luka CSB, the
17 previous week brought about new war destruction and victims. The areas
18 of Kupres and Bosanska Krupa still require additional efforts of ours,
19 and we are re-directing our forces to improving the situation in the
20 areas of Prijedor and Bihac. The situation is extremely complex ..."
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This was it, Your Honours, the
22 difference between mopping up and improving.
25 Q. I'll ask my question again then, sir.
1 Is this, what you've just read out, on your understanding, a
2 reference to more police forces coming into the area of Prijedor because
3 of unrest?
4 A. That's what one can conclude, reading this paragraph, as help, or
5 assistance.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [No interpretation]
8 Q. Sir, are you aware that the detention facilities of Omarska and
9 Keraterm were established in the month of May 1992?
10 A. I don't know the exact dates, when exactly it was. The
11 Crisis Staff did that, and it was long ago. Even what I heard I -- I've
12 forgotten till now. But Omarska, Keraterm - and what's the other
13 called? - Trnopolje certainly existed. That's not in dispute. But when
14 they were opened, I don't know.
15 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Pidwell, in terms of the breaks, I always keep
16 first and foremost in mind the rhythm which is necessary for those who
17 have the care of the accused persons to be aware of, but bearing in mind
18 that in fact our last 20-minute break was somewhat more than 60 seconds
19 multiplied by 20, I'm wondering whether it would be practical for us to
20 continue beyond the present time with a view to your completing your --
21 your re-examination. Or if you're going to be a substantial period of
22 time, we may as well take the break to get back on track.
23 MS. PIDWELL: I think it's preferable to take the break now,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
3 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, if I may, there's been a discussion
4 over the break between counsel over scheduling for the balance of the
5 week, and there is a -- one of the witnesses has a personal engagement
6 which requires him to leave before -- before the weekend. And,
7 accordingly, what the Prosecution is suggesting is that once we finish
8 with this witness, we carry on to the next witness, ST-098, as scheduled.
9 And we've spoken with the Defence counsel about the length of time for
10 her -- for her cross-examination, which was -- probably won't exceed four
11 hours in total, and then we are suggesting that we simply change the
12 batting order of the subsequent witnesses so that we are -- we call, as
13 the next witness, ST-163, in an effort to conclude his testimony and
14 cross-examination before the weekend and then finalize with the two new
15 witnesses. And, if necessary, one can spill over to the weekend.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So noted.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are not going to
18 discuss it before this witness. I think we should do so towards the end,
19 because one has to take into account the Defence's ability to prepare for
20 such changes. But we're not going to discuss it before the witness now.
22 Q. Sir, during the course of your cross-examination, it was put to
23 you that there were no armed clashes after the takeover on the
24 30th of April - and I'm referring specifically to page 15300 of the
25 transcript - and you responded that there were none and that you, indeed,
1 spoke to Mr. Cehajic after the conflict. And although he wasn't happy,
2 you still had a discussion with him.
4 A. I do. But it wasn't after the conflict; it was after the
5 takeover. It must have been a slip on your part.
6 Q. And after the -- do you recall how long after the takeover you
7 spoke with Mr. Cehajic?
8 A. Perhaps the next day, or two, or maximum, three days later.
9 Q. And do you know what happened to Mr. Cehajic?
10 A. At that time, I didn't know. I found out later. I heard.
11 Q. When was the last time that you saw him?
12 A. Well, I can't remember exactly when I last saw him. I just told
13 you when I spoke to him. His wife was a doctor, and I continued to see
14 her for a while later, but I can't remember when exactly I saw him last.
15 I -- I -- the last time we spoke, I can clearly see him in my mind's eye.
16 He was in a white shirt without a tie. And I knew him because my brother
17 taught in the high school together with him. My brother taught Serbian,
18 and he taught history. My wife worked with his wife in the same
19 hospital. My wife was a nurse, and his wife was a physician, a very nice
20 lady.
21 Q. When you went to Omarska, did you ask about his whereabouts and
22 why he was being detained there?
23 A. I did not inquire about him or anyone else. I told you already,
24 I didn't know who was detained there. I told you exactly how I came to
25 be there, under what circumstances, and for how long. At that time, I
1 didn't even know that he was there. I just supposed that many of those
2 people knew me, although I was unable to recognise them at that time for
3 the reasons that I already stated. I know that a large number of them
4 knew me because of the work I did before the war, because of the post I
5 held and later.
6 Q. So when did you actually find out that he was detained at
7 Omarska?
8 A. I'm telling, I don't know that he was detained in Omarska.
9 Q. Sir, you were asked some questions by my learned friend - and I'm
10 specifically referring to page 15287 of the transcript. You were asked
11 some questions about the arming of the Muslim side. And you said, in
12 answer to a question:
13 "I said I didn't receive information directly, through my
14 contacts. But I did hear it from military representatives that they are
15 armed. Actually, both sides."
16 And then, subsequently, Mr. Krgovic says:
17 "... a correction to the transcript: When you said ... they had
18 their structures and their weapons, you were referring to the Muslim and
19 Croat side; right?"
20 And you answered:
21 "Yes, yes."
22 I just want to clarify, sir, when you were talking about both
23 sides, which sides were you talking about?
