Milosevic Transcript 2003-05-23

²¹¹⁰⁵

Friday, 23 May 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I looked through my notes, and I would ask you to give me a little more time to complete the cross-examination of this witness, or the first part of it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We'll give you half an hour.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll do my best.

WITNESS: WITNESS B-[Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] You said in connection with this event that you were informed about that some people were being killed. I'm talking about the matter that we were discussing yesterday when we adjourned. You said this occurred in mid-July 1993, didn't you?

A. 1995.

Q. 1995. I am so sorry. I keep making that mistake. I asked you whether you informed anyone about it.

A. Yes.

Q. Who did you inform?

A. I said that I went to Mali Zvornik for us to find somebody whom we ²¹¹⁰⁶ could ask what was going on and that we went there together, that is, to the headquarters of the army in Zvornik. We knew the brigade -- Zvornik Brigade chief. The officer on duty told us that the gentleman was undergoing treatment - his name is Dragan Obrenovic - but that he had come for the weekend and that he was already on the frontline for the past three days.

THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. We can't hear --

JUDGE MAY: We need the microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you go to the Zvornik police to inform someone about such a -- such an important and terrible event that you were talking about. The witness is making for my microphone to be switched off, and it isn't going off.

A. We went to see the army, because I saw military people doing these misdeeds.

Q. So you didn't have any contact with the police.

A. No, we didn't communicate with the police.

Q. I don't understand why you didn't go to the police, since you worked in the police.

A. I said that I saw that soldiers were committing the crimes, and also we knew the man who was one of their commanders and we wanted to enquire what was going on, as this was happening in an area that I was familiar with.

A. Very well. Now, tell me, who did you inform about what you learnt? What in fact did you learn? Because you say that this man was ²¹¹⁰⁷ undergoing treatment, you only saw this one man. What more did you find out on the spot?

A. I said yesterday that I found out who was doing it and who had ordered it.

Q. You saw one man doing it and he said who had ordered it.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you learn anything more than that?

A. Nothing more.

Q. Well, what happened then? Did you inform anyone about what you had learnt?

A. We had no one to inform. People were all out on the -- in the field.

Q. Did you then go back to Serbia?

A. Yes, I returned to Belgrade.

Q. When did you arrive in Belgrade?

A. That same evening.

Q. Did you inform anyone in Serbia?

A. We had no one over there to inform either.

Q. Wait a minute. This is not a matter for a private session. You are an official of the Ministry of the Interior who went there and learnt something. True enough you went there in your private capacity, but you learnt something that was important. Didn't you think it necessary to write a report about it, to send it to your superiors in the ministry?

A. I think a service was very much in evidence over there. That is, people who were responsible to report about such things from the police ²¹¹⁰⁸ and from the political arena.

Q. So you didn't consider yourself to be competent to report to people above the chain of command.

A. The leadership of the police was always against my going there, even though I had a need to go there, I wanted to go there.

Q. So you did not inform anyone up the chain of command in the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia?

A. I did not.

Q. Let us not waste any more time. Let us go on to clear up a few brief points. I checked through the information that I have once again yesterday, and you stated a number of things here which are absolutely not true, and I will now prove it to you, that this is something that you should have known. So I'll ask you a few questions to that effect. You said that in the headquarters of the SDS certain people were mistreated and killed. According to information I have, no one was killed, absolutely no one. Even Muslim witnesses did not testify to any such thing, that anyone was killed. There were some people killed in the fighting in Bijeljina, and there's a book written about that too.

Q. Did you check any of that information ever?

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. You put a series of questions. First of all, it's suggested that nobody was killed, as I understand it, in Bijeljina, in the headquarters of the SDS. Briefly, is that right or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Bijeljina, behind the SDS building, several tens of people were killed. ²¹¹⁰⁹

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I am going to prove that you're not telling the truth for reason that I can only guess about.

You also went on to say that Arkan brought with him 86 members of the Serbian Volunteer Guard in the circumstances that you described upon the invitation of the local leadership, et cetera. You said 86, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. According to my information - and you should know exactly how many he brought - there was a total of 24 of them, and one of them has a nickname Hans and he's a close relative of yours; isn't that right?

A. I never heard of that nickname, and I don't have a single relative with that nickname.

Q. I'll tell you in a minute that that is not true. But first let me ask you: Are you involved in any killing?

A. I was never involved in any killing.

Q. Were you supposed to go on trial in Belgrade in connection with a killing?

A. That is the problem of the state. It is not my problem.

[redacted]

MR. GROOME: The witness has said prior to --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Groome.

MR. GROOME: Has said prior to his testimony that this matter he ²¹¹¹⁰ would ask would clearly identify him and is asking that this be taken in private session.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. GROOME: And I would ask the following -- the last sentence be redacted.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ²¹¹¹¹ Pages 21111-21119 - redacted - private session

²¹¹²⁰

[redacted]

[Open session] ²¹¹²¹

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you were shown a document yesterday, the document which is tab 7, and a document of the state security service is mentioned, and the date mentioned is the 23rd of March, 1992. That's right, isn't it?

A. Yes. Just a moment, please. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- let the witness have the document.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You can see the date, can't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the date which was fixed so as to refer to a point in time which came after the recognition of the European Union of Croatia and Slovenia but before they were recognised in the United Nations and before the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina; that's right, isn't it?

A. Sir, who recognised what, when, and where, I really don't know. I didn't follow all that.

Q. Thank you. Now, have you taken a look at the document? Was it perhaps you yourself -- have you seen the document? Have you taken -- had a look at it?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, then I'd like to draw your attention to page 2, paragraph 2, one but last paragraph -- actually, in the English version, it is the last paragraph on page 2. Have you found it? ²¹¹²² ^{BLANK PAGE} ²¹¹²³

A. You said the last paragraph on page 2, is that it?

Q. The penultimate paragraph.

A. You mean, "The Bihac area," beginning with that?

Q. Can you read it out to the Court, please.

A. Yes. "The Bihac area is undoubtedly one of the significant accesses of influence of intelligence and propaganda on the Croatian security service as well as the other foreign services, especially those of Germany and Austria. To demonstrate this, we give the example from 1991, when the JNA, just around the Bihac airport, discovered five illegal radio stations whose employees worked for the benefit of Croatia and one of them was arrested."

Q. Now, I should like to ask you a question which -- for which I should like to go into private session.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ²¹¹²⁴

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. There are two documents of all the other documents, and according ²¹¹²⁵ to the transcript or minutes from the previous trial -- or rather, when you made statements to the investigators, you handed them over to the Prosecution, didn't you?

A. Well, I'd like to see the documents.

Q. Well, the only two documents that you did hand over. I don't want to stipulate them, in tabs 10 and 11.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'd ask that questioning on those two documents be postponed until the waiver is secure.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Then I should like to put it this way: Do you happen to know -- do you know that both the authorities of Republika Srpska and also the top military organs of the Army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- or rather, the Army of Yugoslavia, issued orders for -- issued orders to the fact that paramilitary units should not be allowed to act?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it thanks to decisions of this kind that arrests were made, those that acted contrary to those orders?

A. Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: That were in the Yellow Wasps. Interpreter's correction.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When you spoke about Captain Dragan - and I have this in your statement, the one you gave in February 2003, that is to say, quite ²¹¹²⁶ recently - I don't want to repeat all the things you've already brought up here, but you said among other things that after you had seen the killing of the man in the river, you say, "I got into my car straight away, a vehicle of the MUP of Serbia that I was using and that had license plates marked 'M' and via the steel bridge I drove off to Zvornik. I saw Captain Dragan sitting in a jeep and his driver and organising the training."

How far is it from the place where this man was killed and the place you saw Captain Dragan?

A. Approximately 700 metres.

Q. All right. But you also said that you learnt from somebody one month later, only one month later, about the manner in which this man was killed; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, how could you have told that to Dragan the same day and criticised him for that and said, "You crazy man, what are you doing"?

A. Yes. I and many other citizens saw that with my very own eyes. We saw the training being organised.

Q. Yes. But you learnt about this just one month later, what had actually happened. You didn't know at the time you saw Dragan, and you attacked him in the way -- as if you knew about it.

A. Well, the way he was going about this was not logical.

Q. What? Going about what?

A. The training he was conducting.

Q. Yes. But he blamed -- you blamed him for the killing of that man. ²¹¹²⁷ How could he be blamed if the man was killed in quite another area, one -- a place where he was not?

JUDGE MAY: I don't think the witness ever said that he blamed Dragan at the time for killing the man, but I may be wrong. That wasn't the impression I got.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

JUDGE MAY: Let's ask the witness to clarify, shall we? Did you blame Dragan at the time for the killing of the man?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it was very close by. We saw an organised group of armed persons led by Captain Dragan who were doing some sort of training, engaged in some sort of exercise. And as I know the whole area around there, it wasn't logical to me that any terrorists who could have entered a small town like that, a town which is no more than 1 kilometre in diameter and just a few dozen metres wide, and there's no terrorist who would be able to do that.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not going to insist on that. We have the transcript. You can take a look at it. That's how I understood the witness and that's what he said. But you will be able to check it out and decide on the matter.

Q. Yesterday you mentioned Mr. Sainovic.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You mentioned him in just one spot in your two statements, including -- and in your statement of February you make no mention of him, but in your first statement, on page 1, you said that you knew that Slobodan Milosevic as president of Serbia was the head and Nikola Sainovic ²¹¹²⁸ as prime minister of Serbia. And that's all you say in your statements. You never mention Sainovic before. How do you explain that?

A. I mention Sainovic in the portion in which I said that I did indeed have contacts with Tomica Raicevic, and I told him about what was going on at the border between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and then he suggested that I come to see him at his home because on that very evening Saja would be coming by, as he called him. He called him Mr. Saja.

Q. Well, we've heard that and I don't want to dwell on that. We understand that. All I'm interested in is this: Why didn't you say any of what you've just said in February of this year when you were asked by the investigators or interviewed by the investigators?

A. I don't know what they asked me, and if they asked me something I knew about, I told them.

Q. All right. You've just said you saw him?

A. Yes, I did see him.

Q. You saw just one killing as you yourself described in the river. Did you tell him that?

A. No. That killing took place after 1995.

Q. I see, after 1995. So you were not able to tell him anything you yourself saw personally.

A. I told him about the group of citizens, the civilians that I saw fleeing to Serbia on the bridge.

Q. You couldn't tell him anything about seeing any single crime yourself, eyewitnessing a crime.

A. I didn't tell Sainovic that I had seen a crime. I saw a situation ²¹¹²⁹ when panic-stricken civilians were fleeing and shouting and saying that there was killing going on over there, nothing more than that.

Q. Very well. Thank you. My last question: In answer to a question from Mr. Groome, you said that in Belgrade, in front of the building in which Arkan's party was headquartered, there were armed men.

A. Yes, half of Belgrade saw them.

Q. Did half of Belgrade see two civilians without weapons or two civilians with machine-guns and some weapons?

A. For a while they had machine-guns and weapons, and then the service reacted and then they put on civilian clothes. This went on for years.

Q. But when they're there in civilian clothes for years.

A. Yes. There was a period when they were with Hecklers and in uniform.

Q. Weren't they always in civilian clothes?

A. No, sir. There were periods when they were in uniforms and periods when they were in civilian clothes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. GROOME: [Previous interpretation continues] ... If that's the last question.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's very hard to be very careful about switching on and off the microphones, but it was not out of any malicious intent that I did that.

JUDGE MAY: We accept that, because all -- we'll all have to get used to this. ²¹¹³⁰

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, Mr. Groome.

Re-examined by Mr. Groome:

Q. Sir, I have just a few questions for you. I'd like to return to Prosecution Exhibit 450, tab 7. I believe you still have it in front of you. I'd ask you to -- this is the document that you've told us. The top of it reads "Cooperation action," and it's a Federal Secretary for Internal Affairs state security document dated 23rd of March, 1992. Could I ask you in your own language to read just the first sentence under "General knowledge about the entire region." It's tab 7, and the -- the Serbian version is after the English version.

A. "Some general knowledge linked to the region as a whole. It is a key evaluation that the ratio forces, if we were to disregard JNA potentials, is in favour of the Muslims, both in terms of the number of fighters and the maximum they could engage would be 60.000 and more and also in terms of the quantity and quality of weapons that are at their disposal, mostly light weapons but very sophisticated ones, and according to the latest reports they have managed to increase the number of light guns to around 20."

