22437
Monday, 16 June 2003
[Open session]
[The accused entered court]
[The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
JUDGE MAY: I remind the court that we are sitting this week without Judge Kwon, who following our previous order is away on Tribunal business.
Yes. Mr. Milosevic, it's for you to finish your cross-examination of this witness. I think I said you had up to one hour if you require it today.
WITNESS: BUDOMIR BABOVIC [Resumed]
[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Babovic, we left off discussing the question that you raised to the effect that Radovan Stojicic, before he was given the rank of colonel general was a lieutenant. Tell me, please: When was the -- when did the law come into force governing ranks?
A. The law governing ranks was adopted in 1995.
Q. I have here before me the 26th of December, 1995 is the date, a document. It is the second half of my second term of office, in fact. Now, tell me: Do you know that Radovan Stojicic, when he was promoted to this rank, was the assistant minister for internal affairs -- assistant to the minister of internal affairs? So he wasn't a lieutenant. He was the assistant to the minister for internal affairs and was at the head of the 22438 Public Security Service of Serbia, the MUP of Serbia, in fact, which means that he occupied the top post in the police after the minister, of course; second to the minister?
A. Yes, I do know that, but we must distinguish between ranks and positions and functions. I assume that Radovan Stojicic, Badza, had the rank of reserve lieutenant, whereas he occupied posts -- the post that you indicated, in fact.
Q. All right. The fact that he was a lieutenant is not correct, but have a look at Article 3 of that law that you're referring to. And it says here --
JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. "The regulation --"
JUDGE MAY: Let us all find it. The law on ranks, I think that is tab 5. I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. And Article 3. Dr. Babovic, do you have it?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I do not, unfortunately.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Article 3 says: "The regulation on staffing specification in the Ministry of the Interior," and then in brackets "herein after, the regulation on staffing specification, shall establish the ranks for each post of an authorised official."
Therefore, we know who has to have which rank in view of the position he occupies. And as he occupied the top position, he was 22439 accorded the top rank.
Then take a look at Article 6 next. It says: "The President of the Republic shall assign and appoint to their ranks Generals and authorised officials in post for which the rank of General is established under the regulation on staffing specification.
"The President of the Republic shall also align to the starting rank of 2nd Lieutenant graduates and those persons who have obtained a high level of education, and this starting rank by completing basic studies at the police academy.
"Therefore, these persons were assigned based on the staffing act -- staffing specification of the Ministry of the Interior exclusively according to the article providing which rank should be accorded to which official." And it is -- that is the way in which they received their ranks. Is that correct, Mr. Babovic, or not?
A. The staffing specification determines the work posts, a description of the work posts, and the conditions for deployment and occupation of those work posts. It is the job description, in fact. It does not provide for individual solutions for those jobs or posts. This is done according to Article 6, which -- but the constitutional court questioned it and this is done by the president of the republic. What you stated, with respect to the conditions to which persons are assigned to individual posts, means that the individuals should have university degrees and that the officer should be lieutenants, lieutenant colonels, or colonels, and they had to have I think at least 15 years of service, if I remember correctly. 22440
Q. Yes, that is what the law provides for, Mr. Babovic. But when ranks were introduced, these did not exist, so the ranks were accorded in view of the positions that these persons held within the Ministry of the Interior. So they were already assigned to these work posts. Now, after that, can you quote an example of anybody who was promoted to the rank of general, for example, but -- and who had not previously been a colonel?
A. No. This is not a subject I studied. But the fact that they were assigned -- that they were given the rank of general straight away, regardless of whether they had fulfilled the conditions beforehand, is not something which I consider to be in conformity with this law. And as I've already stated, the whole article, Article 6, which vests the president of the republic with authorisations which he cannot have, is contrary to the constitution in my view.
Q. All right, Mr. Babovic. Now, here we're talking about the fact that the president of the republic assigns persons to ranks and assigns persons to work posts. It is true that the law provides for the fact that the president of the republic shall assign ranks of general to MUP and that that same rule stipulates that the president of the republic assigns persons to jobs.
Now, tell me this: Did I assign a work post to anybody, or did they -- were these appointments made by the ministers in the different departments; that is to say, the minister of the department appointed these individuals?
A. As far as I know, the ranks of general was granted from your own 22441 hands and the appointment too.
Q. That is just not true. Have you got any document to bear that out and to show that I assigned persons to jobs? It is true that a decree by the president of the republic gave them their rank.
A. That is not correct, then it was not in keeping with this law.
Q. But it was in keeping with the law governing the Ministry of the Interior and the appointment of functions.
A. However, this law takes away this right from the ministers and vests it in the president of the republic.
Q. As you can see, I never availed myself of that right vested in me, and you can't quote a single example that I did, except for the decree which at the proposal of the ministers appoints generals in view of the posts they hold.
Now take a look at Article 10, please: "The President of the Republic may, at the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior, award exceptional promotion to an authorised official with a senior officer ranked to the rank of General, or an authorised official from the rank of General to a higher General rank." And then we go on -- or rather, is it clear to you on the basis of that and in view of their assignment and the functions they held on the recommendations made by the minister -- and actually, it was never just the recommendation of the minister but the whole ministry group which nominated persons to ranks, in view of the function they performed. Isn't that so, Mr. Babovic?
A. I don't know that that is so, but Article 10, which you have just read out, speaks of the fact that it is at the recommendation of the 22442 minister that the president of the republic may, at the recommendation, as it says, of the Ministry of the Interior, award exceptional promotion. However, recommendation of a minister is not mentioned in Article 6, where it says that generals and authorised personnels for appointments according to staffing specifications is assigned and appointed by the president of the republic. So there's no mention there of a recommendation from the minister there.
Q. Yes, Mr. Babovic. But in view of the fact that you yourself are not a lawyer, I think that you've forgotten the fact that in Article 3 it states: "The regulation on staffing specification in the Ministry of the Interior...shall establish the ranks for each post of an authorised official." Therefore, how these ranks were established for a given post for the top post in MUP is how the ranks were accorded, according to the staffing specification, the job descriptions, persons in those posts, as determined by a decision of the minister. That is how they were -- received their ranks, were accorded ranks, when ranks were introduced. Is that clear to you, or do you want me to explain something else to you as well?
A. You don't have to explain anything to me. But I said a moment ago that the staffing specification and job description in fact is a job description, describes what the job is, how many people are assigned to the different jobs, how many jobs there are. It does not say who is going to be appointed to which individual work post. So if you are doing this, distributing people and promoting people to the ranks of general, persons who have not beforehand gained the necessary prerequisites but occupies a 22443 post for which a rank of general is implied, I'm not a legal man as I said, but I don't think this is in keeping with the law.
Q. Well, tell me, then: Which individuals did not have the necessary prerequisites pursuant to this law and pursuant to the staffing specification and job descriptions? Which persons did not have the necessary prerequisites for that and for promotion?
A. As I say and as the title of my report say, I analysed the enormity of solutions in the Ministry of the Interior. I did not go into an analysis of the entire practice that held true during the time that you were president of the republic yourself. So before that and after that.
Q. You said a moment ago, on the basis of the staffing specification that job descriptions are compiled, Article 3 says that, "Ranks shall be established for each post of an individual authorised official." And then depending on this individual post, each post and who occupies that post, the persons were given ranks when ranks were introduced. I assume you know that in police forces throughout the world ranks exist.
A. Yes, I do know that in police forces throughout the world ranks exist in a part of the police force, whereas the law on ranks, which was enacted during the time that you were president of the republic, it stipulates ranks for all work posts, so that a typist, for example, and a translator would have a rank too. That was the height of militarisation in the police force which was implemented at that particular point in time.
Q. Oh, I see. That's what you call militarisation. I see. So you mean that typists also had ranks? Is that what you're saying? And 22444 treasurers and so on and so forth, the civilian employees work in the MUP? I suppose you think cooks had ranks and waiters too.
A. Well, I don't know why that is relevant for what we're discussing. If a certain number of individuals didn't have ranks, if they had work posts, names, all those who worked for the police force did have ranks, regardless of the fact whether they were in charge of public law and order, crime research, or whatever other work they did. But these are two different matters. So I don't see how this is relevant for the discussion we're having now.
Q. It is relevant, because you claimed that a person who unfortunately is no longer alive and who headed the public security department acquired the rank, rank of general, after being a lieutenant. So surely you think that a lieutenant could have been the head of the police?
A. No, that is not my opinion. This is what I was told from the Ministry of the Interior at that time.
Q. So somebody told you that, did they?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. So how did you manage to falsify facts in that way, Mr. Babovic?
JUDGE MAY: No, that's not -- that's not a proper question, allegations of falsification.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. I asked you, as you say that you reviewed the documents, do you have a single general showing that I appointed him to a particular work post? 22445
A. I said that I didn't.
Q. Very well. And do you know that all the generals that I awarded that rank as president of the republic, I did so upon the recommendation of the whole college of generals in the Ministry of Interior, because that was the regular and normal practice?