24 A. Most probably the Muslims and Croats.
25 I would like to hear the context of what I said. Perhaps it
1 would make it easier.
2 Q. Well, I can -- I've just read it out to you, sir, and you said
3 "both sides." And Mr. Krgovic then said to you:
4 "... you were referring to the Muslim and Croat side ..." in
5 terms of being armed.
6 And my question is: Who did mean when you said "both sides were
7 being armed"?
8 A. Well, most probably the Muslims and Croats, because the Serbs in
9 the army and the police, were armed. Because they were under military
10 command. Some under army command, others under police command, and they
11 had weapons.
12 Q. So what you're saying is that the military representatives told
13 you that the Muslims and Croats were armed and then you said:
14 "Actually, both sides."
15 Are you referring to the Muslims and Croats being armed on the
16 one hand or the Serbs being armed on the on the other hand, or are you
17 just referring to the Muslims and Croats being armed?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: It's not cross-examination, Your Honour. Asked an
19 answered.
20 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Pidwell, I confess I too had some difficulty
21 with that question. I heard it, but I was trying to process it before
22 Mr. ... and I suppose my reservation was not dissimilar to Mr. Krgovic's
23 formal objection.
24 You are, of course, re-examining.
25 MS. PIDWELL: Indeed, Your Honour, and I'm simply wanting to
1 clarify the transcript at the moment. At the moment, the transcript says
2 one thing as the witness's answer, and then a leading question is put by
3 my learned friend correcting that and suggesting that the two sides that
4 were being referred to were the Muslim and Croats. And I'm wanting to
5 establish with the witness whether, indeed, he meant that the Muslims and
6 Croats were being amend; or did he mean the two sides, being the Muslims
7 and Croats on the one hand, and the Serbs on the other.
8 JUDGE HALL: Well, he's heard the question. If he is able to
9 answer, he may proceed.
10 MS. PIDWELL: Thank you.
11 Q. Sir, when you're talking about both sides being armed in this
12 context, are you talking about the Muslims and the Croats on the one
13 hand, and the Serbs on the other; or are you referring solely to the
14 Muslims and the Croats on --
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Objection. It's leading.
16 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Ms. Pidwell.
17 MS. PIDWELL: Thank you. I'll repeat.
18 Q. Sir, when you're talking about two sides -- I'll read your answer
19 to you. Well, I'll read the question; that may help you further.
20 The question was:
21 "As far as I understood you, you didn't hear from the Muslim side
22 that they have all that, but you got ... information that [sic] the army,
23 that there were such plans and such units and so on?"
24 And you said:
25 "I said that I didn't receive information directly, through my
1 contacts. But I did hear it from military representatives that they are
2 armed. Actually, both sides."
3 A. Armies.
4 Q. When you say the words "both sides," which side do you mean on
5 the one hand and which side do you mean on the other hand?
6 A. Well, the Croat and the Muslim sides, because the Serb side was
7 armed through military units, where they were involved, and police units,
8 where they were involved. We already spoke about that in great detail.
9 Q. Sir, you were further asked some questions today, earlier today,
10 about the town of Kozarac, and you answered that basically the events
11 that took place in Kozarac were done by the army and that -- but that you
12 said it was your idea, "our idea," and that nobody from the region was
13 involved in the negotiations with Kozarac.
14 Do you recall that?
15 A. As far as the talks and negotiations are concerned, the talks to
16 prevent the conflict, we had a large number of talks and numberless
17 contacts when we met officially and unofficially and it was all geared
18 toward the same end. However, we did not make the decision to attack
19 Kozarac. That was done by the army.
20 And as you saw a moment ago, they had information about arming
21 and the level of weapons, and they decided on operations to be launched
22 in Hambarine, in Kozarac, and in other places where it was needed.
23 Q. You were asked specifically whether Mr. Zupljanin took part in
24 the talks about Kozarac. Did Simo Drljaca take part in the talks or the
25 negotiations that were about Kozarac?
1 A. As far as Kozarac and other areas are concerned, Drljaca was
2 involved, Stakic, myself, Mico Kovacevic. We were all involved in these
3 talks. I think we've already discussed this. There is also the video.
4 Q. Sir, you were also asked some questions about the conditions at
5 Omarska camp. And you said, in response to a report that was shown to
6 you, that you had some involvement with a building at Omarska and that it
7 had been made for "that purpose."
8 I think it's recorded at page 16 today.
9 What -- what purpose are you referring to? What was the purpose
10 of the -- of this Omarska structure before it became a camp in 1992?
11 A. I used to be section commander, that is, in the police in
12 Omarska, and from that level I had direct contacts with the leadership of
13 the Ljubija mine, which commandeered land for the needs of the mine. And
14 Hidrogradnja, Sarajevo. I think Pozder [phoen] was the name of the
15 project manager. And in that context I was familiar with the work and
16 the building done there.
17 Buildings for administration were being built, and a big
18 refectory, cafeteria, something like a factory, restaurant, where workers
19 could go, wash their hands. That's the information I had until then,
20 until that visit. And I used to work there as police section commander.
21 Q. Were you aware of any bedrooms or dormitories or anything of that
22 nature at Omarska, in that building?