Q. Now, my question to you is: Is this a correct reading of this report, that the -- the most important evaluation in it, this document called "Cooperation", is an assessment of the potential Muslim forces that existed in the region should a conflict break out?

A. Yes. ²¹¹³¹

Q. I now want to draw your attention to -- I believe it's the top of page 8 in your copy there, the original. And the paragraph begins "The situation in the municipality of Bosanska Krupa."

A. Yes, I see it.

Q. All right. Now, I wanted to draw your attention to the latter part of that paragraph. I'll read you the English version of the precise passage I want you to comment on. I'd ask you to follow along in the original.

It says: "Just in case and during the last days they are ready to block also areas of relevance in the city itself, in case the decision to join the Banja Luka sector, i.e., the CSB of Banja Luka is activated." And please read the rest of it if you need it for context. But the question I put to you is: Does a fair reading of this sentence indicate that at the time that this document was generated a plan already existed for the division of the police forces of Bosanska Krupa?

A. Yes. But I'm not familiar with these documents. I don't know what was going on over there.

Q. Now, the next area that I'd like to ask you a question about is Mr. Tapuskovic has asked you about your statement and what you -- what he asserts you failed to say in your statement. I want to read you one sentence from your statement and ask you to comment -- do you recall making this statement to the investigators. And this is your statement from 2002.

"I went directly to Rajcevic's house as I knew that this way word would get to Slobodan Milosevic through Sainovic." ²¹¹³² Do you recall making that statement to an investigator of the OTP?

A. Yes, I remember it very well.

Q. Now, you've been questioned on the fact that there was a prosecution of the Vukovic brothers, the members of the -- the leaders of the Yellow Wasps. I'm going to ask you to clarify one matter regarding time. You've testified that you saw cars belonging to Arkan's men and you were able to identify them because they had this emblem of a tiger displayed on them. My question to you is: Your observations of those cars, were they before or after this time -- this meeting that you had with Sainovic when you informed him about what was going on in Zvornik?

A. I saw the vehicles before and after for some time they were present in that area, for a lot of time.

Q. Were you ever personally aware of an investigation or prosecution of any members of Arkan's men for what occurred in Zvornik just as the Vukovic brothers were prosecuted for what happened in Zvornik?

A. I never heard that anyone was -- any member of Arkan's group was prosecuted.

MR. GROOME: I have no further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Witness B-161, that for the time concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You will in due course be recalled to deal with other matters. If you'd like to withdraw.

Yes.

MR. NICE: Before he does, may we go into private session. It touches on the general programming of witnesses. But the first thing I ²¹¹³³ want to say is something that I'd rather say just before the witness withdraws.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session]

[redacted]

[redacted] ²¹¹³⁴

[redacted]

[Open session]

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

[The witness withdrew]

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if I -- ²¹¹³⁵

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the difficulties with Mr. Kristan, the constitutional law expert, are as follows: He is Slovenian. He would much prefer to give evidence in that language. And although he obviously speaks B/C/S extremely well, if he is comfortable only in Slovenian -- and I don't think it's -- I don't think it's, as it were, a political point. I mean, he is genuinely more comfortable in that language -- it's unfair to press him to give evidence in B/C/S.

The Slovenian interpreters originally contacted to be here all of this week have, I understand, been stood down and can't be contacted today. I'll be correcting if I am wrong on that.

THE INTERPRETER: You're not wrong, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... if they are arranged for Monday and Tuesday. The difficulty there is Professor Kristan has to be in Ljubljana on Monday evening for Tuesday and flights have been booked, so that his evidence, even if started on Monday, if it were to go over to another day, could not be concluded next week. So that's the next difficulty that we face.

JUDGE MAY: Can I raise a point before we leave Dr. Kristan for the moment, which is the matter raised by the amicus, which we certainly would wish to have addressed. We think it raises quite a serious point about his -- the admissibility of his evidence as an expert, on that part which he was involved.

MR. NICE: Absolutely. Yes. Certainly. Well, we can certainly, whatever happens, perhaps deal with that today so that the matter can be ²¹¹³⁶ resolved.

So there's the problem with Dr. Kristan. The Court will recall that Mr. de la Brosse is due to come back on Monday morning at 9.00 to conclude. I think it's an hour-plus or two hours of cross-examination. I don't know what his availability is for the balance of the week, but I recall that it's a Wednesday, that's his teaching day, and I think it's a late teaching commitment, which takes care of Wednesday and Thursday. At least, it did last week, I think. And therefore, there may be a problem with his being here any other day other than Monday or Tuesday. But we haven't spoken to him about that yet. There is a witness who's available to start, and we don't want to spend time that's avoidable -- that's available for use elsewhere in discussing procedural matters once we can cut through the problem. There is a witness, B-024 that will start now, but that witness would inevitably go into Monday.

So in the absence of being able to start the constitutional law expert today, such as part of it as might be admitted as expert, then the Chamber is faced with this dilemma: If it starts, presumably it would be the next-most attractive option, B-024, unless it wants to go to wrapping B-024 around another witness, which is something it's not inclined to do, we would understand, B-024 would go into Monday, possibly eliminating the chance of concluding de la Brosse on Monday and certainly eliminating the chance of starting and concluding Kristan on Monday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour. ²¹¹³⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: I was saying I wanted to make a point about the difficulty which you obviously have and which the accused will have in getting witnesses here. There is clearly a logistical problem, because the witnesses are elsewhere. But it seems to me that it must mean something to give evidence before the International Tribunal, and sometimes when I hear some of the reasons being offered I really wonder whether there is a proper appreciation by the witnesses of the importance of giving evidence before the Tribunal. In some cases, I think it must take precedence over some of the duties which they have otherwise. I'd think the Prosecutor should bring that to the attention. This is an important tribunal, established by the Security Council, and giving evidence here has a special significance.

And, you know, we can't work all the time to the convenience of witnesses, because quite often the accused is quite severely prejudiced in my view by this chopping and changing. And I wish you would bring to the attention of your witnesses that there is a special significance and importance in giving evidence here, and they must take that into consideration when they weigh it against their other duties, some of which may appear to be relatively ordinary.

MR. NICE: Your Honour's words will of course be relied on when we discuss with witnesses the degree to which we should allow their interests to overrule the timetable requirements of the trial. Two points really: Of course, our powers of compulsion are non-existent. Second point: The vast majority of witnesses find themselves inconvenienced and frequently entirely privately overrule that ²¹¹³⁸ inconvenience in favour of giving evidence here, sometimes staying here for very great periods of time. And otherwise, as the Chamber will recall with some of our better-known witnesses like Lord Ashdown, abandoning their diaries when it's necessary to allow their evidence to be continued here.

So we will, of course, rely on those observations, but in the balance I must say that the vast majority of witnesses put up with very substantial inconvenience in order to assist the Chamber, and it's only a few, limited in number, who have commitments that they feel sometimes have to take them away in the middle of evidence.

So far as the constitution law expert is concerned, I believe - I haven't actually further confirmed this with him, because it hasn't been at the top of my agenda- but I believe he is due to receive an award on Tuesday from the European -- a European body, and it's been scheduled for a long time, and it's no doubt that something that can't suddenly be changed to another day.

JUDGE MAY: Well, may one answer be this, for the moment, to dispense with his evidence. It doesn't seem possible that we're going to reach it to do B-024 now, with a view to finishing that, and Mr. de la Brosse on Monday.

You might also care to reflect on Dr. Kristan's position, now that it's been brought to our attention, we hadn't appreciated the point, I have to say, but though it was in the report, but the force of it has now been brought home to us, as to whether he really is an appropriate witness on matters concerning the autonomy of Kosovo. He might be on other ²¹¹³⁹ matters. Of course I speak for myself entirely. But on the federal matters, of course he's -- he's a totally impartial expert. But the difficulty which the amicus has raised, although I again speaking for myself don't necessarily agree with the solution at the moment - I think that's subject to argument - the difficulty which they raise does seem to be a real one if one is going to put weight on what the witness says. You might want to reflect on that.

MR. NICE: I've been reflecting on it, and obviously it's a matter I'd rather dispose of sooner rather than later, in order to plan ahead. And there are perhaps three short points I can make now and then get on with some evidence, which is obviously what we must do. And I think the three points are, first of all, these are matters of impeachment -- or they can be used as matters of impeachment; he will certainly be able to take the Court through matters of legislation, pointing out what legislation can have a bearing on the issue. It then being a matter for the Chamber and the Chamber said this, in relation, for example, to the issue of Croatian statehood, the Chamber being in a position itself, having seen the relevant legislation, being satisfied what it is, to make such further determinations as it wishes.

And the third point, I'm trying to find the reference for it. I don't know if it's yet turned up. The third point, the Chamber may recall - I do - that I explained at an earlier stage, months and months ago, that it has proved extremely difficult to find people who were willing in the state or states with which we are concerned to give evidence about constitutional law, and this is a very highly placed and ²¹¹⁴⁰ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²¹¹⁴¹ obviously highly qualified person, whether there's a problem with his being interested in way that's entirely visible. But it was difficult to find people to come and assist the Chamber.

Now, this witness is extremely knowledgeable. He's given a great deal of time and effort to preparing the report. This is an area where probably there can be allegation of bias against anybody, depending on which nationality they -- which nation or which state they come from. His is entirely visible, and therefore it's easier to deal with the question. And it's our submission to you very shortly that it's entirely appropriate to hear from him because you'll be able to make the distinction of -- of those passages where he manifestly has no interest and those where the argument might be pressed against him that he does. And, of course, he is Slovene, so that his interests as a Slovenian are at least different from those that might be associated with anybody who was Serbian or from Kosovo or anything else. So those are a few of the points I would raise more particularly. And we would certainly press you to take his evidence, for all sorts of reasons, not the least that he's done a great deal of work and he's an extremely learned man who can take you through the legislation.

But Your Honour, that then leaves outstanding the last witness. As we are in public session, I need say no more about that now as to the return date for his evidence. The Chamber would probably want me to come back -- or somebody to come back later this morning and tell you what the position is there. Obviously the sooner that evidence can be dealt with, the better. ²¹¹⁴²

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just a moment, Mr. Milosevic. What we propose to do is to deal with this issue which has been raised by the amicus on the admissibility or the appropriate way of approaching the expert's evidence. At least if we can do a ruling on that or at least hear the argument on it. Speaking for myself, I think it may be more sensible than to go on with the witness, at least the part that -- finishing him and any other witnesses there may be on -- on Monday.

THE ACCUSED: Can I make --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll hear you on this, Mr. Milosevic. What we were going to discuss, you may have seen the paper that has been put in by the amicus on the appropriateness of the expert evidence given by Dr. Kristan. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you will bring whichever witness forward you like, and I will cross-examine every witness, so that's not the problem. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that -- how shall I put it -- that it is inappropriate and impolite, I should also say, to keep changing the order.

Yesterday you said that Kristan would be testifying today. Last night, after the close of trial, they brought me this binder into my cell. Have a look at it. And it refers to Kristan. It is the Kristan binder, for me to be able to read through it during the night. We now hear that ²¹¹⁴³ it won't be Kristan who's testifying but Witness B-024. I really don't understand this. If you, upon my insistence, established here some sort of - how shall I put this - basic order, that is, to give us the list of witnesses at least seven days in advance, how can we then in such an inappropriate way function the way we're doing? So I left the courtroom with the knowledge that Kristan will be testifying, and to bear this out the employee waiting in the Detention Centre and he doesn't work after 5.00, so the registrar told him to wait after his working hours and bring me this enormous binder, which refers to Kristan and constitutional matters. I have to spend the whole night studying it, which I did, and now we hear in the morning that it won't be Kristan who's going to testify but B-024, and we don't know at all when Kristan is going to come in and testify. We have an interrupted witness today, and we have an interrupted other witness, Mr. de la Brosse. He seems to be coming in on Monday. And now we have B-024 and so on and so forth. So I insist that some order be put into all this, something that will put all of this into frameworks of appropriateness and proper conduct.

And quite simply, if somebody doesn't have the right witness at the right time, then they won't be able to do any patchwork and mend and fix a programme by making changes all the time. So quite simply, I think that to be highly inappropriate and out of order, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We hear what you say. Yes.

MR. KAY: Did the Court want to address the Dr. Kristan argument -- ²¹¹⁴⁴

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we do.