A. Your Honours, I have to remind you of the title of my report. I analysed normative solutions and not the practice and individual situations that may have been in accordance with those normative rules or not in accordance with them.
Q. Mr. Babovic, look at page 1, for instance, when you speak about the definitions of abbreviations and concepts and then you list various laws, the law on the interior of Serbia, the law on the internal affairs, then the law on the army, then the law on the basics of state security, the law on defence, the law on criminal proceedings, the law on ranks. You have analysed all these laws, haven't you, Mr. Babovic?
A. Yes.
Q. And as a teacher of the French language, you consider yourself qualified to analyse laws, don't you, Mr. Babovic?
JUDGE MAY: We've been through all that. We're not going to go over it again.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I add something?
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The accused obviously true to himself is endeavouring to disqualify the witness, and I would just like to recall that two years ago I was appointed head of the team for the 22446 reform of the police of Serbia and that a month ago I have been appointed member of a commission, a six-member commission, which is to investigate the system of security and how it functions, that is, a system of security for the prime minister of the Republic of Serbia. I do not believe that state bodies would entrust somebody who is not qualified to carry out such important tasks.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. You're an example of somebody being incompetent for what you're doing by saying that a policeman with many years of practice is not competent, is not qualified, to perform his duties.
JUDGE MAY: I don't even begin to understand what you're talking about. We debated at length on Friday the qualifications of this witness. We're not going to go over them again. Let's move on to something else.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Babovic, do you know that generals headed only the five largest departments within the public security section, the police, the crime police, the traffic police, the border police, and the department for fire-fighting? Therefore, your allegation that generals headed all the departments is not true, is it, Mr. Babovic? That also is not true.
A. I did not make such claim in my report, and I wish to underline that.
Q. Were generals in the state security department?
A. I don't know.
Q. And do you know who appoints assistant ministers? 22447
A. Assistants to ministers, according to the law, are -- I think the law on state administration, is -- are appointed by the government.
Q. I see, appointed and relieved of their duty by the government. And the assignment of jobs as to what each assistant will do is determined by the minister himself, isn't it?
A. Probably that is how it should be. Now, whether that was as it was, I am not -- I don't know.
Q. Do you have any provision of the law or regulation or anything else to show that I appointed assistant heads of departments in the police? Do you have any document to support this?
A. I don't and I don't need that, because I did not write any such thing.
Q. When you say that the president of the republic promotes graduates of the police academy to ministers, and this is not in dispute, don't you realise that that is a formal ceremony and that people who graduate from the police academy are then promoted to the rank of officers and this is a ceremony, nothing more than that, and no selective act whereby the president of the republic determines who will be an officer or not? Each and every person who graduates from the police academy acquires the lowest officer rank. That is a formal ceremony. No special act on the part of the government, but simply a show of respect towards the fact that somebody is joining the public service and he starts at the lowest rank level of officers. Isn't that right, Mr. Babovic?
A. What is right is that that provision is contrary to the constitution. 22448
Q. Very well, Mr. Babovic. Then it is quite simple to move on. I don't know why it would be contrary to the constitution.
A. According to the decision and ruling of the constitutional court.
Q. In 2003; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to this newly introduced procedure, who does that now?
A. I am not a lawyer, and you should probably know that when the constitutional court makes a ruling whereby a provision of a law or regulation is annulled, then there is a procedure whereby further steps need to be taken.
Q. In paragraph 82 you say: It should be underlined that the heads of the two departments continued sidestepping the minister to report directly to Milosevic even when he ceased to be president of Serbia and became president of FRY. Testifying to this are statements by Radomir Markovic following his arrest, according to which he had regular contact with Milosevic.
Very well. Sitting where you are sitting now, Rade Markovic actually said that he reported to his minister, who in those days were Vlajko Stojiljkovic. Now, my question to you is: Did you have access to the statements of witnesses made here prior to their cross-examination? And if you did, it seems to me that your role is to confirm statements of witnesses, even those statements which those same witnesses denied later on.
JUDGE MAY: That's not a question for the witness at all. He's 22449 giving his evidence. You can ask him if you want where he got that statement from. My recollection of Markovic's evidence was that he did have meetings with you and he did report to you about events, and I think he said about events in Kosovo. But whether that's right or not, what is the question you want to ask the witness to answer, which is a proper question?
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. The question is whether it is clear that Markovic explained quite clearly that he reported to the minister. Now, whether he provided me with information, it is quite logical for the head of the state security to provide information to the head of state. But he reports to the minister and is accountable to the minister. And he said here that every week or twice a week they reviewed all matters at a college meeting of the Ministry. Are you aware of that or not?
A. Yes, I am, but I'm also aware of a decision signed by you that the minister -- no, no, the head of the state security service is relieved of the obligation to report to the minister but that he should establish direct contact with the president of the republic. This is a general enactment that you passed in 1997.
Q. That's a very good thing, as I have that act in my hands now, as you placed it in your binder. Then you will explain to me where it says that he is relieved of the duty to report to the minister and his other legal obligations. Namely, this was adopted on the 21st of April, 1997 and the entire decision, Article 1, reads -- we can put it on the ELMO, but not to waste time, it says: "In the period of preparations for the 22450 adoption of the federal law on security affairs of FRY, the department of state security will act in accordance with the guidelines of the President of the Republic and the Government of the Republic of Serbia from the day this decision comes into force."
JUDGE MAY: Where in the binder am I going to find this, or have you got -- or is it your copy?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This was in the binder, KO227740.
JUDGE MAY: It was certainly exhibited elsewhere. Have we got a copy of it?
MR. NICE: There's a copy coming.
JUDGE MAY: Have we got a relevant number for it?
MR. NICE: Not immediately, but I'll find one.
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have a copy.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. I will read it. But you can read it. Please read what it says in that decision.
A. It says what you have just read. So there's no point for me to read it as well.
Q. I see. Of course there's no point. And then it says: "Until the day the federal law is in force, which shall, in accordance with the constitution of Yugoslavia, regulate the security affairs in the framework of the FR Yugoslavia jurisdiction." So these were tasks linked to the adoption of a new law, because according to the constitution of Yugoslavia, as you have read it, you're aware of it, defence and security come within the competence of the federation, and 22451 they were working on the drafting of that law and they were in the final stages of that work. Therefore, here we are talking about -- only about guidelines for the drafting of that law. Do you know that after that the draft law has to be passed by the government, then debated, then submitted to the assembly, and the assembly has to adopt it? So what do you find here in this decision --
JUDGE MAY: Now, come on. We need a question. What is the question out of all this?
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Where does it say in this decision that the head of the state security department -- here it says "department of the state security" -- needs to sidestep the minister and report directly to the president of the republic and the government of the Republic of Serbia when this is a very specific point in time, that is, preparations for the adoption of a federal law? Is that clear or not?
A. It says here: "During the period of preparations." It doesn't say "in the preparations," but it says "during the period of preparations." So we are talking about a time period and not the contents of that period, and the entire decision relates to that period until a law is adopted, which was never adopted and it was quite clear that it never would be.
Q. If it had been clear that no one would adopt such a law, then surely no one would have worked on preparing it. Secondly, I was president of the Republic of Serbia for another two months after that, upon which I was elected president of FRY in July. 22452 So you have May, June -- let's say three months, May, June, and July, during which I continued to be president of the Republic of Serbia. And what happened as a consequence of this? Can you infer from this?
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This decision, according to my knowledge and information, merely sanctioned the practice that had existed throughout the previous period. From reliable sources within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, I heard that the head of the state security department never even entered the office of the Minister of the Interior but did everything in direct contact with the president of the republic.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. But you heard Rade Markovic, who was head of the state security department, and he explained that at each meeting of the college, like his colleague in the public security department, he attended those meetings and reviewed all matters together.
A. Probably that is so, but it doesn't relate to this period that I'm referring to.
Q. Very well, Mr. Babovic. Can you read out from this decision any wording that says that the minister needs to be sidestepped and not reported to? But on the contrary, it says in connection with the adoption of the federal law he will work in accordance with the guidelines of the government and the president of the republic. What is wrong with that? Is there anything illegal in that?
A. When I read this, I'm surprised to hear a question being put as to what is unusual, because by a general act the president of the republic 22453 has established that the head of the state security department should act in accordance with his guidelines and the guidelines of the government. The minister is not mentioned anywhere.
Q. Preparations for the adoption of a law are referred to, but let's not discuss this any further. It is so obviously that there's no point in wasting any more time on it.
Tell me, Mr. Babovic, point 83, paragraph 83 --
MR. NICE: The exhibit was 277, for the record.
JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. "The President of the Republic of Serbia may determine the existence of an imminent threat of war or proclaim a state of war when the National Assembly is unable to meet," and then you say, "(Article 83, paragraph 6 of the Serbian Constitution). Furthermore, at the Government's proposal, the President of the Republic of Serbia proclaims a state of emergency and issues enactments so that adequate measures are undertaken. In such circumstances, the MUP directly implements the orders and enactments issued by the President of the Republic of Serbia in order to end the state of emergency."
You quoted the constitution there, didn't you, Mr. Babovic?
A. I quoted the law on the interior.
Q. You quoted Article 83 of the constitution, paragraph 6, and then Article 83 of the constitution, paragraph 8, and finally Article 17 of the law on internal affairs.
Now, since you quoted that as very significant, since it follows 22454 from constitutional norms, those that refer to imminent threat of war, state of war, emergency, et cetera, you draw a conclusion about some kind of command responsibility for charting security policies in Serbia and for implementing it -- them. I'm asking you the following now: At the time when I was president of the Republic of Serbia - so that is to say, from 1990 until 1997 - in the territory of Serbia or in any of its part was a state of emergency declared, a state imminent threat of war, or a state of war? So did this ever happen? Although, this is prescribed by the constitution, was there ever a state of emergency that was declared? Was an imminent threat of war declared or a state of war in the territory of Serbia or in any one of its parts; yes or no?
A. This had to do with certain political considerations and it had to do with how opportune it would have been to declare a state of war.
Q. I understand.
A. But that the conditions for proclaiming a state of emergency, they certainly were there. It would be hard to say that the situation was not right for that.
Q. You say here that the president of the republic has the right to proclaim a state of emergency at the proposal of the government, in all fairness. But then I'm asking you whether I ever proclaimed such a state, and the answer should be yes or no.
A. No.
Q. So then that norm in practice, while I was president of the republic, was never resorted to. Is that right?
A. The question is: What happened in 1991? This was a state of 22455 emergency without a state of emergency.
Q. I'm not aware of any state of emergency in 1991.
A. Demonstrations in Belgrade.
Q. There was a day of demonstrations in Belgrade. So what? On the 9th of March, 1991, demonstrations were held in Belgrade. So what?
A. As far as I know, from the testimony of your then-close associates, you asked for a state of emergency to be proclaimed then, and this was not done only because the members of the Presidency of the SFRY did not agree to that.
Q. Now you are testifying about me having asked for the proclamation of the state of emergency and then the members of the Presidency of the SFRY did not agree to that. What do I need the members of the Presidency of the SFRY from if I was authorised, according to what you say here, to proclaim a state of emergency on my own, in Serbia? Isn't that contradictory, what you said just now?
A. I am aware of certain historical facts about which persons from your immediate milieu testified and they say that you asked for a state of emergency to be proclaimed immediately. I think that at that time, when the SFRY constitution was in force, the proclamation of a state of emergency fell under the ambit of the Presidency of the SFRY and federal agencies.
Q. But you quoted the constitution of Serbia here; is that right?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. And you mentioned that as some kind of big powers that were in my hands. And now you say that I could not do that because there was the 22456 SFRY constitution.
A. I did not mention that at all as some kind of big powers that you had. I just mentioned that these were powers that you had, in order to illustrate the position you had in relation to the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. All right. Mr. Babovic, you can't really have it both ways. It can't be that way and it cannot be that it was not in accordance with the SFRY constitution. Was the SFRY constitution observed?
A. Your Honours, are we going to discuss these political issues now from the period of 1990 and 1991?
JUDGE MAY: Just answer as best you can, please, Dr. Babovic. If you don't -- if you don't know the answer, just say so.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Do you know what Article 90 of the constitution of Serbia says?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, it says what the competencies of the government are and it says here it pursues the policy of the Republic of Serbia, carries out laws and other enactments of the National Assembly in accordance with the constitution.
And then paragraph 5: "It stipulates the principles for the organisation of ministries and other agencies and it also appoints and dismisses officials in ministries and various agencies." Number 7: It supervises the work of ministries and separate organisations and also it annuls their regulations that are contrary to 22457 the law or regulations passed by it.
So, Mr. Babovic, everything that you are trying to put within the powers of the president of the Republic of Serbia is actually constitutionally in the hands of the government and that is what happened in practice. Why are you ascribing this to the president of the Republic, all of those thing that is the government was in charge of? Probably in order to support what this alleged Office of the Prosecutor is trying to prove; is that right?
A. I do not accept any insinuations that I did in order to -- that I did all of this in order to support the positions of the OTP. And I don't think that it is an honourable thing to say.
As for the constitution and constitutionality as such, at the time when you were in power in Serbia and Yugoslavia there is a lot of evidence as to how this worked out in practice, how the constitution and laws were enforced only when and to the extent to which it suited you. I'm going to remind you of the statement made by your assistant justice minister from November 1997, who said that the police reneged from the law and that it has to be brought back to a normal framework. This is a public statement.
Q. All right. If it's a public statement of the Minister of Justice, then this Minister of Justice was in that government and he had the right to take a position of his own.
So you talk about my Minister of Justice, as you can see, and this is actually a member of the government who acts independently, at least on the basis of this story that you've just come up with. I'm not aware of that statement-his, but if it indeed was so isn't it his job to criticise 22458 certain weaknesses in the functioning of government business?
A. I think that he just established this, but it's not that he could remove all of this and that's not the way it was then or later.
Q. All right, Mr. Babovic. Let's deal with 122, point 122 of your report.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm abiding by your instructions and I am mentioning the exact paragraphs that I refer to.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. You say, "Interestingly, existing police regulations do not envisage any special measures in cases when the application of means of coercion causes death or serious bodily injury. Such cases are not even mentioned in these regulations." That's what you say. Now, I'm asking you, Mr. Babovic: Does this show your lack of objectivity in the role of the advocate of this alleged Office of the Prosecutor or does it speak of your lack of competence? So you say, "Police regulations do not envisage any sanctions in cases when the application of the means of coercion causes death or serious bodily injury." Do you know --
MR. NICE: Can I make a point? These recurring insinuations against not just this witness but other witnesses, as well as being offensive to the witness, may serve to distract attention. It might be considered helpful if the accused could be compelled to make his questions without such commentary. We don't typically react to them, but the witnesses have to deal with the question preceded in this case by an insinuation of a kind that's simply unacceptable. 22459
JUDGE MAY: Yes. You heard that, Mr. Milosevic. Yes, let's move on. Now, ask a proper question.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So do you know - because you claim that these regulations do not refer to this at all - doesn't it seem to you, because this is regulated by the criminal law?
A. I'm not talking about the criminal law. I'm talking about police regulations.
In the next article, I say that such cases as extremely serious cases, because they cause death, in the previous "Regulations on the use of force by members of the Federal SUP," then, "the Federal Secretary, every time the use of the means of coercion cause death or serious bodily injury, to set up a special commission to establish all the circumstances and give an opinion." So I'm talking about police regulations. I'm not analysing the Law on Criminal Procedure.
Q. If you were a lawyer, Mr. Babovic, then you would know --
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. Don't interrupt. Yes, go on.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have concluded.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Do you know that, for example, Article 190 of the Penal Code of Yugoslavia sanctions the crime of extorting statements? So this relates to the police directly. And for the form that you mentioned here, a prison sentence of at least one year was envisaged and it can go up to 15 years for the most serious forms. And also, there is the crime of illegal 22460 deprivation of freedom. That is also within the province of work of the police. That is Article 189 of the Penal Code of Yugoslavia, or rather, 163 of the law on -- the criminal law of Serbia. And it also envisaged prison sentences up to 15 years, and then also the crime of threatening safety and security.
JUDGE MAY: I've stopped you because you've been talking for several minutes. And I don't --
Dr. Babovic, it may be that you understand the point of these questions. If you do, answer them. If not, we'll move on to something else.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. However, this is an inversion of logic, as we want to -- as we usually put it. I am talk about police regulations. I am not talking about criminal law. In international instruments, like I think the covenant on civil and political rights, it is explicitly stated that certain treatment by the police has to be specifically sanctioned in all regulations that pertain to police training and the work of the police. This pertains to torture and extorting statements. So in addition to everything that exists in the criminal legislation of all countries, or more or less all country, there is also the obligation of these same states to include this prohibition in police regulations. This is no accident, because the police often has the opportunity of violating such prohibitions.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So you think that the fact that the criminal law in Article 19 -- 190 says that extorting statements is qualified as a serious crime, that 22461 that is not sufficient, that police regulations have to state that as well and deal with that as well, although it is quite specific and it pertains precisely to the police and it is also sanctioned as a criminal offence. This is your expert opinion?
A. Yes, that is my expert opinion. I cannot find this now, and I cannot read this article to you now of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the one that has to do with this.