23 A. No. No, I did not. No.
24 Q. When you went there, did you see where the detainees slept?
25 A. I didn't. I told you, I just saw the outside. And I told you
1 they were standing outside. And as I was going up the stairs, I saw them
2 only the time it took me to pass by and go upstairs.
3 I don't know any of these buildings, the -- the administrative
4 buildings or the halls.
5 Q. And you recall you were asked some questions about -- and shown a
6 photograph about -- there was some confusion over which building you
7 actually went into. You weren't sure whether it was the building you
8 marked number 1 or number 3.
9 Are you able to recall, when you entered the building with this
10 delegation, whether there was cafeteria there or not?
11 A. I don't know. I don't know. I can't remember. I hear it for
12 the first time.
13 Q. So you don't recall seeing people eating, a cafeteria, a
14 restaurant-type facility, when you walked in with this delegation?
15 A. No. No, I really don't recall. Most probably we were given a
16 snack or a drink, juice or coffee. They must have served something.
17 I -- I still don't know whether it's the -- it was from a cafeteria or
18 from a makeshift facility. I don't know.
19 Q. You were also asked some questions about Mr. Krajisnik being
20 involved in -- in -- with the continuation of Simo Drljaca's role. Do
21 you recall that?
22 A. I remember that. Not the role, but the replacement of
23 Simo Drljaca as chief.
24 Q. Are you aware that he went on to become the assistant minister of
25 the interior in 1993?
1 A. Simo Drljaca? No. The first time I hear of it.
2 Q. So who took over from his role as the SJB chief in Prijedor?
3 A. Dusan Jankovic, professional policeman. He used to be commander
4 of the traffic police in Prijedor.
5 Q. And when did he take over?
6 A. After Simo was replaced.
7 Q. Are you able to assist us with -- a little bit more with the
8 date?
9 A. I really couldn't. All I know it was after that session, the
10 standing session of the Municipal Assembly, regarding the replacement of
11 executive staff in the municipality. I don't even know when that session
12 took place. It was, in fact, a session of the municipality, the
13 Assembly.
14 MS. PIDWELL: If we can have a look at a document, please. It's
15 P759.
16 Q. Have a look at this, sir. It may assist you in remembering the
17 date, or providing some context to it. It's a publication dated the
18 9th of April, 1993, and it's an interview with Simo Drljaca. And it's
19 headed: "Interview with Simo Drljaca, assistant minister of the interior
20 of the Republika Srpska Krajina, with regard to his role in the chief
21 affair."
22 MS. PIDWELL: Sorry, if we could, on the B/C/S, to -- just make
23 it a little bit smaller so we see the heading.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see it. It's too small.
25 JUDGE HALL: May I inquire, Ms. Pidwell, why is it that you're
1 in, re-examination, pursuing this collateral issue with this witness?
2 MS. PIDWELL: Well, sir, the witness gave evidence in
3 cross-examination that the SDS did not stand behind Simo Drljaca and
4 that -- and testified about him being removed, and I'm trying to
5 establish when that happened.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes. But we have the document in evidence. It's --
7 isn't the rest of it left for arguments at the end of the day, if this is
8 an issue?
9 MS. PIDWELL: Well, if Your Honour is happy with that, I will --
10 I will move on.
11 Q. Sir, I now want to direct your attention to a couple of questions
12 asked by Mr. Cvijetic earlier today. And, in particular, I'm referring
13 to page 26 and 27 of the transcript, and Mr. Cvijetic was talking to you
14 about Variant B.
15 And I just wanted to clarify. Mr. Cvijetic said:
16 "The way I understood Variant B ... in essence, was the
17 establishment of Serb authorities and Serb municipalities in an area
18 where the Serbs were the majority population."
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Except I added to that and I
20 explained: In parts of the municipality where Serbs were a majority. If
21 you remember, that was my explanation, because I stopped halfway to
22 explain how the witness -- how I understood the witness explained it.
23 MS. PIDWELL: I just want to clarify with the witness.
24 Q. Sir, did Variant B apply to municipalities where there was a Serb
25 majority or a Serb minority?
1 A. The minority. The Serbs were in a minority in such areas where
2 representatives of other ethnic communities held power.
3 Q. And further on, you talked about the presence of the White Eagles
4 in Prijedor. Who were the White Eagles?
5 A. Three men who had proclaimed themselves to be White Eagles, they
6 were immediately detained by the army, interrogated, and I believe a
7 criminal complaint was filed against them. It's the only incident that
8 happened.
9 MR. HANNIS: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours,
10 I'm sorry, I have to interject. Mr. Cvijetic was making signals to the
11 witness. He cleared his throat, he tapped on the side of the desk with
12 his hand. That's not the first time he's done it. And I have to bring
13 it to your attention because it's highly improper.
14 JUDGE HALL: Well, I confess I didn't observe it, Mr. Hannis.
15 And if Mr. Hannis's observation is correct, then, Mr. Cvijetic,
16 you would desist.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will not do it
18 anymore. I was just stopping the witness from speaking so fast. He
19 keeps rushing in his speech. We have enormous problems with the
20 transcript as it is. I was trying to prevent him from going on at that
21 rate. And I won't do it anymore.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Hannis is the last
23 person who should teach an attorney-at-law how to conduct himself in
24 court.