MR. KAY: -- At this stage. The point that occurred to us was that there was a clear conflict of interest where a Judge has performed a role, a judicial office, in fact, at the highest level of his country, and been involved with the decision-making process, then being used as an expert with the role of instruction and guidance to this Court.

JUDGE MAY: Instruction? I doubt that. An expert doesn't instruct the Court. I mean, he gives evidence about his expertise. Instruction is taking it too far.

MR. KAY: Well, the purpose of calling an expert and how you fall into the category of being an expert and the need for expertise is to instruct and guide Judges on matters with which they are not familiar and need special assistance. Otherwise, in our submission --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It depends on how you interpret "instructs."

MR. KAY: Yes. I am not telling -- I am not saying that he has to -- has to -- I can't even complain about translation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It comes from a Latin word, which in any event means "to guide, to lead."

MR. KAY: Yes. I can't complain about the translation. But there is a clear conflict of interest, because in effect what is happening is he would be judging himself and justifying his own decision and role in the decision-making process. From my position, I have been able to consider that aspect of his report. I must say I don't know how far it goes and how far his further ²¹¹⁴⁵ involvement in other aspects relating to the constitutional law went, and that may be something that emerges during cross-examination by others. If that does, we may have a greater problem on our hands than the one I've already identified, which was obvious and apparent to me, having been pointed in that direction been others.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The issue that you identified is the one relating to the -- the autonomy?

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is also the right to self-determination, in which he had also expressed views in court and had provided an opinion.

MR. KAY: That is right. The proposals.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: Seeing his background within the constitutional court, there may well be further consultative roles that he has played a part in as part of the issues of the day in Yugoslavia that do not become revealed in the report. As judges are consulted about many things and often provide advice and assistance to government bodies and agency and take part in such roles, I do not know how far his remit has been beyond the obvious within the report. So what I am saying is that this has been identified but there may be a bigger problem that I'm unaware of, and I'm not saying that it is the absolute scope of the issue. But the point is that an expert witness does come into a courtroom with a particular standing and role. There is a difference between this kind of witness from that, say, as the inventor of the Lion intoximeter or alcohol meter. I'll call him Mr. Lion who comes to court and explains the ²¹¹⁴⁶ workings of his machine that he invented and why it gives the readings that it does, which is the kind of expert involved in a manufacturing process, production of an instrument. This is a judge with a background of legal opinions, and his opinions were not necessarily held by everyone. His was a -- a dissenting judgement. That is a different kind of expert as a judge from someone who has made or created something. And whereas in the category of the inventor there may be a good case for permitting him to give evidence in an expert way --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, I give you two scenarios: Might it be compared with, say, a very distinguished doctor who performs a heart operation, something goes wrong, and a case arises in court? He's called as an expert in relation to the procedures that he employed. That might not be the best example, because there he might actually be the defendant. But the other scenario: A distinguished doctor performs a heart operation using a particular procedure. There is another heart operation sometime later on which is performed using perhaps a similar procedure, and something goes wrong, and a case arises out of the second operation. Now, the first doctor is called in court to give evidence not only about the procedure employed by the second doctor but also about his own procedure, which then almost becomes an issue in the case, you know. And I tend to see it -- to see this situation as being somewhat analogous that the -- the judge is being called to give expert evidence in relation to a matter that is an issue in the case and in which he was an active participant. So that the necessary distance that you look for in an expert from the event in issue would be missing, it seems to me, at least ²¹¹⁴⁷ in relation to the issues are identified the question of autonomy in which he dissented and the question of the right to self-determination on which he provided opinions.

MR. KAY: I would submit that the distinction between the two cases is in fact the route Your Honour was going down first of all, and that is that the first doctor could well be a defendant in relation to a -- a negligent suit for malpractice or whatever. And it would be inappropriate for him to be viewed as an expert. At the trial of another doctor, he is more removed and less proximate to the issue before the Court and therefore is giving the benefit of his expertise so far as his successful operation was concerned.

Dr. Kristan, of course, was immediately involved, took part in the deliberations, argument perhaps between the judges, exchange of papers and notes, which means that he is not one step removed. If this was an issue involving a -- a replica state elsewhere, with similar constitutional issues, one could see then the point. Or if this was an issue that had arisen after his term of office and involved constitutional matters that arose after 1992, whereby he was providing his expertise. But this is an area that has been of a fundamental nature to this case. We have heard a great deal about it.

JUDGE KWON: Let me understand this a little bit clearer. What you are asserting is not that the -- Dr. Kristan shouldn't be heard at all. What you are opposing is that he's to be heard as an expert. So you are not opposing we hear him as an ordinary witness. Am I right?

MR. KAY: Yes, I've never suggested that his evidence does not ²¹¹⁴⁸ fall within the category of being relevant and probative, under Rule 89. But what I have suggested is that as an expert witness, which is a separate part of the Rules, Rule 94, carrying with it all that goes as lawyers and judges understand expert witnesses is a category that is inappropriate, and we submit that it is not an unimportant distinction.

JUDGE MAY: If you're saying that, what would be the point of calling him if he's not an expert?

JUDGE KWON: And there would be little differences if he's to come at all.

MR. KAY: Well, to echo someone else's words, that's not my problem. That's for them to decide and work out. That's not my problem. It's a problem that has to be -- be faced if he is desired to be called and what he says as an ordinary witness can be challenged and contested. But it's a very unusual position, in my submission, where an expert witness in this situation will be called effectively giving his opinion and judgement about his own dissenting opinion as an expert.

JUDGE MAY: If he was an ordinary witness, he couldn't give his opinion. That's the whole point of the expert, is that he gives an opinion. The ordinary witness can't.

MR. KAY: And therein lies the dangers, because he would be giving an opinion. If he's to be called to advise you about various constitutional matters which are also within his report and refer the Court to the relevant passages and documents without an opinion, then as a witness he can do that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, how would you answer the submission that ²¹¹⁴⁹ might be made that the matter could be resolved from the point of view of weight?

MR. KAY: In my submission, that's a very, very difficult way of judging it, because you're in effect saying that the opinion that's going to be given -- well, let me think back over that again. In effect, you're saying that he's coming in as an ordinary witness then. It's --

JUDGE MAY: No. Suppose he came in as an expert, gave his evidence as an expert, but the point was made, the point which Mr. Nice made, that these are matters of impeachment, as he put it, i.e., going to the weight effectively of the evidence. He was treated as an expert, and these matters were made and regarded as matters of weight. When assessing that evidence, would he have any weight at all, I suppose one could ask?

MR. KAY: Yes. It's -- it's a concept that we wouldn't normally apply to expert -- you would have challenge over the -- the issues. But if the status and role of the particular witness is open to question, in relation to these particular issues because of his direct personal involvement, you come to the issue of unreliability, which is the undercurrent by which the matter should be judged.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: I see the time. Do you want to reflect on things --

MR. KAY: I know Mr. Tapuskovic wants to ask me something, and perhaps if we can have an opportunity to speak together in French.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. KAY: It's difficult in court.

JUDGE MAY: Why don't we adjourn now for 20 minutes. ²¹¹⁵⁰

--- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: There's nothing further I need add, having spoken to Mr. Tapuskovic, save for this: On the matter of weight, having reflected upon that, in effect then the Court is really treating him as an ordinary witness on the issues, in my submission.

MR. NICE: I don't know if the accused wants to contribute anything himself.

JUDGE MAY: No.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's a number of, I think, misapprehensions here. This is a witness who in our respectful submission should plainly be heard. Before I develop those arguments briefly, can I suggest what may at first sight seem to be a rather close analogy and then perhaps show that it isn't.

The recent election of President George W. Bush was preceded by a very famous hearing in the United States Supreme Court where the judges divided on what would seem to be or thought to be by some political grounds. The decision was made. If any of those learned justices were in court asked to identify the laws upon which the decisions were made, the materials upon which the decisions were made, the whole background legal structure of the United States, its courts, its decision-making processes, is there any doubt that they would be expert and indeed very high experts in that area of potential evidence? In our respectful submission, of course they would. ²¹¹⁵¹ Does that then at the very least sustain an argument that this witness must be allowed to give evidence of all those materials upon which he is plainly an expert? Arguably, yes, but in fact I can go further, because although the analogy seems at first sight strong, it's not as strong as all that, and the differences between the two positions favour more rather than less of the evidence of Dr. Kristan being given. For in this case, where you might expect there would be division within the Court on political grounds, in fact no decision was rendered. What happened in relation to revocation, and we can see this at paragraphs 112 and onwards of the report, was indeed no decision was rendered, but various judges had opinions as to whether the matter should be brought to conclusion but no conclusion was ever reached.

JUDGE MAY: At --

MR. NICE: Paragraph 121, I'm sorry.

JUDGE MAY: But paragraph 112 contains the witness's proposals, various proposals that he made to the court on that issue. And the matter was before the court, the matter of the revocation was before -- rather, the amendments to the Serbian constitution, an allied subject, was before the court, page 22. And the witness dissented, page 23. So he has an involvement in it.

MR. NICE: Yes, he has an involvement. But it's in the material matter that we're looking at on revocation, he just like competing experts on either side of all sorts of potential issues hold a opinion. He's held the same opinion for a long period of time. He expressed it. And no action was taken on it. He's also, of course, fully able to identify and ²¹¹⁵² has fully done so all the contrary opinions that were expressed at the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the point you raised is something which I've been considering, because the report does indicate, as you say, that no decision was taken. But he himself describes his dissenting opinion. What is it dissenting from then? Is it dissenting from the other proposals.

MR. NICE: The others whom he also identifies, yes. But it's not --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, to my mind, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether a decision was actually taken or not. I mean, he has clearly expressed his views on the matter, which differed from the others. And it seems to me he must come to the exercise that you asked him to be involved in, heavily influenced by that so-called dissenting opinion, you know.

MR. NICE: I respectfully differ. If you had -- let's go back to one of the examples that we've been considering, the expert in the medical negligence action. Before you get to find your expert witness, it may come to you that that particular doctor has already expressed outrage at the operation was conducted. He may have gone to press and said this is an extraordinary act of negligence by Dr. X or Dr. Y, and our profession should be ashamed of it. So he's already expressed an opinion. You go to him and say, "Well, perhaps you'd like to be an expert in this case," and he said, "I certainly would. It's always been my opinion this is an outrage, and I'd like to be the person to give evidence about it." It's ²¹¹⁵³ no different from what we've got here. The fact that the man has been consistent in his opinion is I would have thought rather more in his favour than anything else. And the fact he is who he is means that he's better placed than anyone else to give evidence as his report reveals of the contrary opinions, as well as would the justices of the Supreme Court of America -- the United States of America be able to give evidence of all the underlying materials in a neutral way.

JUDGE MAY: But the point -- sorry.

JUDGE KWON: If I can make a comment on your earlier comparison to the United States Supreme Court, regarding the presidential election. I think that the Supreme Court justice of the Supreme Court of the United States would not volunteer to come to the court as the -- either as an expert witness or an ordinary witness to come -- to give evidence about what he decided. It's very inappropriate, in my opinion, for a judge to come to the court later and give evidence what they talked inside. What is your observation?

MR. NICE: That's an entirely different issue, of course. He does not regard it as inappropriate. He's, of course, an academic as well as a judge. His position have been publicly known for a long time, and what he's revealing is not anything that is other than publicly available, so that there's no -- there's no embarrassment there and I don't think there's perceived to be any embarrassment.

The position of the United States Supreme Court would of course be different because there a final decision would -- had in fact been rendered, and it might be unrealistic to expect either the minority or the ²¹¹⁵⁴ majority to express an opinion on their own judgement. But that's not the position here.

And this is a country where of course there could be some expectations of divisions of opinion along all sorts of lines, in places like the constitutional court, and it may well be that what this Chamber wants more than opinions on legality is to be acquainted with the materials and to know how the materials were relied upon by the complete -- by the competing arguments.

And I don't know if the Chamber has had an opportunity of looking at the charts that came last night with the summary of the evidence? Because it may be that they will also help you --

JUDGE MAY: It did not come to us until this morning.

JUDGE KWON: Is it in the bundle?

MR. NICE: It's coming now, I think. Well, then why don't we distribute those. This will more clearly identify -- If one could be given to me as well, I would be grateful.

THE INTERPRETER: Do the interpreters have the document?

JUDGE KWON: Since nobody did hear it, it seems that nobody heard it, the interpreters asking to have the document.