Q. All right. All right, Mr. Babovic. If the Penal Code establishes that something is a criminal offence, and if that is not sanctioned in police regulations, then you find this insufficient. You believe that only appropriate regulations have to -- have to contain this too, those that pertain to police work as such. Is this what you're claiming?
A. You're putting it in a way which I find unacceptable. It is necessary for it to be in the criminal law, and the Law on Criminal Procedure, but it is also indispensable to have it in political regulations, that policemen should be cautioned against this quite directly. I'm not the person who invented this. It is the International Community that did this.
Q. That is part of their training, and they are taught that this is a criminal offence, and they are familiarised with the criminal law of their country. So I don't understand this necessity that you are insisting upon, but let that remain as your expert opinion. In several places in your report, you refer to a document called the Rules of Service; is that right, Mr. Babovic?
A. That's right. 22462
Q. Who and when adopted this document and where was it published, these Rules of Service?
A. If you read page 1, "Definitions of Concepts and Abbreviations," you will see that Rules of Service of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia means that this is the regulations governing the work of the public security service, which was adopted in 1974 and published in the Official Gazette.
Q. Well, that's precisely what I wanted you to read, Mr. Babovic. I'm very pleased, because you yourself used this military term, "Rules of Service," as if this were a military organisation. And these are actually regulations governing the work of the public security service, dated 1974, published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Serbia on the 13th of July, 1974. So these are regulations, no rules of service. Do you know that these regulations are still in force, although constitutional amendments were passed in the meantime on several occasions and also the new constitution of Serbia, the new constitution of Yugoslavia, the new Law on Criminal Procedure, and all of these laws supersede these regulations?
A. I'm aware of that. But when such papers are written and such reports, one makes an effort to refer as briefly as possible in the text itself to organs and documents and their full name is given in a glossary of this nature.
As for Rules of Service, I'm not the person who invented this particular term, and I did not ascribe this to the police. This was done by the members of the organs of the interior, the law enforcement, and 22463 they referred to it as Rules of Service.
Q. All right. Do you distinguish between Rules of Service as an official document for the military and, on the other hand, regulations prescribing the way in which members of the Ministry of the Interior should act? Do you distinguish between these two categories of regulations? Just say yes or no.
A. Well, I can't say yes or no. I do distinguish between the Rules of Service in the army and the regulations and Rules of Service in the ministry. But let me remind you once again that as -- that these regulations I have termed the Rules of Service in order to make it an abbreviated version.
Q. I see. So you've used a military term in order to say in brief terms what something is, to describe something. Wasn't your intention to prove in quite an inappropriate way your thesis on the militarisation of the police?
A. No, that is not proof of that intention. That intent never existed. It is unfounded. This is just an expression of what exists in the organs of internal affairs. You can ask anybody you like, any member of the Ministry of the Interior who knows of the existence of this document, but unfortunately there are very few of them left who do know about it, what its name, what the title is, and they'll say, "Oh, that's that yellow book. It's the Rules of Service." So it's not me who has tried to plant something on you there or militarise a title or anything of that nature.
Q. Well, I'm only talking about the basic intention of what you're 22464 writing about. And without a doubt, the regulations themselves were enacted in 1974. That's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, let's take a look at points 141 and 142, those paragraphs of your report. And in 141, you say that in most of the cases in -- "in a large number of cases, especially in the operation to confiscate weapons," I'm being told to slow down by the interpreters.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But has I have to quote, Mr. May, various passages, and Mr. Robinson too, various passages of this report by Mr. Babovic's, then I'm really going to need a little more time, I'm afraid. More time than you have given me
JUDGE MAY: No, you have taken up a great deal of time arguing with the witness inappropriately and there's no reason for you to get more time. Now, put your point. You can ask this question, of course. You can quote the passage, if you want. Where are we going to find it?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
JUDGE MAY: Is this annex 10? Perhaps the Prosecution can help me.
MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated]
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: Paragraphs 141, and 142 of his report is where he's taking us at the moment.
JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. You were saying -- let me just skip over this passage and look at 22465 the matters of substance. You say, "Carried out searches for weapons was an official pretext." You say, "It is known that the MUP members carried out searches of the residents of Albanians (especially in Kosovo) and Muslims, in brackets you say especially in Sandzak." That is what you yourself state.
Now, are you claiming that the police had double yardsticks towards Muslims and Albanians with respect to the other citizens and inhabitants, in view of the unlawful holding of weapons, possession of weapons?
A. I'm saying this based on the knowledge of the situation as it was at the time, when the non-Serb population was exposed to measures of this kind, whereas the Serb population was being armed at the same time.
Q. All right, Mr. Babovic. That's what you might claim. But what you say is that the houses of Albanians and Muslims were searched, especially in Sandzak, you say, although this region is called Raska Oblast, that's what it's called. Raska district. Sandzak is a Turkish word. And as you're not a Turk, I assume, you ought to use the Serbian term?
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're not wasting time on points like this. Now, have you got a serious to ask?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I have got one, Mr. May, a serious question, quite a lot of questions for this witness.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Do you know, Mr. Babovic, how many pieces, as you say that this was pretext, that this was done using a pretext, how many pieces of 22466 weapons were confiscated in the area of the SUP of Novi Pazara and the Raska district, what you refer to as Sandzak, in 1992 and 1993 and 1994? Do you know that? Do you know that in 1992, 392 pieces of weapons were confiscated, 486 and 912 in 1992, 1993, and 1994? Are you aware of that, Mr. Babovic?
A. Yes, I do know about that. But I would like to draw your attention to the text and the sentence, the second sentence, in fact, of that passage, of paragraph 142, which states that "The search for weapons held without permit was the formal pretext, although - especially in Kosovo - it was often not only a pretext, for there was a real need to enforce the legal regulations."
Q. Well, that's why I'm not quoting Kosovo; I am quoting the Raska district, which is Novi Pazara and that is not in Kosovo. And do you know, Mr. Babovic, that apart from the figures that you say you don't know about, that in 1993 in the SUP Novi Pazara area among others, 5 machine-guns were confiscated, 184 Tomasic rifles were confiscated, 180 pistols and revolvers. 23.015 pieces of rounds of ammunition all in illegally in possession of different individuals. Do you know about that?
A. Yes, I do but it wasn't relevant.
Q. Well, I understand that it wasn't relevant to you.
A. Well, I say this in my report, and in a way say that that was true. I don't deny.
Q. Well, where do you say that?
A. In the sentence where it says, "The search for weapons held without permit was the formal pretext, although - especially any in 22467 Kosovo - it was often not only a pretext."
Q. Yes. But you just say that in reference to Kosovo. And precisely because you just mention Kosovo there, I went on to quote exclusively not Kosovo but Novi Pazar. Now, do you know, Mr. Babovic, that in the area of Novi Pazar in 1994, four machine-guns were confiscate, 122 automatic weapons, 320 pistols, 18 bombs, 16.000-odd pieces of ammunition, several kilogrammes of explosive devices and so on. And these were all illegally in the possession of individuals. Do you have facts and figure that was kind? Have you heard of them?
A. Well, I did have them.
JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, you must bring your questioning to a close. You can have another two minutes to do that.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not going to be able to complete my cross-examination at all, Mr. May, if you're restricting me and limiting my time.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Babovic, you said that policemen unlawfully searched the premises of Bosko Perosevic. Did you hear that the killer of Bosko Perosevic, the prime minister of Vojvodina, a certain man called Lazovic, who was subsequently arrested, before he killed Bosko Perosevic distributed material to the organisation called Otpor, resistance? Have you heard about that?
A. Well, I did hear about that, but I don't see the connection between those two things. No direct connection.
Q. No direct connection? 22468 Now may we have this placed on the ELMO. It is a pamphlet, actually. It was by the former Vlajko Stojiljkovic. This little leaflet, in his own handwriting, you can established that it is and these were the leaflets that NATO planes threw during the aggression. It says, "What Milosevic got during his term of office as president."
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] May this be placed on the ELMO, please, on the overhead projector for us to have a look. Perhaps it will assist us.
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Is this propaganda material? Have we got it on the ELMO? Yes, we have.
Well, take a look at this. It says, "What did Milosevic obtain during his term of office as President?" This is quite obviously in some villa along the Mediterranean coast and a four-tier yacht of some kind, a four-deck yacht of some kind. So perhaps -- now, this is taken in some Mediterranean country, and perhaps somebody will be able to recognise the yacht and the villa and could tell us who they belonged to and who invented all this. Do you know how much propaganda material of this kind was presented here as to what Milosevic had? Take a look at this.
JUDGE MAY: What is the relevance to the witness's evidence? Wait a moment.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance is -- the relevance is that the witness is saying what the police did with respect to propaganda. Now, on this piece of paper, recorded by Vlajko Stojiljkovic, 22469 it says these were the pamphlets and leaflets dropped from planes by NATO during the aggression, all the dirty lies that they used at the time and are still using today.