25 JUDGE HALL: Well, gentlemen, now that we understand what this is
1 about, we will -- let's get back on track.
2 Ms. Pidwell, please continue.
3 Mr. Hannis, do you need to pursue this?
4 MR. HANNIS: I have to respond to Mr. Krgovic's remark,
5 Your Honour. I think I have an obligation, as counsel in court, to try
6 and ensure the integrity of the proceedings. I reported something I saw
7 not for the first time. If that's what he's trying to do, which is
8 legitimate exercise, the appropriate way to do is to address it with you.
9 Not directly with the witness who's sitting nearly in his lap.
10 JUDGE HALL: Well, Mr. Cvijetic's explanation is that he now
11 appreciates that his efforts to be helpful may have been misinterpreted.
12 And he has agreed to conform his behaviour in the future to dealing with
13 matters like this in a manner that would not invite controversy.
14 So the matter is settled, and we can move on.
15 Yes, Ms. Pidwell.
16 MS. PIDWELL: Sorry, Your Honours, I just need to get back to
17 where -- where we were.
19 MS. PIDWELL: Right.
20 Q. Sir, you -- we were talking about the White Eagles and their
21 presence in Prijedor, and you've explained who they are.
22 Are you able to explain when they arrived in Prijedor?
23 A. No, they didn't arrive. Three people from Prijedor suddenly
24 became self-proclaimed White Eagles. But they were immediately
25 apprehended by the military police and detained. And I believe that they
1 were tried.
2 I just want to show, with that, that there were some individuals
3 who tried to do some things, but they were neutralized immediately.
4 Q. And just finally, sir, you were asked some questions about a
5 document, referring to people needing permission to leave the
6 municipality, and you -- you said that even you needed a document in
7 order to -- to leave the municipality at this time.
8 From whom would you obtain that -- that documentation?
9 A. From the Crisis Staff.
10 For going to Serbia, as far as I remember, I had to take out a
11 permit from the -- from the draft office so -- confirming that I was not
12 a deserter or something like.
13 I do know that my brother-in-law, my wife's brother, died in
14 Kosovska Mitrovica. We wanted to go there, to the funeral, but we
15 weren't allowed to cross the border. So she couldn't attend the funeral.
16 Q. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. I have
18 a comment on the -- on the transcript. Could the witness just repeat
19 from whom he needed a permission to go to Serbia?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, I needed a
21 certificate from the People's Defence to show that you were travelling
22 officially or that you weren't in -- a deserter. But as far as, I said
23 it was from the People's Defence that you had to get it. Because some
24 sort of guarantee was required that the person questioned would not
25 desert or run away.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Miskovic, you have explained to us during
4 your testimony in the last couple of days how the situation became very
5 tense in Prijedor and how much fear was felt by most of the inhabitants
6 in Prijedor and surrounding villages.
7 You explained to us that on the 25th of April there was a meeting
8 that took place in Cirkin Polje and that another meeting was then held on
9 the 29th of April, four days later, to discuss these issues. And you
10 told us that, at the last occasion, it was decided to actually take over
11 control in Prijedor, and you told us that this was decided in order to
12 retain the relative calmness and peace that still existed. So you told
13 us that the purpose of the takeover was to keep things under control.
14 Now, please, Mr. Miskovic, wait and listen to my questions. I
15 have two questions to you.
16 The first question is whether, to your knowledge, the CSB in
17 Banja Luka was informed about the discussions to take over control in
18 Prijedor and, ultimately, whether the CSB in Banja Luka was informed when
19 the decision was made on the 29th of April to take over control in
20 Prijedor. Do you know if -- if the -- if the actors who were involved in
21 the discussions and the decision to take over control in Prijedor, were
22 they in constant communication and contact with the CSB in Banja Luka; do
23 you know that?
24 That's my first question.
25 A. I don't know that. I explained in detail that after that
1 dispatch, we spoke about that. But I arrived when the decision was
2 already made. The structure about which I spoke had already been in
3 place. And I arrived when there was only talk about what should be done
4 and when. And the meeting was called for 2.00 a.m., and the
5 representatives of the TO, Mr. Kuruzovic, and the police representative,
6 Mr. Drljaca, briefed everybody present about the situation. And then the
7 implementation began at 4.00 a.m.
8 Whether they had any previous commands [as interpreted] with the
9 command of the corps or with the CSB, I don't know because I wasn't
10 informed of it. And according to the dispatch we analysed here, Simo did
11 submit a report to the CSB later that there had been a takeover of power.
12 But nobody informed me. I wasn't up-to-date whether there was
13 information flow toward the military or police structures.
14 The garrison commander, Colonel Arsic, and his deputy, the
15 TO commander, the representatives of the police, and so on, were there,
16 and I came there after a meeting at the MUP. They were already sitting
17 there and taking decisions.
18 I have already explained as much.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. My question was prompted by the --
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I have a slight
21 correction of the transcript. The witness, on page 69,
22 line 21 -- "whether they had any previous commands" is what the
23 transcript reads, but the witness said "contact," rather than "commands."
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Krgovic. I understood as much.