MR. NICE: And so they shall. But this is first of all to explain what we really want this witness for. And then you'll see the, in a sense, limited degree to which these opinions are a central part of his evidence. What we want him to help you with - and you've seen charts which may be similar to but not identical with these in the past - what we want ²¹¹⁵⁵ him to help you with, from his knowledge of all the materials, is how, in a fairly simple way, the constitution of the SFRY operated. And so that's chart number 1. It deals with matters, most of which you'll be familiar with. How it operated so far as control of defence is concerned; that's chart number 2. How it operated so far as police were concerned; that's chart number 3. How it was changed between 1988 and April of 1992; and here in the legend you'll see two of the issues upon which expressions of legality may be drawn from his materials, the revocation of autonomy of Kosovo, number 2, and number 4, the decision on the imminent threat of war. But again, opinions that he expresses will simply be opinions that you can yourselves, as experienced, qualified lawyers, trace back to the raw materials, namely the legislation, insofar as you judge it appropriate to do so.

Then number 5 is Serbia's constitution, the 1990 constitution. And again, this is simply to show, within limits, how things operated so far as the division of responsibilities for the police, the armed forces, and the volunteers. And indeed you'll see question marks at two places, indicating the way in which he will draw to your attention how the legislation may have left unclear and uncertain matters that you may be concerned with.

And then number 6, the 1992 FRY constitution, again with some very familiar bodies described, and within an identification for your assistance of the articles in which the competencies may be found. Now -- and then number 7 is not so much an exhibit as an aide-memoire, a time line. ²¹¹⁵⁶ Now, it's that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I should express the hope that nothing that I said was being interpreted as meaning that Dr. Kristan's lack of expertise in one area would invalidate or vitiate the entire report.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful for that. So this is -- this is the heart of the evidence. Now, in the course of it, we would like of course to focus on those couple of problematic areas, where he can take you to the materials, he can take you to his opinion, if permitted, he can take you to the opinions of others. And it would then be for the Chamber to decide in due course, A, whether it needed to make a definitive decision on the state of the law of another country, arguably something it will be always cautious about doing, but that if it does do it will have to make -- have to do it itself with its own judgement.

And I add parenthetically the Court will recall that I raised tissue of Croatian statehood and the role of Mr. McCormack, and His Honour Judge May, drew to my attention, that this may well be an area where it would not be so much for expertise but a matter for this Chamber on the materials, it being a matter of law, guided by argument, for example, by Mr. McCormack or by us or indeed by Dr. Kristan, though he's not being invited to deal with that and it's not covered in his report. But the position is entirely analogous. So it's our respectful submission that the appropriate way to approach this evidence would be to take the report, and when he gives evidence, if we come to a place where it's thought that he's giving final expert opinion on something that the Court is concerned ²¹¹⁵⁷ he may have an interest in, then as Mr. Kay would suggest it becomes simply a question of fact. This is an opinion he expressed, here with competing opinions for you, the Judges, to decide. And that's a satisfactory resolution of that as a problem and probably in line with what you may do on strict pure matters of law in any event. Mr. Groome reminded me, but I'm sure we all have this at the back of our minds, witnesses regularly give evidence that is both expert and factual. To take His Honour Judge Robinson's point -- well, to pick up Mr. Groome's analogy, the policeman who deals with the drunk driver, and gives both evidence of fact and evidence of opinion built on his experience in dealing with either drunks or with devices that reveal states of intoxication.

To take His Honour Judge Robinson's example about the doctor who may be a defendant in a negligence suit, of course when he's giving evidence about what he himself has actually done, that's evidence of fact. But at any time he could be slipping into evidence derived from his own learning, dealing with earlier procedure --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I gave the example only to disown it.

MR. NICE: Well, there it is. I've --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I was relying on the second example that I gave.

MR. NICE: One way or another, Your Honour, it's -- it's absolutely commonplace for witnesses of fact to give evidence of expertise in part and for witnesses who are called primarily as experts also to give evidence of fact in part.

JUDGE MAY: Pretty unusual for a judge though, I should think. ²¹¹⁵⁸ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²¹¹⁵⁹

MR. NICE: Yes, it may be unusual. I'm not so sure. Judges and former judges are increasingly secured for other functions these days. Gone are the days of the departure to the never-neverland of absolute anonymity of the English judge, as it were, who doesn't come back to sit as a -- we've had judges in England that have come back to practice, I think. And certainly, they've come back to arbitrate. And although I can't immediately retrieve it, I've -- I think I even have recollection of English judges giving opinions on matters. But I may be wise to be cautious about that.

In any case, even if it's usual, there's nothing improper in it. And there's no suggestion from Mr. Kay nor from the accused that there's any improper motivation in what this witness done.

JUDGE MAY: I hasten to say that everything in this discussion works on the basis that of course there is good faith and no suggestion of anything else.

MR. NICE: And I come back to the point that I made that it proved extremely difficult -- it may have had something to do with the regime in place at the time, I simply don't know -- it proved extremely difficult to find lawyers who at the appropriate level of experience and learning, who were willing to give evidence on these matters, and we needed a fairly broad cover of topics, and this witness is ideally placed to cover all the topics we need because his learning and, indeed, experience covers those, and he can bring to you a wealth-materials, he could index a wealth of materials, and he could always been arrested by me - and I can perhaps look at the conclusions to see if they need any prospective amendment - or ²¹¹⁶⁰ by the Chamber. He can always be arrested at a point where the Chamber decides either, A, we don't want to hear this at all; or B, we hear this but we treat this in the way perhaps Mr. Kay was suggesting, as a matter of fact that this opinion was expressed.

And I return to the point that as a matter of fact this was not a judgement; this was an opinion that was expressed in the course of a very different type of legal proceeding from that which some of us are familiar, and it didn't get to being incorporated by acceptance or rejection in judgement. It simply lay along with the other opinions has one of the competing views held at that time, so that in our respectful submission in due course - I mean, it looks likes like not today, certainly not today - may this witness be heard on that basis. I've forgot to ask him at the break what the reason was for his not being available on Tuesday. I may have got an email to that effect. But I understand --

JUDGE MAY: Shall we come back to that? Let us deal with the matter --

MR. NICE: Yes. I'll just check if my colleagues -- No, thank you very much.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Judge Robinson will give the ruling of the Trial Chamber.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber has before it a motion by the Prosecution for the admission of a report from Dr. Ivan Kristan under Rule 94. Dr. Kristan is being proposed as an expert witness. ²¹¹⁶¹ Let me say immediately that there can be no question about Dr. Kristan's qualifications and the level of his expertise. It is clear from his curriculum vitae that he's a distinguished professor, highly qualified.

However, the amicus has raised, and in this regard the Chamber expresses its gratitude to the amicus for raising this point, the amicus, as I said, has raised a question as to what it calls a conflict of interest but which I think might be better characterised as the level of disinterestedness that one looks for in an expert, disinterestedness in the issue before the case. It arises in this way: The report is broken up into several parts. The first part relates to the revocation of Kosovo's autonomy, and the second part to the right to self-determination and secession and the Republic of Kosovo.

In relation to the first part, while Dr. Kristan was a member of the constitutional court, there was litigation on this issue. It turns out that several opinions were expressed by members of the Court and Dr. Kristan himself has characterised what he did as expressing a dissenting opinion. As Mr. Nice points out, however, the report indicates that no decision was taken by the Court on that issue. In relation to the right to self-determination and secession, there was also litigation, and Dr. Kristan again put forward proposals on the issue. The amicus argues, and we think with some merit, that Dr. Kristan's role as a judge in the court disqualifies him in relation to this aspect of the report.

An expert witness will guide the Court, and for that reason it is ²¹¹⁶² important that the Court be in a position to rely on the evidence that he gives. The Chamber is of the view that in view of the role that Dr. Kristan had in the litigation before the constitutional court it is inevitable that he will come to this issue quite influenced by his participation in the court proceedings, which in effect become -- have become an issue in this case.

It is rather like a doctor being called as an expert witness, then part of the issue in the case relates to certain procedures that he had used in a particular operation. The Chamber is therefore of the view that Dr. Kristan's involvement in the court proceedings, in relation to these two aspects of the report, leaves him in a position where we cannot be satisfied that the level of disinterestedness which an expert should have in the issue before the Court is present. The distance, the remoteness from the issue before the Court is missing in this case. However, that does not disqualify Dr. Kristan from being an expert in relation to other aspects of -- the Chamber thinks it is proper to sever the first two parts that I have mentioned, that is, the revocation of Kosovo's autonomy and the right to self-determination and secession from the rest, and the ruling, therefore, is that Dr. Kristan's expert evidence will not include those two parts and will be confined to the rest of the report.

MR. NICE: I'm obliged. Dealing with the question of timetable, I understand and would advance this on his behalf as an expression of his respect for the Chamber, that he's receiving an award in Yugoslavia -- in Slovenia, coming from another country, organised months or so ago and involving people from ²¹¹⁶³ another country coming to Slovenia for the ceremony whereby he is to be so awarded.

We had, of course, planned on his evidence being concluded this week, and indeed we'd planned on Slovenian interpreters being available for the whole week. It's always impossible to forecast how long cross-examination will take, and in the event it wasn't possible for him to be concluded this week that led to the interpreters being, I think, released by Registry, and they planning for the interpreters to come on Monday and Tuesday, not having been aware that he has to be away on Monday night in order to be at the ceremony on Tuesday. I, of course, remind myself of His Honour Judge Robinson's words, but men of distinction who receive awards are not only participating in something that reflects on them but it also involves others, and it would be difficult for him, I suspect, simply not to be there.

JUDGE MAY: The upshot is that Dr. Kristan is available but there are no interpreters today, so what the accused was told turned out to be wrong, i.e., to be ready for him today.

Witness B-024 is ready, but no doubt we'd go into Monday in any event. And Dr. de la Brosse has to come back for at least an hour and a half.

MR. NICE: On Monday.

JUDGE MAY: Possibly, on Monday. The accused has a point when he says that things are not straightforward.

MR. NICE: And let me say at once that I shoulder responsibility ²¹¹⁶⁴ for not having thought yesterday of the possibility that the Slovenian interpreters would have been stood down and wouldn't be available. And I take full responsibility for that. I should have thought of it. At the time when I first thought of it was, I think, at 4.00 this morning, when I was turning to the report for other reasons.

JUDGE MAY: 4.00 this morning?

MR. NICE: Yes. I woke up and suddenly realised that I hadn't thought about that.

JUDGE MAY: A great deal of industry seems to have been expended last night in one way or another on an event which doesn't seem to have come about.

Well, it's questionable to say what we can best do to -- to inconvenience everybody the less.

MR. NICE: May I propose on the basis that he really is not available on Tuesday that we simply schedule him for another day, hope that we can save the waste of expenditure on Monday and Tuesday, get on with B-024, de la Brosse, and the other witnesses scheduled for next week, and so as I don't have to speak too many times, may I also say that it's in my mind if this seems sensible to refer or to seek to refer questions on the two issues that this witness will not be allowed to give evidence on to Mr. McCormack with the materials so see if it's something that he may be able to assist the Chamber in argument, along similar lines that he's been able to take in relation to Croatian independence.

JUDGE KWON: Given the difficulties we face, do you think it's inappropriate to ask the witness to speak in Serbian? ²¹¹⁶⁵

MR. NICE: B/C/S?

JUDGE KWON: B/C/S.

MR. NICE: I have asked him that this morning: He does speak B/C/S, obviously not as perfectly as Slovenian. And he was reluctant, because I think he feels that precision in -- in legal matters is desirable, and he would find it less easy to be sure he was conveying things precisely. We can ask him again. That's -- and then we could have the Slovenian interpreters on Monday.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer].

JUDGE MAY: We think the best course -- in addition, I should add to the other problems, we understand there are difficulties about the witness leaving on Monday, Dr. Kristan, we have just been told by the registry.

MR. NICE: I've just been told that, having earlier been informed there was a night -- an evening flight out.

JUDGE MAY: There apparently is not one. So the simplest course, we think, would be to call the other witness, B-024, try and conclude him. It may not be possible. If the accused wants time to prepare his cross-examination, of course he -- we will consider that. But at least we'll call his evidence in chief.

MR. NICE: Certainly. Before I sit down, not only for today but also to vanish, for I can't unfortunately be here on Monday or Tuesday, it falls to me to inform you that the witness list that the accused will have been working on will have to be changed, and we'll send a as soon as may be. ²¹¹⁶⁶ The historian, Audrey Budding, has for personal reasons, namely she's been seriously unwell and in hospital, to be postponed. And the next witness, B-176 -- or not the next witness, one of the next week's witnesses, B-176, for reasons we can I hope go into in closed -- in private session, is not going to be available. It appears to be from the limited information coming to me along the lines of some previous witnesses who have not been available.