And, Mr. May, I've just read in the papers that Mrs. Del Ponte said that certain --
JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop all of this. It's absolutely nothing to do with the witness.
Now, would you -- I'll ask the usher to return that document to the witness -- to the accused.
Mr. Tapuskovic, have you got -- oh, Mr. Kay, you've got some questions. Perhaps we could finish this by the adjournment, please. Questioned by Mr. Kay:
Q. Dr. Babovic --
MR. KAY: If we could just look at that summary of key documents which the Prosecution handed up at the start of yesterday's testimony. I think the number it was given was 467. I just want to go through these various laws.
Q. Let's start with number 5, law on the ranks. Are you looking in the right part? You're not. Number 5, law on the ranks. Law on the ranks of members of the Ministry of the Interior. And you told us that there had been a recent decision in the Constitutional Court about this law. My question is this: Is this law still in force in Serbia?
A. Yes, it is. However, I should like to mention that as of several days ago, that particular provision was deemed unconstitutional.
Q. Was that in relation -- 22470
A. Declared unconstitutional.
Q. Was that in relation to the giving of ranks to foreigners, that aspect of the law?
A. That aspect wasn't brought into question; although, I am surprised to find that if the provisions of the law are considered null and void -- are declared null and void, because it refers to matters that does belong under the letter of the law, why doesn't it apply to the next provision, which also gives the President of the republic authorisations not given him by the constitution.
Q. So as far as things stand, that is still a law in the Republic of Serbia?
A. Yes.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, as I communicated earlier to Mr. Kay, we do have the very brief newspaper report of this decision. And I can make a copy available if you find one helpful.
MR. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: The stapled versions. I've handed out some single copies in English, but the stapled versions have the B/C/S and the English version. And I'm grateful to Ms. Milenov for this, the B-92 station on the 12th of June.
MR. KAY: Your Honours, as it's been mentioned in the evidence, would it be appropriate to give it an exhibit number?
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Prosecution Exhibit 466, tab 17. 22471
MR. KAY:
Q. Just going back to the summary, looking at number 6, the law on internal affairs, and you cite various articles from that law. Is that law still in force in Serbia today?
A. Yes, with the same proviso that I gave a moment ago.
Q. Looking at the regulations at tab 8, number 8, the MUP regulations, is that still in force in Serbia today?
A. As far as these regulations are concerned, I think that later on there were some amendments to it.
Q. The precise amendments, presumably, you're unable to help us with, and I don't want any detail on that. Just say yes or no.
A. No.
Q. Looking at number 9, decision to establish a ministerial staff for the suppression of terrorism of June 1998, is that still in force in Serbia today?
A. That decision cannot be still in force because the police and military forces from Kosovo withdrew in 1999.
Q. Looking at number 10, which deals with tab 7, rules of the internal organisation of the state security service for the Republic of Serbia, is that still in force in Serbia today?
A. No. Because the state security service no longer exists. What exists is the security and information agency, as it's called.
Q. So has that set of rules been repealed as some kind of amendment to the governing rules?
A. Yes, that's right. 22472
Q. Looking at number 11, FRY law on defence, Article 17, is that still in force in Serbia today?
A. Well, it's difficult to answer that question. In formal terms, it is still in force in the legal system. It is a component part of the legal system. However, the FRY no longer exists. What exists is another state community. And so the question of the armed forces has been regulated in a different manner. Although, not everything has been completed. It is an ongoing process, in fact.
Q. Is the equivalent law applicable to the Republic of Serbia today?
A. It is being applied in the extent to which it is possible to apply it under the new conditions that govern the area.
Q. Looking at number 12 here, tab 8, law on state administration with amendments, Articles 43 to 46, is that still in force in the Republic of Serbia today?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Going to number 14, tab 9, law on identity cards, is that still in force in the Republic of Serbia today?
A. Yes.
Q. Number 15, tab 10, regulations governing work of the public security service, is that still in force in the Republic of Serbia today?
A. Well, it's difficult to say again whether it is in force or not. From my own personal experience, what I can tell you is that in about three police stations where I asked them about these regulations nobody can find them for me. So it's difficult to say whether it is still in force or not. Formally and legally it is still in force, and it is the 22473 set of regulations that should govern the work of the police.
Q. Number 16, decree on identification cards during the state of war, is that still in force in the Republic of Serbia today?
A. That decree has been abolished.
Q. Number 17, tab 11, law on travel documents of Yugoslav citizens, is that in force in the Republic of Serbia today?
A. Yes.
MR. KAY: No further questions.
MR. NICE: Yes, I can finish --
JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.
MR. NICE: -- by the break, I hope Re-examined by Mr. Nice:
Q. Just a few matters, Mr. Babovic. The accused, on several occasions, asked you a about your purpose in giving evidence. Let's remind ourselves. You're, I think, Montenegrin by birth; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You wrote the book that led to your being identified as a potential expert of course well before your first contact with the OTP. What was your purpose or intention in writing the book that expressed your opinions?
A. It was the wish to draw the attention to the fact that problems existed with respect to human rights in Serbia and if possible to contribute to a respect of those rights.
Q. At the launch of your book, amongst others attending, were there representatives of the MUPs themselves? 22474
A. Representatives of the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the police academy did attend the promotion of my book on international police relations.
Q. Has there been any challenge to the accuracy of what's contained in your book by representatives of the MUP since then, to your knowledge?
A. The only challenge came from the Assistant Federal Minister of the Interior in 2000, in summer of the year 2000, when he claimed that I copied out my Ph.D. thesis from somewhere else, although it was quite clear that that was not possible because the problems of international police relationships and the international police law as a new branch of international public law, nobody had written about that beforehand, before me, not only in Yugoslavia but in the world at large either.
Q. Your report for this court has been filed publicly. The accused complains of your reference to 150.000 policemen being something that you drew from a budget. Has that figure ever been challenged, other than by the accused here?
A. That was never challenged, although it was published. It was made public.
Q. You were asked on Friday about sources of information being revealed to show the crimes by policemen, suggesting that this was something that could be faithfully reported. To your knowledge, was there any pattern of prosecution of police for crimes that they committed?
A. There were a certain number of cases in which policemen were taken to court for certain offences and crimes they had committed. However -- actually, one case in point that took place in Belgrade, in which a person 22475 of Romany decent was killed. Everything was covered up, and the policemen were not taken to court.
There was another case with a young Serb from the surrounding parts of Krusevo and a similar thing happened. Although there were some cases in which police officers -- legal proceedings were taken to prosecute police officers who committed crimes.
As for deaths occurring in prison, I don't know whether anybody was held responsible for cases of that kind, and there is information from various quarters that at least six individuals who were incarcerated in Kosovo had lost their lives in the hands of the police -- at the hands of the police.
Q. Are you able to assist us - and don't guess if you can't - as to the match, if any, between the number of crimes recorded as committed and the number of prosecutions of police officers that ensued?
A. I can't give you any precise data, but what I can tell you is that the number of cases which were prosecuted was very low and could be said to be just three or four, according to what was made public, and each of those cases were made public.
Q. I have three more topics, each of them quite short. The first: You spoke last week of how the structure envisaged oversight of police activity. Your report deals with the fact that although it was envisaged, it wasn't necessarily enforced after 1992. And then in the same topic, you spoke of the international desire for accountability and accountability at a local level of police and of the centralisation of accountability of the police in the former Yugoslavia. And what I would 22476 like your help on is this: Did the centralisation of which your report speaks lead to more or less accountability in your judgement?
A. It certainly reduces accountability because all responsibility is centralised in one place, so that accountability is not established when -- where policemen are working and where they may commit any misdeeds or offences, so that prosecution is centralised and all accountability is centralised, with the exception of course of criminal responsibility, when -- if proceedings need to be instituted against somebody, then it would be the law enforcement bodies that would institute those. And in those cases too the republican ministry would assist members of the ministry who are the object of prosecution, who are being prosecuted.
Q. The second of my topic, this one being very short: Exhibit 277, which we were looking at for some considerable period of time, which is the one that dealt with the president's contact direct with MUP was said to be founded on Article 83 of the Republic of Serbia. Did you regard that -- I'll deal with it shortly. It's the decision of the 21st of April of 1997 that dealt with the president of Serbia's right to have direct contact with the RDB, number 7 on the summary list. In your judgement, was that decision properly founded on Article 83 of the constitution?
MR. KAY: I don't think this witness can give an answer to that. That's a matter of -- of law. He's here as an expert on the police. To start asking whether he believes decisions were -- were properly founded, in my submission, is outside the area of his proper expertise.
MR. NICE: He's been asked extensive questions by the accused on the constitution and documents. 22477
JUDGE MAY: Well, he can give an opinion. We'll decide what weight to give it.