25 But just to round up to you, Mr. Miskovic. My question was
1 prompted by the information you gave or that we have seen in the
2 documents that were shown to you, that apparently about 1500 policemen
3 were involved in the action, so my question to you was whether you had
4 any information that the CSB in Banja Luka had been advised about where
5 things were going in -- in Prijedor.
6 My second question to you goes to the -- the purpose of this
7 action, really. Because you told us that the decision to take over
8 control in Prijedor was prompted by the attempt to keep things under
9 control and prevent escalation of a conflict that was already brewing,
10 and so you decided to take over control of the town by assuming power of
11 the Municipal Assembly, and the SJB, and all the public institutions that
12 could you get your hands on. And we also saw the evidence by
13 Mr. Kovacevic that, subsequent to this, the -- the leading SDA members in
14 the Municipal Assembly were dismissed and replaced by Serbs.
15 Now, my question to you is: Did you, at the time, think that
16 this would prevent the conflict from escalating? Did you really believe
17 that this would keep things under control? To be honest, my immediate
18 reaction would have been the opposite; that, if any of the parties
19 involved in negotiation certainly decide unilaterally to take power, that
20 would almost inevitably prompt a counter-response from the other parties
21 involved in the negotiations, so that by taking over power, you may
22 perhaps have achieved a few days, or maybe a week of silence, but soon
23 thereafter, you were bound to have reactions from the Muslim and the
24 Croat societies, and, indeed, you did get reactions.
25 So I'm curious to know, from someone who was involved in the
1 events at the time, what was really the wisdom of this? Was there a
2 major plan behind it? Or how could you possibly have thought that this
3 would calm down things?
4 Can you answer me?
5 A. I can. I'm glad you asked me this question, although we've
6 spoken about that in the examination.
7 It is true, as you put it, that until that time there was peace.
8 But the basic reason for taking over control, as has been confirmed
9 several times over, was not the immense desire to rule or dominate
10 somebody; but, on the contrary, to prevent confrontation.
11 Control wasn't taken over, nor was any activity to that effect
12 taken, and no Serb municipality was established from local communes in
13 the Prijedor municipality until this dispatch arrived, which required the
14 Croatian and Muslim forces, that is, citizens, to intercept military
15 vehicles, attack barracks, block roads. It has been read here. I don't
16 have to enumerate it all.
17 That was the fuse that set it all off. And the only possibility
18 was to take over control, when that dispatch arrived to prevent the
19 people from attacks barracks and so on, and I had the opportunity -- or,
20 rather, everybody in Prijedor had -- had had the opportunity to see what
21 happened in Croatia before that, and in Slovenia, with attacks barracks
22 and so on. In order to prevent all that, the decision was taken to take
23 over control. It was only for these reasons that this was done. And it
24 can be seen from the documents that there haven't been any incidents in
25 that context until the attack on those soldiers that were coming from
1 back from the front line at Hambarine. And that triggered the reaction
2 of the army.
3 After the agreement that the military would secure the road to
4 Banja Luka, there was a roadblock set up in Kozarac. And those were the
5 reasons for taking over control. It wasn't anybody's desire to dominate.
6 But we have already seen that in the examination of the OTP and the
7 Defence. And the genesis of it all has also been explained. It isn't
8 all black and white. In the Balkans and in former Yugoslavia, the
9 memories of such events go back a long time.
10 If you have additional questions or if you're not satisfied with
11 my answer, go ahead and ask me some more questions. I'll be glad to
12 answer, if I can.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Miskovic. You have indeed
14 answered my questions. And I realize that the scramble for power is
15 something that goes a long way back in your history. Thank you very
16 much.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Miskovic. We are grateful for your
18 assistance to the Tribunal. Your testimony is at an end, and you're now
19 released. We wish that you have a safe journey back to your home.
20 The usher would now escort you from the courtroom. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too. And I'm glad if I
22 could make a modest contribution to establishing the truth about the
23 events in Prijedor municipality. Thank you once more.
25 JUDGE HALL: Before the next witness is called, we have a brief
1 oral ruling which is as follows:
2 The Trial Chamber is seized of the oral request made by the
3 Defence on the 30th of September and the 4th of October to postpone the
4 testimony of the witness Ewan Brown, the Prosecution's military expert,
5 to the end of the Prosecution's case, or, alternatively, to postpone his
6 cross-examination.
7 The Prosecution responded on both occasions.
8 The Trial Chamber notes that it is in the interests of justice
9 that the Defence be in a position to prepare fully for the
10 cross-examination of Ewan Brown. Given that he is scheduled to commence
11 testifying on the 20th of October and the extensive material, including
12 the Mladic material, some of which was only disclosed in mid-September,
13 that the Defence will need to review to cross-examine Ewan Brown
14 effectively, the Trial Chamber will only hear his examination-in-chief in
15 October, and considering the witness's busy schedule, he shall appear for
16 again for cross-examination during the week commencing the
17 10th of January, 2011.
19 Yes, is the Prosecution ready with its next witness?
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to take
21 advantage of the time before the witness is called to discuss the
22 schedule for this week.