But I'll give the accused and the Chamber the earliest possible notice of that and hope that the Chamber will forgive my absence on Monday when Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff will be able to deal with the re-examination of de la Brosse.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to request that I be given the order of witnesses from Monday onwards, for next week. I'd like to have it today. I'm not quite clear on this. I know that de la Brosse goes ahead on Monday, but I know something specific and concrete apart from that.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. When can that list be available?

MR. NICE: Half an hour.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes. We'll call the witness, please.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls B-024, a protected witness.

Your Honour, while we're waiting for the witness to be brought ²¹¹⁶⁷ into the chamber, if it would be possible to have an exhibit number assigned to a binder of 14 exhibits.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, Prosecution Exhibit 451.

MR. GROOME: And if I could just point out a small change to the -- the pseudonym sheet. At the bottom of the pseudonym sheet, there's a -- a name key with three names. There's one meeting that the witness will testify about that, if he is granted permission to refer to this name key he believes he can do it in open session without compromising his identity.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

WITNESS: WITNESS B-024

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Please take a seat.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'd ask that we begin by showing this witness Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 1.

Examined by Mr. Groome:

Q. Sir, I'd ask you to take a look at this document and simply ask you is that your name on the first line of that document?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm going to ask that that be tendered under -- ²¹¹⁶⁸

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Groome, please.

MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that that be tendered under seal and further that it be left on the chair -- or on the table in front of the witness during his testimony.

Q. Sir, at the start of your testimony, I'm going to ask you whether you know certain people and then ask you what you know about those people. The first person I would like to ask you about is a person by the name of Marko Pavlovic. Do you know such a person?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe how it is you know him?

A. I first met him through Radislav Kostic during the war conflicts in Baranja, part of Croatian territory.

Q. Did there come a time when you learnt that Marko Pavlovic had another name?

A. Yes. I got to know him under his real name.

Q. And what was that?

A. Branko Popovic.

Q. Can you describe for us when it was you first met Marko Pavlovic.

A. I think it was in 1991.

Q. And how long after you initially met him did you learn his real name was Brano Popovic [sic]?

A. I became acquainted with him under his real name, Branko Popovic, and I knew that when the clash broke out in Zvornik he started to introduce himself using another name.

Q. Did he ever indicate to you why he would use an alias around the ²¹¹⁶⁹ time that the hostilities broke out in Zvornik?

A. We never discussed that.

JUDGE KWON: Did he say his real name is Branko or Brano? Let me clarify this.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's Branko.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Now, when he was in the -- the Zvornik area, where would he stay?

A. Before the conflict, that was the Hotel Jezero, situated in Mali Zvornik. And once the conflict began, I think he used some flats in Zvornik.

Q. Do you have any knowledge regarding whether he met with members of the Yugoslav People's Army at that hotel before and during the early stages of the conflict?

A. I didn't personally see him meet with any people, but he did inform the headquarters and staff that he had good contacts with the JNA.

Q. Did he indicate to the headquarters which particular members or the names of the particular members of the JNA he had good contacts with?

A. He mentioned the commander of the Tuzla Corps, for example, General Savo Jankovic, and Lieutenant-Colonel or Colonel Dubajic, and some other men whose names I can't remember exactly now.

Q. Can you tell us with as much precision as you are able when it was -- or what period of time he was referring to when he said he had good contacts with General Jankovic, the commander of the Tuzla Corps?

A. That was the period six months before the war conflicts broke out in Zvornik, in fact. ²¹¹⁷⁰

Q. And when in your view did the war conflicts break out in Zvornik?

A. Well, round about -- from the 6th to the 9th of April, between those dates.

Q. And is that in 1992?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Do you know a person or did Mr. Pavlovic ever reveal to you contacts he may have had with a person by the name of Dragan Suka?

A. Yes, he did have contacts with him, with the person you mentioned.

Q. Who is or who was Dragan Suka at that time?

A. As I worked in the police, I knew that he was a member of the state security in Loznica.

Q. Do you know what position he held in the state security service of Loznica?

A. I don't know exactly how they were set up organisationally speaking, but I think he was the chief for the municipality or perhaps for the neighbouring municipalities as well.

Q. Did Mr. Pavlovic indicate to you with what frequency and over what period of time he had these contacts with Mr. Suka?

A. We didn't discuss that very much, but I saw them together. I knew that they had been together a couple of times.

Q. You have testified that you met or were introduced to Mr. Pavlovic by a person by the name of Rade Kostic. Can you describe for the Chamber what you know about the relationship between Marko Pavlovic and Rade Kostic?

A. Well, what I know is this: Pavlovic was included in the war ²¹¹⁷¹ conflicts, involved in them, the ones that took place in Croatia, in the Baranja region of Croatia, and also that - to a certain extent that was the impression I gained - he listened to Rade Kostic. He seemed to be his assistant in a way.

Q. For what -- or over what period of time did you have contact with Marko Pavlovic?

A. That was in the period -- in a four or five-month period prior to the conflict in Zvornik.

Q. And did you continue to have contact with him after the conflict began?

A. Yes, I did, for a time, while I was a member of the Crisis Staff. And afterwards I worked in the economy, but Zvornik is a small place and we all had contacts more or less.

Q. Can you give us an estimate of the entire period of time over which you've known Marko Pavlovic? Is it a year, less than a year? Or can you give us a precise answer to that question?

A. I'm not sure I understand the question fully, but I've known him since 1991. I knew him during 1992 as well. He left the area, I think it was in July of 1992, and I saw him twice after that again.

Q. Drawing your attention to 1991 and 1992. Based upon your observations of him and the activities he was engaged in, did you form an opinion with respect to who he worked for?

A. Well, according to what I knew, his best contacts were with the Yugoslav People's Army.

Q. Did you ever learn or -- I'm not asking you about his contacts, ²¹¹⁷² but he himself. Did you ever learn or did you have an opinion about who he himself worked with or any organisation he was associated with?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Were you ever present when Mr. Pavlovic made a phone call after which something significant arrived in the municipality of Zvornik?

A. Yes. Mr. Pavlovic, in front of the whole Crisis Staff, called up some telephone numbers that I didn't know, weren't familiar to me, and he contacted officers from the JNA. And I know that the result of all that was the arrival of the -- of some logistical goods necessary for the Territorial Defence of Zvornik at that time.

Q. Can you be more precise? What exactly were these logistical goods?

A. Well, to begin with, we lacked ammunition and weapons, uniforms as well.

Q. At the time that Mr. Pavlovic made this phone call in front of the Crisis Staff, did he represent to the people present that he would be able to secure the logistical equipment, including ammunition and weapons?

A. Yes. That was quite clear from his conversations. And it instilled respect within the Crisis Staff that we had the right man and the right sort of support.

Q. What period of time elapsed between the time he made this phone call and the arrival of the first of these shipments of logistical goods?

A. Well, it was all done within the space of 24 to 48 hours.

Q. And can you give the Chamber some sense of the quantity of goods that arrived by perhaps describing the number of -- of trucks or, if you ²¹¹⁷³ know, the specific quantities of goods, please tell us.

A. I really can't say. I wasn't involved with those affairs, so I really don't know.

Q. And if you would, please give us your most precise recollection about when this occurred.

A. This occurred in the period between the 6th of April, 1992 up until the 20th of April, 1992. And I don't know how this was organised after that.

Q. I'd like to now draw your attention to this Rade Kostic that you've mentioned. Can you please describe who he is and the circumstances under which you know him.

A. He was born right near Zvornik, in Serbia, in the municipality of Mali Zvornik. And I knew him privately, while he was the commander of the police station in Darda in Croatia. And then later on I know that he took up some official post in the Ministry of the Interior in Serbia.

Q. Your knowledge regarding the post he took up in the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, is that because he told you that that's where he worked?

A. He just said he worked in the Ministry of the Interior. He didn't tell me any details about it. But I knew that he worked in the state security service. What post he held and what his assignments were, he never spoke much about that.

Q. Is he alive today?

A. No. Rade Kostic died in 1995.

Q. Did you attend his funeral? ²¹¹⁷⁴

A. Yes.

Q. Can I ask you to list some of the more prominent people who attended Rade Kostic's funeral.

A. Well, amongst the people I knew, there was Mr. Stanisic, Bogdanovic, Arkan. There were many people from political circles and cultural circles as well.

Q. I'm going to ask that you look at the monitor in front of you.

MR. GROOME: And I'd ask the usher maybe to assist in setting the monitor so he can see the photograph.

Q. This is a still from Prosecution Exhibit 390, tab 18 -- sorry, tab 6. It's a video. This is just one still.

Do you recognise the memorial that's depicted there?

A. Yes, I do. That is the memorial of the late Rade Kostic.

Q. I want to now ask you about a person by the name of Brano Grujic. Do you know him? And please tell us the circumstances under which you know him.

A. Well, I do know Grujic. Grujic worked in Zvornik. And as Zvornik is a small town, we know each other and we've known each other since we were children almost.

Q. My apologies. There's one additional question I'd like to ask you with respect to Rade Kostic: Did you and Rade Kostic ever have a conversation regarding Arkan? And if so, can you summarise what that conversation was?

A. When the war conflicts broke out in Bijeljina, Kostic phoned me up and told me that I was to go to Bijeljina and to report there to the Dom ²¹¹⁷⁵ Kultura or cultural centre in Bijeljina in order to secure logistical support for his unit which was to cross into Zvornik.

Q. At the time that Mr. Kostic gave you these instructions, do you know whether he was acting in his professional capacity or his official capacity as a member of the state security service or in his personal capacity?

A. I'm not quite clear on that, because generally I had private relationships with Kostic, and I had very little contact on an official level with him.

Q. Now, once again, drawing your attention to Mr. Grujic. Did Mr. Grujic ever discuss with you his relationship with Mr. Jovica Stanisic?

A. He told me that he had been with him only once at a meeting in Mali Zvornik.

Q. Did he indicate when that meeting was?

A. I think it was in 1992, but I don't know exactly when.

Q. And what, if anything, can you tell the Chamber regarding Mr. Grujic's relationship to the Bosnian Serb leadership of Republika Srpska?

A. Well, Grujic was the president of the Serbian Democratic Party, since its inception in Zvornik, right up until almost 1995. So by virtue of his office, he had contacts with the leadership at Pale. However, I think that the popular deputy Mijatovic had more contacts than he did.

Q. Mr. Mijatovic is the next person I'd ask you to speak about. Can you describe what his position and role was in Zvornik. ²¹¹⁷⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²¹¹⁷⁷

A. Jovo Mijatovic was a member of parliament, a deputy elected at the elections in 1991, and he was a national deputy right up until 1995. That's the office he occupied. And pursuant to the decision of setting up municipalities according to B variant, he was president of the parallel Municipality of Zvornik.

Q. Are you aware of any meeting that he attended with Arkan in the Hotel Jezero in Mali Zvornik?

A. Yes, I am aware of that. In those days, the Serbian Democratic Party's political aim was to try and come to an agreement with the SDA as representing the Muslim people. And as the Crisis Staff, we sent Mijatovic and Ivanovic to attend a meeting in Mali Zvornik because the situation was already such that the Muslims couldn't reach our headquarters in Karakaj and we couldn't reach their headquarters in Zvornik. So we sent them to negotiate at the Jezero Hotel in Mali Zvornik for us to try to come to some sort of agreement if possible.

Q. To your knowledge, was an agreement reached at that meeting between the local leadership of the SDS and the SDA?

A. We tried to reach an agreement, but after the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina it was virtually not possible to come to any kind of agreement. But we tried at the local level to reach an agreement, but the meeting in Mali Zvornik was interrupted. Mijatovic and Ivanovic told us later on at the staff, with the incursion of Arkan and his officers who beat up all the negotiators. In fact, the Serbs more than the Muslims. And that is how that meeting came to an end.

Q. And why were the Serb negotiators beaten by Arkan? ²¹¹⁷⁸

A. Probably to instil fear in the Bosniak, Muslim side. And later on he came to the headquarters at the Alhos facilities in Karakaj and he threatened us. He started shouting, "Who gave you the authority to sell out and divide and with the Muslims Serbian land?" And he started slapping people.