MR. NICE:
Q. Dr. Babovic, Article 83, and it's -- I've got a copy of the article for you, if you'd like.
MR. NICE: Can we see Article -- Exhibit 277, please. It was handed back.
[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's very difficult for the Registry to deal with it.
MR. NICE: I'm sorry, yes, Your Honour. I thought it had gone back to the Registry. And in fact it hadn't; it was on our desk. My mistake.
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MR. NICE:
Q. Dr. Babovic, if you're able to express a --
A. [In English] Yes. Yes. [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your question.
Q. Yes. The exhibit we're looking at, the decision of the 21st of April, is said at its head to be founded on Article 83 of the constitution. Do you believe it to be soundly so founded?
A. It couldn't be said so, as the distinguished amicus pointed out; I'm not a lawyer. But in my opinion, it cannot be said that it is based on the constitution and that it emanates from the responsibility of the president of the republic as prescribed by Article 83 of the constitution, 22478 because by this decision in fact the system of communication and command in the Ministry of the Interior is being changed.
Q. Finally, keeping an eye to the clock, you were asked -- it was suggested to you that you were ascribing to the accused powers of the government. Do you accept that there were powers of the government -- or the president - I beg your pardon - to obtain reports on certain matters from ministers? For example, the Minister of Internal Affairs?
A. The president of the republic can request of the government reports on certain matters, and it is not stated anywhere that he may do so from the ministry or, rather, the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Only in the law on internal affairs is that right envisaged for the president of the republic to be able to ask the minister directly about the state of security in the republic.
Q. Thank you very much.
MR. NICE: I'm sorry I have overrun.
JUDGE MAY: Dr. Babovic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it, and thank you for making yourself available this morning in particular. You may now go. We'll adjourn. We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, may I, just before we do adjourn, set the timetable? Or would it be better later?
JUDGE MAY: Let's deal with it later, shall we?
[The witness withdrew]
--- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.
--- On resuming at 11.04 a.m. 22479
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome. We were expecting an answer from Mr. Nice, I thought.
MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I've just contacted Mr. Nice. He says he will be down at the 12.15 break to address a matter with the Chamber.
JUDGE MAY: Very well.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls B-1047. Your Honour, perhaps while we're waiting, the Prosecution will be tendering an exhibit of nine binders. If it could be assigned a number, please.
THE REGISTRAR: Nine tabs, I hope.
MR. GROOME: Nine tabs. Excuse me.
THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 468.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there is perhaps one just preliminary matter I could address while we're waiting. The witness is a protected witness, and the Prosecution will be tendering some photos that have his face depicted in them, and we would be of course asking that they be tendered under seal.
However, for the purposes of keeping as much evidence in the public domain as possible, we have prepared copies of those exhibits in Sanction in which his face has been masked. It was our intention not to formally tender the masked version, but simply display it on the monitor, if that's acceptable to the Chamber.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Can we have the witness, please. 22480
[The witness entered court]
JUDGE MAY: If the witness would 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-1047
[Witness answered through interpreter]
JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Examined by Mr. Groome:
Q. Sir, you have been granted certain protective measures by the Chamber. I will refer to you by your pseudonym, B-1047, during the course of your testimony here today. I'd ask that we begin your testimony by having you take a look at a document. It's tab 1 of Prosecution Exhibit 468. And my question to you is: Is that your name on the first line of that document and is that your signature at the bottom of the page?
A. Your Honours, yes.
Q. To further protect your identity, we have listed the name of your home village there. So if at any time during your testimony you need to refer to that location, please just say "my village" and the Chamber will know what village you are referring to.
MR. GROOME: I'm finished with that exhibit. Thank you, usher. And I'd ask that that be placed under seal.
Q. Sir, drawing your attention to April of 1992. In what municipality were you during that period of time?
A. Kljuc municipality. 22481
Q. And did there come a time when the Kljuc municipality was taken over?
A. Yes.
Q. By who?
A. By the Serb authorities.
Q. Now, after the municipality of Kljuc was taken over, was there a labour requirement or a labour obligation imposed upon the people there?
A. The Muslims, Bosniaks, had this work obligation.
Q. And did you yourself fulfil your obligation to do work?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did there come a time when your forced work obligation included work at the frontline or the confrontation line?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you please describe for us when that was and where precisely you were sent.
A. In 1993 I went to do my work obligation for the first time, and this was at the front, called Grabez, near Bihac.
Q. And was there active fighting during the time when you were sent there?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. And who also was sent with you there at the same time? Not so much the names but just the number of people and their ethnicity.
A. There were 30 of us who were sent there on that occasion, and we found there another 20 or so men who had left earlier on.
Q. And what was the ethnicity of the people, the approximate 50 22482 people near Grabez?
A. They were all Bosniaks.
Q. How were you notified about this obligation at this time?
A. They sent a courier who brought with him the call-up papers.
Q. And do you know what would happen to anybody who refused to respond to what you've termed a "call-up paper"?
A. They would be beaten up and sent to the frontline nevertheless.
Q. Was there another time in 1995 where you were once again sent to the frontline?
A. Yes, in May 1995.
Q. Can you please describe what happened on that occasion.
A. On that occasion, the Serb police came early in the morning and picked up me, Dursum Pajic, Zijad Bukvic, Dervis Sehic, Safet Sehic, Mehmed Sehic, Osman Muratovic, and took us directly to a place called Drenovo Kisela [phoen] not far from the Grabez barracks.
Q. And on this occasion, how long did you remain working at the frontline?
A. Until the 13th of September.
Q. Now, if I can draw your attention once again to your work at the frontline in 1993. Can you tell us what types of tasks were you given to complete during your time at the frontline?
A. We had to dig trenches, to fortify those trenches, to carry food for the Serb troops, water, and other heavy labour that needed to be done, we had to do it.
Q. And once again, in -- from May to September of 1995, did you have 22483 similar tasks or did you have any different tasks to perform?
A. Well, in the breaks, when we didn't go to the battlefield, we would do work in my village. For instance, we had to cut wood for the families of killed Serb combatants and various other activities, like cutting the hay, the grass, and so on.
Q. Now, in September of 1995, can I ask you to explain to the Chamber in terms of context, what was going on in the Bihac area and in the Sanski Most area at that time?
A. On the 13th of September, the forces of the 5th Corps of the BH army penetrated and broke through Serb lines, so that the Serb army started withdrawing towards Sanski Most.
Q. Were you present working on the frontline when this occurred?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And what did you and the other people there -- or the other Bosniaks there on work obligation do when that happened?
A. We had to go together with the Serb army towards Sanski Most.
Q. And when you arrived in Sanski Most, were you given any instructions by the Serbs in Sanski Most?
A. Before we reached the town itself, the soldiers who were from Kljuc left us at the very entrance to Sanski Most. Then we were taken over by soldiers from Drvar, whose intention it was to take us somewhere to the battlefront at Manjaca. However, they also left us behind there, saying that the order was that they couldn't take us with them. Just then we learnt that the Kljuc troops or army that we belonged to under work obligation was stationed in a place called Poljak, not far from Sanski 22484 Most.
Q. During this period of time, from May 1995 up until the time you're describing for us now, were you free to leave your work obligation and go where you pleased?
A. No.
Q. Now, did you go to Poljak, near the town of Sanski Most?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you do when you arrived there?
A. When we arrived there, we first washed in a stream. Then we found a stable to stay in. Just then a soldier arrived, or shortly after that, with a nice clean uniform on him, a camouflage uniform; whereas, the other Serb soldiers that we belonged to under work obligation were not so nicely dressed. And he asked the soldiers from Kljuc to give him a vehicle and men to load ammunition from the Veleprom warehouse and to drive it in front of the Sanus Hotel.
Q. I'm going to ask you a few more questions about that soldier. You've described him as wearing a camouflage uniform. Did you see whether or not he had any insignia or identifying markings on his camouflage uniform?
A. Just then I didn't, but the soldiers from Kljuc asked him, "And who is that ammunition and weapons for that we are going to take?" And he answered that it was for Commander Arkan.
Q. Now, you've described yourself as being present when he addressed you and some others. Was there anything distinctive about his dialect, his manner of speaking? 22485
A. Yes. We noticed immediately that this soldier was from Serbia.
Q. How was it that you were able to tell that he was from Serbia?
A. Because he used the Ekavian dialect in his speech.
Q. And is that a dialect that is unique to people from a particular part of Serbia?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this soldier armed?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. What was he armed with?
A. He had an automatic rifle on him.
Q. Now, you've testified that he was requesting a vehicle to transport munitions from the Veleprom factory. Can you please describe for the Chamber, what is the Veleprom factory and where it's located.