23 I believe that Ms. Pidwell, citing the conversation with the
24 Defence, misinterpreted our agreement.
25 Ms. Korner left the courtroom with the latest information that
1 she related to the us, that Witness ST-163 most probably would be
2 postponed for next week because of private commitments. And also, with
3 regard to the pace of the proceedings this week, we see no other solution
4 but this, and this what I believe was our informal agreement.
5 If there should be a reshuffling witness, that is, if
6 Witness ST-163 could be heard immediately after the expert witness,
7 Ms. Tabeau, we believe that it would be detrimental to the Defence
8 because in this situation we are unable to keep up with this rapid pace
9 and the ambitious list of the OTP for this week.
10 The witness who has testified already is relevant, and so his
11 examination took quite some time. We also expect Ms. Tabeau's testimony
12 to be relevant. And the same applying to ST-163. All three of these
13 witnesses have the support of extensive documentation and materials,
14 which makes us unable to efficiently prepare for such a sudden change
15 of -- in the order of appearance of the witnesses.
16 This is detrimental to the interests of the Defence, and we will
17 not be able to accommodate.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Pidwell, we are not quite certain of the
21 immediate schedule. Is the plan to hear Mrs. Tabeau now, and then move
22 on straight from her to Witness 163? Is that the plan? Or do you
23 request to have 163 brought to the stand immediately now?
24 MS. PIDWELL: No, Your Honour, you're right that we propose to
25 call Ms. Tabeau now. And -- and then -- the only change is to move the
1 crime-based witness up to after ST-163 who has a family commitment on
2 Saturday to ensure that can actually return home for that.
3 And we have made some inquires with the Registry to see if --
4 [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Overlapping speakers] ... I understand --
6 MS. PIDWELL: -- so it's just that small reshuffle. And in my
7 submission, Your Honours, if the Defence are unable to keep up with the
8 speed of the trial this week, it's their choice to --
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Ms. Pidwell.
10 Mr. Cvijetic, it seems that we will now hear the expert witness,
11 Ms. Tabeau, today, and probably most of tomorrow. Then for Thursday, we
12 will hear Witness 163. And that's according to the schedule. So you're
13 not losing out on any time, as far as I can see.
14 According to the schedule that we have in front of us,
15 Witness 163 is scheduled for Thursday and Friday of this week.
16 So what is your problem exactly?
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you didn't mention
18 that Witness 227 was supposed to testify before him. ST-227. And the
19 Prosecution applied for two and a half hours for him, and the Defence
20 also applied for as much time. That is at least one more day. And
21 bearing in mind the time allotted --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Cvijetic,
23 if I understood Ms. Pidwell correct, the plan is simply to skip
24 Witness 227 at this point and hear him at a later stage. So we will move
25 straight from the expert, Dr. Tabeau, to Witness 163. He was scheduled
1 to arrive here and begin his testimony on Thursday, the 7th of October,
2 and that is, indeed, what he will do.
3 So you cannot, with any strength, claim that you haven't had time
4 to prepare his -- his testimony -- to prepare for his testimony, sorry.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when we get the
6 schedule, we prepare accordingly. Now, suddenly, we have to prepare for
7 ST-163 because ST-227 has been skipped. This disturbs our preparation
8 process for the cross-examination. That is the problem. Because we
9 proceed according to schedule. And now this change has come very
10 suddenly. We have too little time to prepare for Witness 163.
13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, we see no merit in your objection, and
14 it's -- it's on the record, but we over -- we see no reason why the
15 Prosecution cannot proceed in the -- ought not to proceed in the manner
16 in which they proposed.
17 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honour, my colleague, Mr. Di Fazio, will be
18 leading the next witness.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before that, if I
20 may, I would like to raise a procedural matter.
21 Today is a deadline for us to reply to the Prosecution's
22 submission about the calling of a witness about adjudicated facts. In
23 the previous trials where they were testified, they were accorded
24 protective measures, so I would like to seize the opportunity to raise
25 this matter orally so that we needn't respond in writing.
1 MS. PIDWELL: [Previous translation continues] ... I would object
2 to that. The Defence were directed to file a response by today. The
3 deadline for that is 4.00 this afternoon, or 12.00 midnight. And we have
4 a witness waiting outside. I would -- the normal course of action is for
5 Defence to reply in writing to written motions, rather than use valuable
6 court time to deal with something while we've got a witness outside. And
7 we're on a tight schedule.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just wanted to
9 utter a single sentence. But if that's a waste of time, okay, we can put
10 it on paper. I just wanted to be more efficient.
11 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... what's the
12 single sentence, Mr. Krgovic?
13 MR. KRGOVIC: We take no position.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] ... bring in the
16 witness.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Good afternoon to you, madam. I trust you can
20 hear us in a language you understand.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for coming down and give us your
23 testimony in this trial.
24 May I start out by asking you to read the solemn declaration,
25 please.
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
2 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much, madam. You may be seated.
5 Madam, would you be good enough to tell us your name and your
6 date of birth.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Ewa Tabeau. I was born
8 on 26th of April, 1958.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much. And what is your current
10 occupation?