Q. What became of the agreement that had been reached between the SDS leadership and the SDA leadership?

A. Could you repeat your question, please.

Q. You said to us before Arkan's arrival that an agreement had been reached between the respective leaderships of the two parties. What became of that agreement?

A. We tried to reach some sort of an agreement at the local level, not to do anything stupid and to wait for a solution for Bosnia as a whole. However, that agreement fell through and Arkan prohibited the Crisis Staff from having any contact with the Muslim side.

Q. Could I ask you in just a sentence or two, just to describe in very general terms in your view what was the relationship between the Serb community and the Muslim community prior to the outbreak of tensions between the two?

A. Ever since the elections, when the nationalist parties won, relations became more complicated and they became very tense, and this tension culminated with the recognition of the independence of Bosnia, and this was a climax after which it was not possible to reconcile the peoples of Bosnia again.

Q. I'm going to ask that you take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, ²¹¹⁷⁹ tab 2. I'd ask you: Do you recognise that document?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can you please summarise what that document is.

A. This is a decision banning the sale of real estate, issued by the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik on the 15th of March, 1992, prohibiting the Serbs from selling their land and property to non-Serbs.

Q. Can I ask you to read the sentence that begins on the top of the right-hand page.

A. "Privately owned real estates by ethnic Serbs cannot be traded to other ethnic groups on the territory of the municipality."

Q. Was this order or decision observed and enforced?

A. Well, this decision was issued by the parallel Serbian Municipality of Zvornik, but I don't think that there was any sale of Serbian land because this was issued only some 15 or 20 days before the war began.

Q. Are you aware of a -- a fax that was sent by Momcilo Mandic around the 4th of April?

A. Yes. At the time, I was the commander of the police station and we did receive a dispatch.

Q. Can you please describe in substance what was in that fax.

A. The substance was, of that fax, was reference to the Cutilheiro Plan, when Izetbegovic, Karadzic, the leadership, agreed on some sort of a division of Bosnia, and then the fax emanated from that plan, ordering all members of Serb ethnicity in the police to cross over and join the Serbian police, which was organised on the basis of a table that he had drawn up, ²¹¹⁸⁰ and we were told that this would be financed with the funds of the Serbian Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it was called at the time.

Q. At the time you saw this fax, did it -- did it indicate something to you or did you believe it was an indication of something to come?

A. The situation was already extremely complicated and tense to a high degree among the ethnicities, so actually this marked the final division of the MUP. And it's like glass; once you break it, you can't put it together again.

Q. And what happened to the Serb members of the local Zvornik MUP after receipt of this fax?

A. I was the leading representative of the Serbs in the police, and they all got together in my office and vice versa, with the chief of police -- in the chief of police's office all the Muslims got together. And that was when the SUP was divided up.

Q. And where did the Serb members of the -- of the Serbian police go?

A. We went together with the Crisis Staff to the Alhos building in Karakaj, which was about 5 kilometres from Zvornik.

Q. And where was the headquarters of the Serb part of the Territorial Defence?

A. At first, both the TO and the Crisis Staff and the police were all together in the Alhos building.

Q. I want to now show you Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 3 and ask you to take a look at it and ask you do you recognise it.

A. Yes. That is the dispatch we received on the 31st of March, 1992, signed by the Assistant Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Momcilo Mandic. ²¹¹⁸¹

Q. I want to now draw your attention to the influx of arms, weapons, and ammunition into the Zvornik municipality. I would ask you to give us a brief summary at this point on did arms come into the municipality and in general terms how did they arrive at the municipality?

A. Yes, weapons did come into the municipality. There were many different ways, many different channels, and the conflict was visible virtually everywhere.

Q. Were some of the means that were used to arm people, did you consider them legal means to arm people?

A. Well, in addition to legal arming, the Muslims mostly purchased weapons from Croatia; whereas, we received them through the JNA.

Q. The arms that you received through the JNA, can you describe in greater detail how they were received -- requested and received by people in the municipality.

A. I do know that in Zvornik municipality there were several channels. The Muslims didn't join the JNA, and then when the Serbs filled in the vacancies, they received weapons. But that was in order. That was regular. However, talking about irregular, secret ways, we were frightened, being the minority in that area. We went to see the president of the assembly commission for relations with Serbs outside Serbia, as the commission was called in those days, and we requested aid in weapons because we felt we were in jeopardy.

Q. Who was the president of that assembly commission?

A. Mr. Pudarevic [as interpreted].

Q. Do you know his first name? ²¹¹⁸²

A. Yes. Radmilo Bogdanovic.

THE INTERPRETER: Correction.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Can you please describe what happened after meeting with him.

A. We presented our positions, describing the situation we were in. We asked him to help us. And he told me that in the next ten days or so, Kostic would call me to organise this.

Q. And did Mr. Kostic call you after that meeting?

A. Yes. Six or seven days later, I was called up by him and given instructions what should be done, and these were more or less as follows: We drove a truck to the parking lot of the Belgrade fairgrounds. We left it there full of fuel, and the keys were in the vehicle. And then in the afternoon we would come back and find that same truck loaded, usually with wheat, flour, and it would have a fictitious invoice because this was still within the framework of a single state. There was no control at the borders. We would drive this back to Zvornik, and then we would count the quantity of weapons, and the Crisis Staff would agree to distribute it among Serbian villages on the basis of an acceptment of the degree of danger they were in.

Q. How many times did you personally participate in the importation of arms into Zvornik in this manner?

A. I participated twice.

Q. And can you estimate for us the quantity of weapons that were imported on both of those occasions?

A. I think on those two occasions, between 200 and 300 pieces of ²¹¹⁸³ weapons. Between 200 and 300 pieces.

Q. And with as much precision as you're able, can you tell us when these two events occurred?

A. I participated, I think, at the beginning of 1992.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, would that be a convenient place?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll adjourn now. Witness B-024, we're going to adjourn now for 20 minutes. Would you remember in this adjournment and any others there may be during your evidence not to speak to anybody about it until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team.

We'll adjourn.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Sir, I want to ask you a few more questions about the importation of arms into Zvornik. Are you aware of any participation that Brano Grujic had in this activity?

A. I am aware of the first quantity that arrived. It arrived through a contact of his.

Q. Can you please tell us when that shipment arrived.

A. I don't remember exactly, but it was in the autumn of 1991.

Q. And can you tell us what was involved in that shipment and from where did it come.

A. Grujic told me that this was organised with some people in Serbia, ²¹¹⁸⁴ and there were about 30 pieces of automatic weapons.

Q. Are you familiar with a person -- a colonel in the Yugoslav People's Army by the name of Colonel Milosevic?

A. Yes.

Q. And what, if any, involvement did he have in the importation of weapons into Zvornik?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you please describe what role he played or how he was involved.

A. I think that a member of the Crisis Staff had close relations with him, and he sent a certain quantity. I think he was somewhere in Romanija. I don't remember exactly which unit. And he sent a certain quantity of weapons from there, which again through the Crisis Staff and the SDS in Zvornik was distributed.

Q. What is the earliest point in time that you're aware of that weapons were being imported illegally into Zvornik?

A. The first shipment that was brought by Grujic.

Q. And that's the one, you said, in the autumn of 1991?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, of the -- all of the weapons that were brought into Zvornik in these various manners that you've described, are you able to estimate the percentage of the total number of weapons that belonged to the JNA?

A. Well, most of it was from the depots and warehouses of the JNA. Maybe -- at least two-thirds of it.

Q. I'd ask you to now turn your attention to the distribution of ²¹¹⁸⁵ these weapons. Can you describe what happened to these weapons once they were brought into the municipality of Zvornik.

A. It would be located in one of the ethnically pure Serb local communes, and then the Crisis Staff would sit down and agree on the distribution, on the basis of their assessment of the degree of danger.

Q. And once this assessment was made, what would physically happen to the weapons?

A. Well, then from these centres where the weapons were stored, individuals of local communes would come, usually SDS leaders. They would pick up certain quantities and then distribute them in their own local communes.

Q. Would they have to sign documents or receipts indicating that they received a certain number of weapons?

A. In those days, we kept records, and everyone did have to sign.

Q. Can you tell us, when is the earliest point in time that you are personally aware of weapons were -- weapons were distributed in the fashion you've described?

A. In the autumn of 1991.

Q. Now, if I might turn your attention to the issue of media coverage. Can I ask you to characterise the media coverage that you observed coming from Belgrade in the autumn of 1991 and early 1992.

A. The media, as there was a war on already in Croatia and the structure of the population was well known in Bosnia, and the media were divided. They routed each for his own side.

Q. Are you aware of any media coverage that you observed coming from ²¹¹⁸⁶ Serbia regarding Zvornik that you knew to be materially false?

A. No.

Q. So as far as you're concerned, the events in Zvornik as depicted on Serb media were accurately depicted?

A. Do you mean at the beginning of the war or before the beginning of the war?

Q. Let's take both of those separately. Prior to the war's start, did you -- the events from Zvornik that you saw on TV, were they accurately depicted?

A. Up until the beginning of the conflict, Zvornik was not very much in the focus of attention of the media. At least, I don't remember it being focussed on by the media.

Q. Then allow me to draw your attention to after the war started, the events that concerned Zvornik, were they accurately depicted in the Serb media in your view?

A. The media reported regularly about all events on the battlefronts, and in those days there were things that were spoken of and there were things that the media did not report about but that happened on the ground.

Q. Can you give us an example of one of those events as it pertained to Zvornik.

A. For instance, I know that the Belgrade media never reported on prisons for Muslims in Zvornik, for instance, that there were killings of civilians, though these things were common knowledge.

Q. I want to now draw your attention once again to the autumn of ²¹¹⁸⁷ 1991. Did there come a time when you attended an SDS rally in Sarajevo?

A. Yes, I did attend a large meeting of the SDS at the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo.

Q. And when was that rally -- when was that meeting held?

A. I think it was around the 19th or 20th of December, 1991.

Q. And can you please identify any of the prominent members of the SDS leadership that were present during that meeting.

A. I do remember that there was Karadzic, Krajisnik, Mrs. Plavsic, and some others.

Q. During the course of that meeting, was there anything distributed to some of the people present at that meeting?

A. Yes. To the presidents of municipal boards of the party a document was distributed, roughly indicating how we should behave should a crisis occur in the future.

Q. What did you and others refer to this document as? Did this document have a name?

A. It did have a lengthy title, but we called it Plan A and Plan B.

Q. Plan A -- was it called Plan A or Plan B because it had two scenarios, either Plan A or Plan B?

A. Yes. Plan A was the plan for the municipalities in which the Serbs had a majority, and Plan B was for the municipalities in which the Serbs were in the minority.

Q. And were the presidents of the Crisis Staff instructed to implement Plan A or Plan B based upon the ethnic make-up of their respective municipalities? ²¹¹⁸⁸

A. Yes.

MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that the witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 434, tab 4. It was used with an earlier witness. I believe copies have been provided to the Chamber.

Q. Sir, do you recognise that document?

A. Yes, I do. This is the document you asked me about.

Q. And is that the document the presidents of the Crisis Staff received in December of 1991?

A. Yes.

Q. Another witness has gone through the plan and discussed it in some detail, but could I ask you to describe for us, was this plan implemented in Zvornik?

A. Yes.

Q. And which variation of the plan was implemented in Zvornik?

A. We were a municipality in which the Serbs were in the minority, which meant Plan B.

Q. After December of 1991, with what frequency did the -- the members of the SDS and the Crisis Staff meet in Zvornik?

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just for a clarification, that was Prosecutor's Exhibit 434, tab 3, not tab 4.

MR. GROOME: My apologies.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MR. GROOME: Your Honours, Ms. Wee informs me that at that time it was just marked for identification.

THE REGISTRAR: It was marked for identification, correct. ²¹¹⁸⁹

MR. GROOME: So based upon this witness's testimony, we would be tendered it into evidence at this time.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's admissible.

MR. GROOME:

Q. My question to you is: After the receipt of this document, with what frequency was it referred to with respect to instructions of how to implement it in the municipality of Zvornik?

A. Among other things, the plan envisaged duty service every day in the party and daily meetings of the Crisis Staff, so that we discussed this almost on a daily basis.

Q. Now, aside from Zvornik, are you aware that the plan was used and applied in other municipalities?

A. Yes. It was distributed to all the municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. Did the plan envisage the creation of a Crisis Staff?