A. It is a warehouse, Veleprom, situated in Poljak, not far from Sanski Most, about a kilometre from Sanski Most.
Q. You testified he wanted to transport these munitions to the Hotel Sanus. Where was that located?
A. The hotel is in the centre of Sanski Most.
Q. What happened after he made this request for a vehicle to move these munitions?
A. A Serb soldier - his surname was Vojvodic - told us that we should go and load the weapons from Veleprom, drive it to the Sanus Hotel, after which we would come back.
Q. This Vojvodic, when you say a Serb soldier, do you mean a soldier from Serbia or a local Bosnian Serb soldier? 22486
A. From the ranks of Bosnian Serbs. I knew him well. He's from Kljuc. But I can't remember his first name.
Q. Did you go -- did you do as he instructed you?
A. Yes.
Q. On the way to Veleprom, did you hear any conversation between this soldier and the other local soldiers or Bosnian Serb soldiers regarding the purpose of Arkan's men coming to the Sanski Most area?
A. Yes, I heard that conversation. Arkan's soldiers said that they had come to Sanski Most with the task of regaining control of Kljuc, which had been taken by the 5th Corps, that is, the soldiers of the 5th Corps.
Q. Can you describe who was present on the truck, not necessarily the names but just give us some idea of who was on the truck as it went to Veleprom.
A. There was this soldier Vojvodic and Arkan's soldier, who had come to fetch us.
Q. And what happened when you arrived at Veleprom warehouse?
A. We found there five or six of Arkan's soldiers, who ordered us to load the ammunition, some mortar barrels as well that were there, and even some stretchers for the wounded. They kept telling us to hurry up.
Q. Approximately how much time did you spend at the Veleprom warehouse?
A. About half an hour, perhaps.
Q. And what happened after the truck was loaded?
A. Then we headed towards the Sanus Hotel.
Q. And how long did it take you to travel from Veleprom to the Sanus 22487 BLANK PAGE 22494 Hotel?
A. Ten minutes or so.
Q. What happened when you arrived at the Sanus Hotel?
A. When we arrived in front of the hotel itself, at the parking lot I noticed some tanks, APCs, mortars, and in front there were about ten or so of Arkan's soldiers there all the time. Across the way from the hotel itself, in front of a building, I saw some civilians that were tied up. They were tied to some pillars. Then they told us to wait, because we couldn't unload the truck until the commander arrived and the commander was somewhere in the field.
Q. Did you see any busses in the parking lot?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there anything on the busses to indicate where they were from?
A. Yes. It said "Vukovar" on them. I am not quite sure whether it was Autoprevoz Vukovar, but I am sure that the word "Vukovar" was written on them.
Q. Now, the men you've described as being members of Arkan's unit, how were you able to identify them as such?
A. Because the soldier from Kljuc spoke to one of Arkan's soldiers. They spoke at length, to the effect that they have come there to regain control of Kljuc, that the commander was in the field. They used the Ekavian dialect in their speech and so on.
Q. And were you able to or did you form an impression regarding the relationship between Arkan's men and the local Serb soldiers? 22495
A. Afterwards I came to the conclusion that they were not on the best of terms, as the local soldiers were fleeing, whereas Arkan's soldiers rounded them up and brought them to the Sanus Hotel.
Q. You've mentioned two men being tied to a pole in this area. Did there come a time when you found out what happened, why these men were tied to a pole?
A. Yes.
Q. Please explain.
A. The Arkan's soldier explained to soldier Vojvodic that they were men that Arkan had found drunk in Sanski Most, and that is why he had tied them to this pole.
Q. Did you learn their ethnicity?
A. No.
Q. Did there come a time when a person by the name of Mr. Rasula, the president of Sanski Most, addressed you and other -- the other people you were with?
A. Yes. The gentleman came to the truck where we were sitting, and he asked whether any one of us had been drinking alcohol during the day. If somebody had been drinking alcohol, then they should watch out for Arkan.
Q. And how is it that you recognised Mr. Rasula?
A. I saw Mr. Rasula often on television, so I immediately recognised him when he walked up to the truck.
Q. Now, sir, I'm going to ask you to take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 468, tab 2. It is two photographs that will be displayed on a 22496 television screen before you. If you have any difficulty seeing them, let us know and we'll provide the original photographs. Do you recognise the locations depicted in both of these photographs? And I'd ask you to start by telling us about the photograph on the top, ending in number 110.
A. Yes, I recognise this.
Q. And what do you recognise that to be?
A. On the first photograph, we see the very entrance into the Hotel Sanus.
Q. And can I ask you to describe what is depicted in the second photograph, ending in ERN number 11, 1-1.
A. In the second photograph, the door can be seen, the one that leads into the room where Mr. Arkan had been.
Q. Now, when you arrived at the Sanus Hotel, did you begin to unload the weapons and munitions that were on the truck?
A. No, not immediately. We had to wait for Arkan to come.
Q. And how long did you wait before -- did there come a time when Arkan did come? And if so, how long did you wait?
A. As soon as it was dusk, a soldier came and said that the truck could park in front of Sanus, and that's when we started unloading the ammunition and the other goods.
Q. And where did you bring the ammunition and other goods?
A. We brought it into the Sanus Hotel. This is a door that is different from the one that I showed in the picture, where Arkan was.
Q. And what happened after you unloaded the weapons and other goods? 22497
A. When we were just about to finish unloading this, a soldier told us finally that we would go into the hotel and that we would be examined by Arkan.
Q. Did you go into the hotel?
A. Yes.
Q. Where precisely in the hotel did you go?
A. Right behind the entrance door there was a pool table. We were ordered to line up by that pool table.
Q. Can you describe what you saw in that area of the hotel at that time.
A. When we got in, I saw an old man who was cutting the hair of Serb soldiers. This man was a Bosniak. The soldiers were stopping -- were standing in a line, and he was shaving their heads. I noticed that they were then taken into the busses that were out in front. I think that they were returned to the frontline yet again then.
Q. What was the purpose of shaving their heads, if you know?
A. Well, I don't know exactly, but I assume that quite simply these are soldiers who were being marked for being deserters, for running away, things like that.
Q. Was Arkan present in that part of the hotel?
A. Yes. Arkan got out through the first door that I showed.
Q. And what, if anything, did he say at this point in time?
A. He asked who these people were. A soldier said that these were the men who had unloaded the ammunition. He then walked up to soldier Vojvodic. He asked him who he was. He answered, he gave his name and 22498 surname. He asked him three times, and then he said that he could go and that we should stay. Then he asked us individually what our names were. After that he showed us a hall and told us to stand there, to wait, and that there would be work for us and that we would be engaged in doing this work. That's exactly what we did. We went to that hall and stood there.
Q. In this part of the hotel, how many men were there that were not part of the local Serb army and were not members of the group that you were with? Can you tell us approximately how many men were there and describe what they were wearing?
A. Could you please repeat your question? I didn't quite understand it.
Q. Aside from yourself, the men in your group, and any local Serb soldiers, can you describe who else was present in the lobby of the hotel.
A. Arkan's soldiers were there. They were going up and down the stairs. So I don't know what the exact number was. They kept going up and down. Then this man who was shaving people's heads, and in the meantime some other men were brought in front of the hotel. I didn't really see. I just heard some noise, some clamoring. That's the way it was.
Q. When you say Arkan at this point in time, was he wearing anything on his head?
A. Yes. He wore a red beret.
Q. And do you remember seeing any insignia on that beret?
A. Yes. Yes. On the beret, there were four Cyrillic S's, and then the letters saying "Serbian Volunteer Guard" were in a circle. 22499
Q. The other men with Arkan, do you recall what, if anything, they were wearing on their heads?
A. Some wore black berets; others had black woollen camps. While, the ones who were closer to Arkan, I think, all had red berets.
Q. Did there come a time when you saw somebody who you believed was a colonel or a lieutenant colonel?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you please describe that person as best you can for us.
A. The man was rather short. His hair was cut short. He was sturdily built. He walked into the toilet and the door leading to the toilet was opposite where we were standing. As he was walking back from the toilet, he looked straight at me. He then asked me whether I was a Turk. But his tone of voice was such that I simply had to answer yes. He asked me three times. Every time he was speaking louder and louder, and every time I answered him. Then he told me to sit down. I sat down on the tiles, on the floor. He told me that I was supposed to sit like Turks sat when they wanted to dine, that I should cross my legs, and that's exactly what I did. Then he said that I should lower my head as far as I could, close to the floor, and then he told everybody else to do so too. Then he placed a soldier in front of us and said that if any one of us moved, that the soldier should shoot us with a bullet in our heads.
Q. How long did you remain there in that position?
A. Well, until 2.30 a.m.
Q. Approximately how many other Bosniaks or Muslims were in the room with you in -- sitting down in that position? 22500
A. Seven more Bosniaks were brought in, and then there were the five of us.
Q. Did there come a time when two Muslims or two Bosniaks were brought into the room and accused of celebrating in advance of the Bosnian army's success in Sanski Most?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Can you describe what happened when they were brought in.