11 THE WITNESS: I'm a demographer. I'm the chief of
12 Demographic Unit in the ICTY Prosecutor's Office.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
14 Madam Tabeau, you are aware of the fact that you have been called
15 here in this trial against Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin, who are
16 sitting here, as an expert in respect of the demographic changes that
17 took place during the time that is covered by this indictment. We have
18 carefully studied your reports, and they have been admitted into
20 The Prosecution -- or maybe I should ask you first, but I thought
21 it was redundant because it appears from your reports that you have,
22 indeed, testified earlier, but can you tell us in which cases you have
23 testified -- in the -- in the capacity of an expert?
24 THE WITNESS: I testified so far 14 times in the -- as an expert
25 witness for the Prosecutor -- Prosecution. And one time I was called by
1 the Defence. I was an expert for the Defence. I testified in cases such
2 as Slobodan Milosevic. I testified in Sarajevo cases, that would be
3 Dragomir Milosevic and General --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Galic.
5 THE WITNESS: -- Galic. Yes, sir. I testified in Popovic, that
6 would be Srebrenica. I testified in Lukic and Lukic. I testified in
7 Simic et al. I testified in the Stakic case, in Prijedor. I might have
8 missed some, but the list of my testimonies, I believe, is attached with
9 my qualifications.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Have you ever testified as an expert
11 in relation to the events which you have covered in your expert reports
12 before other courts than this court?
13 THE WITNESS: No.
15 Let me get back to the plan that I was going to line out for you,
16 then.
17 The Prosecution, represented by Mr. Di Fazio, has requested two
18 hours to examine you in-chief on the basis of the reports that have been
19 admitted into evidence. And each of the two teams for Defence have
20 requested four hours, each of them. And as I know that you are well
21 familiar with the procedures here, I need not tell you that you are
22 required to give truthful answers and that there is a severe penalty for
23 providing false or incomplete evidence or information to the Chamber, and
24 finally that your quality as expert witness makes it possible for you to
25 offer evaluations rather than just mere facts that pertain to the case.
1 This is as much as I would have to say at this stance, so I give
2 the floor to Mr. Di Fazio to go through the CV with you.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, perhaps before I do that, if I could just
4 continue in the vein that Your Honour has just set out, namely, some
5 introductory matters, part of which have been addressed by the
6 Trial Chamber.
7 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio:
8 Q. You're here today and tomorrow to basically testify about
9 three -- three reports. Firstly is a report that you prepared back in
10 2003, entitled the -- or titled: "The Ethnic Composition: Internally
11 Displaced Persons and Refugees from 47 municipalities for 1991 to
12 1997/1998," and that's the -- I'm going to refer to that as Milosevic
13 report. That's one of your reports, isn't it?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: For the record, that's 65 ter 10.398.
16 Q. The second report, principle report, that you're going to tell us
17 about and discuss is an addendum to that report that you prepared
18 specifically for this case. And, again, that deals with ethnic
19 composition and internally displaced persons, and that was prepared in
20 April of last year but is more confined and only deals with the
21 indictment municipalities in this case.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: For the record that is 10399, 65 ter 10399.
25 Q. The third report that you're going to -- sorry, perhaps before I
1 go on to the third report, there's one other matter I should raise in
2 relation to this addendum report, and that is: Before the summer break,
3 you had occasion to -- to review that particular report, the addendum
4 report prepared specifically for this case, and you had to make some
5 corrections, and you prepared a -- an addendum. Is that correct?
6 A. Not to the report on IDPs and refugees. I did prepare an
7 addendum, but it was to the third report.
8 Q. Yes. My apologies. You're quite right. You had to replace some
9 pages from -- from the -- from the addendum report, and -- is that
11 A. In the IDPs report, in detail, I think three pages were replaced.
12 That's correct.
13 Q. Yes. Okay.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, those replacement
15 pages in the record is 65 ter 10399.1.
16 Q. And the third major report that you will discuss is the one
17 entitled "Victims of War," related to the Mico Stanisic and
18 Stojan Zupljanin indictment. That's dated February of this year.
19 And is -- is that correct?
20 A. Yes. It was the third report, victims report.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, that's 65 ter 10400.
22 Q. You also then create -- added an addendum or correction to that
23 report, and that was the one that you -- you prepared just before the
24 summer break, and that consists of about three pages.
1 A. Yes, it is correct.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, that's 65 ter 10400.1.
3 Q. In addition, given the size of your reports, you've prepared two
4 summaries from two of those reports. The summary of results dealing with
5 ethnic composition and internally displaced persons, derived from the
6 report on displacement of persons prepared specifically for this case.
7 A. Yes, it's correct.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, that's 65 ter 10397.
9 Q. And finally, a summary that you prepared from your third and
10 final report, the "Victims of War" report; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is correct.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, that's 65 ter 10400.2.
13 Q. The -- go through the nature and objective of each report.
14 The Milosevic report, I believe, is quite wide. It covers
15 47 municipalities and also includes the 18 municipalities that you
16 focussed on for your second report specific to this case?
17 A. Yes, it's correct.
18 Q. It mostly covers what is the present-day Republika Srpska?
19 A. Yes. That is generally the truth. There were some areas in the
20 Federation, but in majority is the Republika Srpska.
21 Q. Thank you. In that report, you set out the -- the methodology
22 adopted by you in writing these reports concerning population
23 displacement in the sections dealing with objective and scope at pages 4
24 to 10 of that report, and Annex C, at pages 226 to 231 of that report.