A. Yes, the plan envisaged a Crisis Staff at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also Crisis Staffs at municipal levels, and these instructions also explicitly stated who would be members ex officio as members of the party, which members would become members of the Crisis Staff.

Q. Who was head of the Crisis Staff in the Bosnian-wide level?

A. At the level of Bosnia, I don't know. But in Zvornik it was Mr. Grujic.

Q. Do you know who was head of the Crisis Staff at the regional level? ²¹¹⁹⁰

A. I'm not quite sure. I think it was when Semberija and Majevica were formed as Serbian Autonomous Regions pursuant to these instructions that it was Djuro Jeserovic --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the name.

MR. GROOME:

Q. Could you please repeat the name for the benefit of the interpreters?

A. Djojo Arsenovic, I think it was.

Q. I'm going to ask you to tell us in a little greater detail about the Crisis Staff of Zvornik. First, can I ask you to tell us how many members -- or how many people made up the Crisis Staff of Zvornik?

A. I know that this varied in our case, because clearly the plan was implemented in different ways in different municipalities. But it varied between 10 and 15 members of the Crisis Staff, among whom 7 or 8 were always members, permanent members.

Q. In the Zvornik Crisis Staff, can you tell me the names of the -- the most or more prominent people in the Zvornik Crisis Staff?

A. There were Grujic certainly, Stevan Ivanovic, Jovo Ivanovic, Jovo Mijatovic, Stevo Radic, myself, and some others.

Q. And did the Crisis Staff meet on a daily basis during the spring of 1992?

A. Not every day, but very frequently.

Q. Can you give the Chamber some sense of the types of business that were discussed during Crisis Staff meetings?

A. Well, generally, they discussed the political and security ²¹¹⁹¹ situation in our municipality and also measures to implement the plan, how far we had got there, according to Plan B.

Q. After discussions in Zvornik about how far the plan had been implemented, would the results of that discussion be passed upward to the republican level?

A. Well, according to this plan, it was our duty to inform any major occurrences taking place with respect to security. And I didn't -- I wasn't in charge of the contacts towards the republican staffs and headquarters, so I don't know how that evolved.

Q. Did there come a time in April when the Crisis Staff was reformed into a temporary government?

A. Yes.

Q. And would it be fair to say that all members of the Crisis Staff were of Serb ethnicity?

A. Yes. I think that in Zvornik there was a specific feature according to which at the beginning a member of the Crisis Staff and temporary provisional government was a leading cardiologist from Zvornik, and his name was Mr. Muhamed Jelkic. I did see him at the headquarters, and I think he was there because he was forced to be.

Q. I'm going to ask that you look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 4. And I'd simply ask you: Do you recognise this document?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is this document?

A. These are the conclusions of the 22nd of December, 1991. Amongst others, we have the names of people here elected to the Crisis Staff. ²¹¹⁹²

Q. Now, you've mentioned Mrs. Plavsic, Biljana Plavsic, in your testimony earlier. Was there a time in the spring of 1992 that you met her in Zvornik municipality?

A. Yes. In fact, at the Crisis Staff in the Alhos factory building in Zvornik.

Q. And when precisely did you meet her?

A. Well, it was actually twice. The first time, one or two days prior to the conflict in Zvornik; and the second time, two or three days after the conflict in Zvornik had broken out.

Q. At this point in time, I'd like to just focus on the -- the meeting prior to the conflict breaking out. And I'd ask you to describe for us who else was present at the Crisis Staff at that time.

A. Well, most of the Crisis Staff members were present. There was Pejic, Arkan's officer. We had the rank of major, and we called him Major Pejic.

Q. Approximately how many people all together?

A. Well, in the whole headquarters, there were a lot of people. But where she sat in that office, perhaps seven or eight persons.

Q. And were you present during the discussions that took place in that office?

A. Yes, in part.

Q. Can you please summarise for us the discussions that took place while you were present in that office.

A. We informed them of the political and security situation in Zvornik, and she was interested in whether we had carried out all the ²¹¹⁹³ preparatory steps according to Plan B for crisis situations.

Q. And what, if anything, was she told?

A. Well, we wanted to congratulate ourselves and say that we had in fact carried out all the preparations pursuant to Plan B.

Q. And what, if anything, did she say after hearing that report?

A. The situation was rather one of confusion. She was still in the Presidency in Sarajevo together with the other Presidency members, and she said that we'd keep in contact -- be in contact and follow the developments of the situation.

Q. I want to draw your attention once again to the meeting at Hotel Jezero that you described earlier for us, that you described as Arkan as being present. Can I ask you to describe all of the other people who you are aware were present at that meeting.

A. At the Jezero Hotel, there were two meetings that were held. One was the one I attended, where an attempt was made to reach an agreement with the Muslims. And representing the Serb side was Grujic, Radic, Ivanovic, both Ivanovics, I myself, and an officer, a JNA officer. He was a captain at the time, and his name was Dragan Obrenovic. On the Bosnian side, the Bosniak side, the Muslim side, there was the president of the SDA as well as the head of SUP, Osman Mustafic was his name, and then the head of the TO, Alija Kapidzic, there was Izet Mehinagic, and perhaps a few others, I'm not quite sure.

Q. Was Marko Pavlovic present?

A. No, Marko Pavlovic was not present at that particular meeting.

Q. I want to ask you some questions with respect to Arkan. Did you ²¹¹⁹⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²¹¹⁹⁵ have dealings with Arkan prior to him coming to Zvornik?

A. No, I did not. I heard of him just a few days from the newspapers reporting on the events that had taken place in Bijeljina.

Q. Can I ask you to tell us what you know about Arkan's presence in Bijeljina, how that came to be, if you do know.

A. I don't know anything about that really. I can't say.

Q. Did there come a time during the takeover of Bijeljina that you went to Bijeljina?

A. Yes. I went to have a meeting with Arkan at the Dom Kultura or cultural centre in Bijeljina, and the conflicts were already ongoing there. There was shooting in town. I went to the cultural centre and waited there for about an hour or an hour and a half, at which point he turned up.

Q. When you say "he," are you referring to Arkan himself?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did he arrive with?

A. Well, he arrived with a group of his combatants. And I saw that where there was a luncheon given for those combatants in the cultural centre, everybody suddenly got to their feet and stood to attention.

Q. How did you know or -- sorry, how did you know to go to the Dom culture centre to meet Arkan? Who told you that's where you would meet him?

A. I have already said that Kostic told me this over the phone. He told me to go to Bijeljina, to set up contacts with him, and to ensure logistics, because his unit was going into Zvornik and had to be ²¹¹⁹⁶ accommodated and put up there.

Q. Can you tell us what transpired during the course of that meeting in the Dom culture centre?

A. In actual fact, I said who'd sent me. He asked me what the situation was like in Zvornik briefly. And then he called a short man, introduced him as Major Pejic, and told me that he would be leading the group of people assigned to go to Zvornik. This lasted barely two or three minutes. It was a brief meeting.

Q. Did he indicate who assigned them or Arkan's men to go to Zvornik?

A. No, we didn't discuss that.

Q. Did you see the license plates on the vehicle that Arkan used to arrive at this meeting?

A. Yes. He crossed to Karakaj from Mali Zvornik, and the license plates were those of the Federal SUP. I recognised them because they began with a "M" and then a number, and the first number was the number 9, and I knew that was the license plate for the Federal SUP.

Q. So that the record is clear, the time that you saw Arkan in the vehicle was in Zvornik and not Bijeljina; is that correct?

A. I saw his vehicle first in Zvornik. I didn't see how he arrived in Bijeljina.

Q. What happened after the meeting?

A. His unit and I with it crossed the Drina River on a ferry at Badovinci, we crossed into Serbia. And then we went to Banja Radalj, which is where there is a hotel. The hotel is about 10 kilometre from Zvornik. ²¹¹⁹⁷

Q. Approximately how many of Arkan's men did you cross from Bijeljina into Serbia with?

A. It was a small group of about 20 men.

Q. Were they armed at the time they crossed into Serbia?

A. Yes. They had long-barreled weapons.

Q. And the place that you described yourself as waiting, I believe you said Banja Radalj. Approximately how far in Serbia did you have to travel to get to that location?

A. From where we had crossed with the ferry up to Radalj is about 50 to 60 kilometres.

Q. During the course of that trip, both crossing the border into Serbia and driving through Serbia, did you have at any time see uniformed members of the Serbian police during the course of your journey?

A. No. Because it was already dark, and we drove in the course of night, so I didn't notice any policemen.

Q. What happened when you arrived at Banja Radalj?

A. They stayed behind and I went on to Zvornik. The next day we had a meeting together, and they informed us that there was a group of Arkan's men, about 20 of them. If a conflict should break out -- and they said that they were there to help the Serb people if a conflict should break out.

Q. This meeting that you had with them the next day, was that at -- in Banja Radalj or was it somewhere in Zvornik?

A. No, it was in Zvornik.

Q. Just one additional question about your observations in Bijeljina: ²¹¹⁹⁸ During the time that you were in Bijeljina, did you see a person known as Mauzer?

A. I didn't see Mauzer in Bijeljina. I didn't even know that such a person existed at the time.

Q. What happened after the meeting that you had in Banja Radalj with members of Arkan's Tigers?

A. I didn't have a meeting with them in Radalj. I just left them there. They stayed on. And later on Mr. Pejic would come to the Crisis Staff meeting in Zvornik. We never actually had any meeting in Radalj itself.

Q. And what was discussed at the meeting with the Crisis Staff with Mr. Pejic -- or Major Pejic?

A. Well, when they were put up in Radalj, the next day a conflict broke out in Sapna and several soldiers were killed and discussions were made for defence preparations and a possible clash.

Q. Can you tell us the members of the Crisis Staff that were present when this meeting was held with Major Pejic?

A. All the members of the Crisis Staff were there from the list, most of them, at least.

Q. What happened after this event that you've described, this -- I believe you described as several soldiers being killed. Did anything happen after the Crisis Staff learned news about that event?

A. The killing of the soldier happened on the day or the next day, when the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina was proclaimed. And at the time, that was something that was quite unacceptable to us. So according ²¹¹⁹⁹ to Plan B, we set ourselves apart and formed a parallel government in Karakaj at the Alhos factory premises.

Q. What happened after you establish that parallel government?

A. Well, soon afterwards, the incident took place where the negotiations in Mali Zvornik fell through and where a decision was made according to which Zvornik should be occupied, taken over militarily.

Q. Where was the decision taken to occupy or take over by military force the municipality of Zvornik?

A. Arkan and Pejic, who led this on his behalf, they ordered the Crisis Staff to launch the operation.

Q. Can you tell us where -- were you present when that decision was taken?

A. Yes.

Q. Where was that decision taken?

A. The decision was taken in the Alhos building, in the office used by the general manager, the director.

Q. And when was it taken?

A. That was -- I think it was the 7th of April, 1992.

Q. What happened after that decision was taken? Was there any further discussion about the implementation of that decision?

A. Well, various volunteers started arriving, and we were ordered to collect together as much -- as many people as we could from the Territorial Defence. And there was a subsequent decision the next day; I think it was on the 8th of April in the morning, at perhaps 6.00 a.m. Or rather, it was implemented from 6.00 a.m. onwards. ²¹²⁰⁰

Q. So the decision was taken on the 7th of April to militarily occupy Zvornik, and the implementation of that decision began at 6.00 the next day, the 8th of April; is that correct?

A. More or less, yes, according to my information. Because I was wounded at the time, and I was at the headquarters in my slippers. I wasn't actually on the ground, in the field.

Q. Now, you've mentioned volunteers started arriving. From where did the volunteers come?

A. Mostly from Serbia. I think that some of them were from Bijeljina, because that's the first time I saw the man you mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Mauzer.

Q. Can you give us some sense of how many volunteers arrived from Serbia?

A. The inflow was quite uncontrolled. And according to my information, more than 100.

Q. And these volunteers, as you called them, were they associated with any named organisations or groups?

A. According to my information, apart from Arkan's group, the others didn't have groups of their own at that time. There were sporadic cases, individual cases.

Q. And do you know if when these people arrived in Zvornik, whether they came with their own weapons or whether they were issued weapons once they arrived?

A. I know that they were issued weapons at the TO headquarters in the Alhos building. ²¹²⁰¹

Q. After the decision was taken on the 7th of April, how soon after that did these volunteers begin to arrive in the municipality of Zvornik?

A. Well, some groups were already in place, ever since the conflict broke out. But within the space of 24 hours or 48 hours, they started coming in in larger numbers.

Q. Can you please describe to the Chamber how it was that the military takeover of Zvornik occurred.

A. What I can tell you is this: I spent the morning at the headquarters. I was injured and I was in my slippers. And you could just hear, because it's very close by, and I received information that the units of the Territorial Defence and the volunteers had occupied Zvornik and placed it under Serb control.

Q. What, if any, involvement or support did the JNA or the Yugoslav People's Army have in the military occupation of Zvornik?

A. For this operation itself, I have no information that the JNA took part in the attack itself on that first day against Zvornik.

Q. Did there come a time after the first day when the Yugoslav People's Army was involved in the -- in the attack on Zvornik?

A. What I know is this: Later on, some 20 days later, when Kula was taken control of - and that is situated above the hydroelectric power station at Mali Zvornik - is that a unit from Yugoslavia took part in taking control of Kula.

Q. Now, the people that you've described as volunteers, after the initial takeover of Zvornik did they -- did they begin to form organisations of named groups that you could tell? ²¹²⁰²

A. Yes. It is common knowledge that they grouped afterwards, established formations, and the formations took the names of their leaders by and large. And it is also common knowledge that some of them were incorporated into the police and some became a part of TO.

Q. Can you tell us the names of these groups or as many of these groups as you can recall?

A. I have heard of several, but it was common knowledge that Gogic's unit was in the police. And in the TO there was Zuca's unit, Pivarski's men, Niski's men, the White Eagles, Beli Orlovi, and perhaps some others.

Q. Zuca's unit, do you know Zuca's full name?

A. I read about that in the papers later. I didn't know it at the time, but I know now that his name is Vojin Vuckovic.

Q. How were these people that came into Zvornik and participated in the attack on Zvornik, where were they accommodated?

A. There were different localities. I know that some were put up in Karakaj in some barracks that were empty. Later on, others took over the Muslim houses that had been vacated and left empty. But the TO sorted their accommodation, generally speaking.

Q. And was there a bus link established to transport them from Serbia into Zvornik?

A. The bus link was never interrupted, because the bus line from Mali Zvornik always operated towards Belgrade and Uzice, because it was the territory that had not been engulfed by the war.

Q. And who was responsible for paying the buses that were transporting these volunteers? ²¹²⁰³

A. I know that the provisional or temporary government paid for the transport vehicles and the ones used to bring in the volunteers.

Q. These people you call "volunteers," were they ever paid money by the municipality for their participation in the takeover of Zvornik?

A. Yes. They were paid regularly, like all the other members of the TO and the police.

Q. I'm going to ask that you look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 5. This is a document encompassing several documents. I'd ask you to review the bundle of documents and ask you: Do you recognise what those documents are?

A. Yes. It is a document by which the provisional government issues salaries to members of the TO unit that acted within Zuca's unit.

Q. I'm going to ask you to look at the monitor in front of you. There will be one of those documents displayed in front of you, and ask you to read the names after the red bar.

A. I can't see any red markings.

Q. I draw your attention to number 41 and 44.

A. I see. Under number 41 is Vuckovic, Vojin, Zuca; and 44 is Vuckovic, Dusko.

Q. Is one of these men the Zuca that you refer to in your testimony?

A. Yes, the one under number 41.

MR. GROOME: I'd ask that those documents -- we're finished with those -- but that the witness now be shown Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 6.

Q. While that document is being put before you, you've mentioned Captain Dragan Obrenovic. And my question to you is: Did ²¹²⁰⁴ Captain Obrenovic ever attend meetings of the Crisis Staff?

A. Captain Dragan Obrenovic did not attend meetings of the Crisis Staff up until the beginning of the war; however, once the war started, while I was a member of the Crisis Staff, he did attend meetings.

Q. And at the time that he attended those meetings, was he still a member of the Yugoslav People's Army?

A. Yes. Dragan Obrenovic was always a member of the JNA, until the Army of Republika Srpska was formed.

Q. And was he present during meetings in the Crisis Staff when the discussions regarding the implementation of Plan B were held?

A. Well, as I was saying, he was present from the beginning of the war up until I was a member of the Crisis Staff, when the discussion centred on the implementation of Plan B.

Q. Did he receive payment from the Municipality of Zvornik?

A. Yes. It can be seen from this document that Dragan Obrenovic did receive a salary as a member of the TO of Zvornik.

Q. Did the document you're referring to is Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 6. Could I ask you to describe for us what is that document.

A. It is the payments for the month of May to Dragan Obrenovic. And the document was approved by Marko Pavlovic on behalf of the Territorial Defence.

Q. If I can now turn your attention to what you know about the relationship between Arkan and the Yugoslav People's Army as you were able to observe during the takeover of Zvornik.

A. Well, the situation was such that all of us who were in the Crisis ²¹²⁰⁵ Staff, including Dragan Obrenovic, who was a JNA officer, would stand to attention when Arkan walked in together with his officer Pejic, who was in command in Zvornik. And there were some other army officers. But we were surprised to see that all of them stood at attention whenever Arkan walked in or out of the room.

Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Brano Grujic regarding an incident that occurred between Colonel Milosevic and Arkan?

A. Yes. On one occasion, Grujic said that Arkan had slapped Colonel Milosevic.

Q. Did there come a time when Arkan left the municipality of Zvornik?

A. Yes. He was in Zvornik twice for an hour or two each time.

Q. After he left Zvornik, did Marko Pavlovic assume head -- duties of head of the Territorial Defence?

A. Yes.

MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask that the witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 7.

And the usher -- we have three documents to work with in quick succession, so perhaps it might be most convenient to just remain by the witness.

Q. Sir, do you recognise what is document -- the document Prosecution 451, tab 7? What is that document?

A. Yes. This is the decision to form the command of the Territorial Defence of the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik, and Pavlovic is being appointed commander by Grujic as head of the interim government.

MR. GROOME: I'd ask that the witness now be shown Prosecution ²¹²⁰⁶ Exhibit 451, tab 8.

Q. And, sir, I'd ask you: Do you recognise this document?

A. Yes.

Q. And what do you recognise that document to be?

A. It is the formation of a unified military and territorial command of the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik. And in Article 3, Marko Pavlovic is appointed commander of the military territorial command, and he is appointed to that post by Branko Grujic as head of the interim government.

Q. And finally, I'd ask you to take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 9 and ask you, do you recognise this exhibit?

A. Yes. All these documents were published in the Official Gazette. It is a decision banning taking of food from the compound of the headquarters of the interim government, where in addition to the government only Marko Pavlovic could approve any such taking of food. And this was adopted on the 14th of April, 1992.

MR. GROOME: Thank you. I'm finished with those exhibits.

Q. Sir, are you aware of a unit called the Zvornik Brigade?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that unit formed?

A. It was formed, actually, when the Army of Republika Srpska was formed, and that would be, I think, at the end of May 1992.

Q. Who was the first commander of that unit?

A. There were several commanders. I think it was Blagojevic, then Dragan Petkovic, Bosancic. So in 1992 there were several different commanders that replaced one another. ²¹²⁰⁷

Q. Who was the eventual -- was there a commander of that unit that once he became commander remained there for an extended period of time?

A. Yes. From the end of 1992 until the end of the war, the commander of the Zvornik Brigade was Vinko Pandurevic.

Q. You've just identified several documents giving Marko Pavlovic authority over the Territorial Defence of Zvornik. How long did his command of the Territorial Defence of Zvornik last?

A. After Arkan left Zvornik, he took over command of the TO, until he was arrested. I think this was in July 1992.

Q. And who arrested him?

A. He was arrested by a special police unit of Republika Srpska.

Q. And do you know what ultimately happened with that arrest or do you know what charges he was arrested upon?

A. I don't know that. I just know that he was in detention for only two or three days in the prison in Bijeljina, upon which he was released.

Q. During the military takeover of Zvornik, were there any Territorial Defence members not from Zvornik but from Serbia?

A. Yes, there were volunteers from Serbia.

Q. I'm not just talking about volunteers that you described before. I'm talking about official members of the Territorial Defence or Territorial Defence units in Serbia.

A. I am not aware that anyone was an active participant, except the logistic cooperation which we had with the TO staff in Mali Zvornik.

Q. I'm going to ask that you take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 251, tab 10. I'd ask you to look at that bundle of documents and ask you: Do ²¹²⁰⁸ you recognise what that is?

A. Yes. From the documents, we see that these are salaries for the month of April for volunteers from Gogic's unit from Loznica.

Q. And that is Loznica in Serbia?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, these people you're calling volunteers, would it be fair to say that these are members -- this Bogic's [sic] unit, is this a unit of the Territorial Defence?

A. Yes, Gogic's unit. For a while they were within the police of Republika Srpska.

Q. Now, in July, in addition to Marko Pavlovic being arrested, were other people arrested in Zvornik?

A. Yes. Some other unit leaders were arrested as well. I know that Zuca was arrested and his unit, Niski and his unit, and some others.

Q. And who headed the special police unit who arrested them?

A. Milenko Krajisnik.

Q. And why were these people arrested?

A. Well, because they were causing disturbances in town and they could not longer be kept under control.

Q. I'm going to ask that you look at Prosecution Exhibit 451, tab 11. And can you tell us, do you recognise this document? And if so, what is it?

A. Yes. This is a bill whereby the interim government is paying for the transport of volunteers to a private transporter from Sapot in Serbia.

Q. And where do those volunteer -- does the receipt indicate where ²¹²⁰⁹ those people were being transported from?

A. Yes. They were transported from Belgrade to Zvornik.

Q. And how much money is reflected in this receipt was due the bus transportation company?

A. It says here 80.000 dinars, but there was an inflation and I don't know how realistic that sum is now.

Q. Are you able to approximate what that -- what the value of 80.000 dinars was in German Deutschmarks?

A. I don't think anyone could tell now, because there was really a galloping inflation. It's impossible to calculate.

Q. You've mentioned Mrs. Plavsic making two visits to Zvornik. I'd ask you to now tell us, when was her second visit to Zvornik during the spring of 1992?

A. That was two or three days after Serbs had taken control of Zvornik.

Q. And where did she come to, specifically? What building?

A. She came to the Alhos building, where the Crisis Staff was. And I happened to be the only men present. I was still wearing slippers. I couldn't go out. And with her was Princess Jelisaveta Karadjordjevic.

Q. And what happened after they arrived at the Alhos factory?

A. We were waiting for members of the Crisis Staff to arrive, and then we went to have lunch until they arrived.

Q. And during the course of lunch, did you have discussions with her regarding what had taken place in Zvornik?

A. Yes. I informed her as far as I knew about the situation in ²¹²¹⁰ ^{BLANK PAGE} ²¹²¹¹ Zvornik after it was placed under the control of the Serbs of Zvornik, and she enquired as to the extent to which we were implementing the plans, how organised we were. In principle, this was an exchange of information between us.

Q. Did she provide you with information regarding what was taking place in other municipalities in Bosnia?

A. The situation was rather chaotic, so we spoke about everything, but nothing very substantive.

Q. Did there come a time when you were together with her that Major Pejic was also present?

A. Yes. When we returned to headquarters, I accompanied her to the office of the Crisis Staff. She greeted Pejic. They exchanged warm greetings. And then she held a meeting with a part of the Crisis Staff, but I did not attend that meeting.

Q. When you say she exchanged warm greetings with Mayor Pejic, can you please be more specific?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you please describe exactly how they greeted each other.

A. They greeted each other in the traditional fashion amongst us Serbs when people know each other really well. We embrace.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm about to embark on a completely different area.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. That's a convenient moment. We ought to consider the arrangements for Monday. How much longer do you think you will be with this witness in examination-in-chief? ²¹²¹²

MR. GROOME: I estimate between 30 and 40 minutes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Effectively that will be about just over two hours. The question is whether the witness who's returning should be interposed first thing. Do you have any views as to that?

MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. We'll leave it to the Court's discretion.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will interpose Mr. de la Brosse for the remainder of his cross-examination, which if I recollect rightly is due to last an hour and a half. So that effectively would be the first session. We will then continue with this witness's evidence thereafter. So Mr. Milosevic, when you come on Monday morning, subject to any unforeseen circumstances, Mr. de la Brosse will be here for you to finish your cross-examination, and then we'll go on with this witness. Witness B-024, could you be back, please, on Monday morning, when I hope we'll be able to finish your evidence.

We'll adjourn now until then.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

the 26th day of May, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.