25 A. That's correct. In addition to this, in Annex B, sources used
1 for this report were discussed in detail.
2 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Essentially, the objective of the
3 Milosevic report was to provide a report on the ethnic composition in
4 Bosnia and the minimum numbers of internally displaced persons and
5 refugees in Bosnia. And, of course, when I say "Bosnia," I'm talking
6 about the 47 municipalities that were the subject of that study.
7 A. Yes. It is correct. It is also not wrong to say in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, as the Milosevic, the 47 municipalities, were a
9 subset of the analyses completed for all municipalities in the entire
10 country. Regarding the ethnic composition, we looked at the change in
11 ethnic composition at the outbreak of the war and after the war, in 1991
12 and -- versus later, 1997/1998.
13 Q. Thank you. Now the addendum report that you prepared for this
14 case, specifically for this case, is, as I said earlier, essentially the
15 same as the Milosevic report but limited in scope to 18 municipalities?
17 Q. However, you used the same analyses, the same statistical
18 sources, and there was the same objective in the report, except that it
19 was more confined, less municipalities?
20 A. Yes, it is all correct. As the methodology and sources were used
21 for the entire country, the entirety Bosnia-Herzegovina. So the subset
22 of 18 is just part of the overall area of the entire country.
23 Q. Thanks. And the third report that you've -- third principle
24 report that you've mentioned, the "Victims of War" report, you correct me
25 if I'm wrong, but that is essentially a report dealing with the numbers
1 of deaths arising from the war in the period 1st of April, 1992, to
2 31st of December, 1992, and covering the indictment area?
3 A. Yes, it's correct. And this is the number of deaths, war-related
4 deaths on the first place, but also missing persons. Missing persons are
5 part of that analysis as well.
6 Q. Thank you. And this report covers the war-related deaths of both
7 soldiers and civilians?
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. The methodology, I believe, is contained in section 2.1 at
10 pages 2 to 4?
11 A. Yes, this is correct. And there is another related paper which
12 explains the methodology and sources, the so-called "Berlin paper,"
13 conference paper, which is associated in some way with this report.
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, I dislike stopping you at this --
15 abruptly at this point, but I'm advised that you need a minute -- the OTP
16 needs a minute, before we take the adjournment in 30 seconds, to deal
17 with a housekeeping matter.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: I've got one more question, and that will wrap up
19 this particular topic. I'll then -- tomorrow, I can move on to her other
20 issues of expertise.
22 MR. DI FAZIO:
23 Q. And finally, the last question for today: On this "Victims of
24 War" report, unlike the other two, the Milosevic report and the addendum
25 report prepared specifically for this case, the "Victims of War" report
1 is based on 12 databases of statistics and numbers that you obtained from
2 Bosnia; essentially is that correct?
3 A. Essentially, it is correct.
4 Q. Thanks.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, this would be a convenient time, if
6 Your Honours please.
7 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Tabeau, we are -- you're well-versed in the
8 court schedules, and we're about to take the break for today to resume in
9 this chamber at 9.00 tomorrow morning.
10 The -- we have a brief housekeeping matter which we will deal
11 with as the usher escorts you from the courtroom.
12 Thank you, ma'am.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 I have two. The first one regards scheduling this week. Out of
18 an abundance of caution, the Prosecution would like to request the
19 possibility of an extended sitting on Thursday afternoon in order that we
20 can complete all the witnesses scheduled for this week. I understand
21 that there may be a courtroom available. And if Your Honours are willing
22 to consider that, I wanted to make the request now so we can plan
23 accordingly.
24 JUDGE HALL: The Registry confirms that there would be a
25 courtroom available.
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
2 The second matter concerns --
3 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. One session, or ... when you say "extended
4 sitting," one further session or what?
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm not sure. I think we'll have a
6 better feel for that when we see how quickly we go with Ms. Tabeau. I
7 would ask for two sessions now out of an abundance of caution and then
8 adjust accordingly.
10 JUDGE HALL: From the Chamber's point --
12 JUDGE HALL: From the Chamber's point of view, it looks as if we
13 may be able to accommodate one session on Thursday. We would see what
14 the -- inquire as to the Defence convenience, and they can respond first
15 thing tomorrow morning.
16 You said there was a second matter, Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. The second regarded the
18 witness Ewan Brown. I think, when Ms. Pidwell advised you earlier in the
19 week about his situation in our efforts to try and have him done during
20 that week of October 20th to the 22nd, now in light of Your Honours'
21 decision, Ms. Korner has asked me to advise the Court that it would be
22 the Prosecution's intention to try and present his entire evidence in the
23 new year, rather than have a bifurcation between his testimony in direct
24 and cross-exam. And the reason for that is his professional schedule.
25 I don't know the exact details, but I do recall he has some sort
1 of 90-day contract of work he's doing in a place far away, and he was
2 able to give us five days in October. But I don't know that he can give
3 us five days in October and five or seven days in January.
4 So it's the Prosecution's intention, and we would then schedule
5 somebody else for three days in October now. I just wanted to notify
6 everyone that that's our intention.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we take the adjournment to tomorrow
9 morning at 9.00.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day of
12 October, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.