A. Then Arkan ordered these soldiers who had brought them in to tie them up outside to some trees that were in front of the Sanus Hotel.
Q. Of the people that were present in the hotel, are you able to say whether or not Arkan spoke with each of the prisoners there?
A. Yes. Every man who was brought in first had to stand in front of Arkan and speak to him, so I came to the conclusion that nothing should happen there without him knowing about it.
Q. Did there come a time when a local Serb major had a discussion with Arkan regarding granting vacation leave to another soldier?
A. Yes. When a soldier was brought in by Arkan's men, said that he had received permission from the major to leave the frontline. After that, Arkan immediately issued orders to have this major brought to the Sanus Hotel, which is exactly what his men did. When the major arrived, I heard Arkan saying to him, "How can you let men go when the situation is the most difficult for the Serb people? I brought my own son, and he's up there at the frontline."
Q. Now, during this point in time, Arkan had no legal authority over VRS soldiers. Did you form an impression regarding -- or strike that. 22501 Did this major or any of his men protest or resist Arkan when he called the major before him?
A. No. No.
Q. You testified earlier about a barber shaving the heads of Serb deserters. Approximately how many men altogether had their head shaves while you were present?
A. I could not give you an exact number, because at one point in time -- I mean, I was there, sitting with my head down for five or six hours, so I couldn't really see. But they were being brought in all the time.
Q. Did there come a time when you and other men in the group were ordered to unload a truck outside the hotel?
A. Yes. At one point in time, we heard a truck coming up to the entrance. Then they told us to get up and to unload something outside. I and many others could not readily get to their feet because quite simply our legs were numb because we had sat that way for so long. When we somehow managed to get up and reach the truck, we saw some books there, some kind of archives. We heard in passing that these were the archives of the Party of Democratic Action that were found in Sanski Most. We were told that we should unload this quickly and pile it up in front of the hotel.
Q. What time of the day was this, please?
A. It was around 2.30 a.m.
Q. And what day was this?
A. I don't remember the day. I remember the date though. It was the 22502 morning of the 20th of September, 1995.
Q. What happened after you unloaded these SDA files?
A. We were told to go back to the place where we were supposed to be. I was the first one to go to that hall. All of a sudden we heard the following: "Go back. They have to go back." At that moment, when we turned around to go back, I was the last man in that line. When I got outside, I saw them tying men in pairs, the men from my group, and they brought them onto a truck. They were actually handcuffing everyone, so they handcuffed me as well. I was handcuffed to a man I didn't know. We boarded the truck. At that moment, they were looking for some Zeljo. "Where is Zeljo?" And he was supposed to go with us. When this Zeljo arrived, I saw that he couldn't have been older than 15 or 16. He was very young. He wore a uniform which was the same like the uniform worn by all of the other men, Arkan's men. Then they put the tarpaulin down, three of these soldiers sat with us underneath the tarpaulin. And then they ignited the truck and we set out in a direction that we were not aware of.
We drove on for about half an hour that way, and then the truck stopped. From the truck cab we heard them getting out. Then they lifted the tarpaulin. And then these three soldiers jumped off the truck, and soon they said, "Come on. Get off, you two." These two got off. And soon two gunshots were heard. According to the sound, I could tell that they were shooting indoors.
Soon after that, these same persons returned to the truck. I asked one of them very softly what happened to them. But he just put his 22503 finger on his lips; I noticed that. And he kept quiet. And then they said, "Next." Again, two gunshots were heard, but they did not return to the truck. So my turn came as well. I got off the truck, together with the man to whom I had been handcuffed. Then they took us by a house that did not have a roof. Behind it we saw a smaller house with a garage. They took us into the garage. One of them started taking off our handcuffs, and the other one had a torchlight on. At that moment I said, "People, can you not kill us somehow?" And then Arkan's soldier said, "Yes. You're lucky. You're lucky to be in Arkan's hands. Give us 5.000 Deutschmark each, get into the truck, and we'll drive you to your homes." At that moment I said that I was from Kljuc. While the other man who was handcuffed said that he had 200 Deutschmark. He swore at these 200 Deutschmark and said that we should get into this little room that was within this garage. Then I looked in the direction where the man -- the soldier had his torchlight on. I saw bodies lying. I saw pools of blood. So I turned around together with this man and walked inside. As soon as I got in, a bullet hit me in my left shoulder and -- shoulder blade and I immediately fell to the ground. I kept quiet. Then they brought two more men, and I heard just one gunshot. Then one of Arkan's soldiers started swearing at this man who had fallen before a bullet was fired into him. Then I heard the soldier start his weapon, opening a burst of gunfire at this man. One bullet went through my left leg.
Then they brought those two men who had left the truck first and were subsequently returned. I heard them order them to kneel. One of them was begging, "Don't, please." And the other one started swearing at 22504 him and said, "Kneel, Bre." Then I heard a knife being taken out of the scabbard and then this soldier said, "Zeljo, you can do the honours. You can do the best part of the job." This young soldier of Arkan's slit the throats of these two men.
Then we could hear other people gurgling in that pile of human bodies. And then one of Arkan's soldiers said, "Well, some of them are still alive. We heard a voice." And then another voice said, "Well, just shoot them in the head." So the light fell on my face too. I heard a gunshot then, and I was hit in the chin, on the right side in the chin area. Then they boarded the truck. And when I heard them leave, when I heard the truck leaving, I asked whether anybody was still alive. I put this question several times; however, nobody answered. Since my left arm was numb, I put my left hand on my belt, the belt on my trousers, and I somehow managed to get up. I got out of that room and set out towards the road. I thought I could not take this for very long. I thought I'd die very soon, so I wanted to be somewhere by the road so that someone could find me.
From time to time, I couldn't see anything, and then I could see again. And at one point I felt very thirsty. So I started walking along the road, trying to find some water.
JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let counsel ask some questions now to clarify any matters and also possibly to shorten things.
MR. GROOME:
Q. Sir, how many men were led off the truck and shot in that room that night? 22505
A. Twelve men were taken. Eleven were killed.
Q. And of those 12 men, how many of them whose names did you know?
A. Four of them.
Q. Can I ask you to tell us their names.
A. They were Mehmed Sehic, Safet Sehic, Dervis Sehic, and Osman Muratovic.
Q. And were any of these men who were killed, were any of them close friends of yours?
A. Yes.
Q. Which ones?
A. I would say Mehmed Sehic.
Q. I'm going to ask you to take a look at some photographs. The first one is Prosecution Exhibit 468, tab 3. It's the house that has a photograph -- it's a photograph of a house. I'd ask you to look at it on the television screen before you and ask you: Do you recognise that house?
A. Yes, I can recognise it.
Q. Can you describe what you recognise it to be.
A. In front of this first building the truck that brought us was parked. And behind this bigger building is the smaller building where the massacre took place.
Q. If I could draw your attention to tab 4 of 468. And I'd ask you: You recognise the building in this photograph?
A. Yes, I do. This is the garage through which you would enter a small room where they executed us. 22506
Q. And finally, if you would take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 468, tab 5.
A. That's precisely the room I mentioned where the massacre took place.
Q. Now, you've mentioned --
MR. GROOME: I'm finished with that exhibit. Thank you.
Q. You've mentioned being shot. How many times altogether or how many gunshot wounds altogether did you sustain?
A. Three bullets hit me.
Q. And can you summarise again where on your body you sustained those gunshot wounds.
A. One bullet hit me in the left shoulder by my collarbone, next to my collarbone. The second one hit me in my chin. And the third hit my leg.
Q. I'm going to ask that you take a look at four photographs which make up -- I'm sorry, five photographs which make up Prosecution Exhibit 468, tab 6. Are these photographs of the injuries that you've described here in your testimony?
I'm sorry, your answer wasn't --
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you received extensive medical treatment for these injuries.
JUDGE MAY: Before we go on, Mr. Groome, I think we should clarify whereabouts the house and garage are, so that we have that located.
MR. GROOME:
Q. Sir, at the time of the massacre, did you know where it was that 22507 you had been brought?
A. At that point in time, no, I didn't.
Q. Did there come a time when you did learn where it was that this massacre took place?
A. Yes, I did. I learnt that later on from one of the soldiers at Kljuc to whom I told what had happened to me, and he said that that place was called Trnovo.
Q. And do you know where that location is with respect to the town of Sanski Most?
A. I couldn't tell you exactly how many kilometres away it is, but it's not far from Sanski Most.
Q. I'm going to ask that you be shown Prosecution Exhibit 468, and my question to you is: Are these the medical records of the treatment you received for the injuries you sustained that night?
MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, tab 7.
A. Yes.
Q. And can I ask you: Did you suffer any permanent consequences from the injuries you sustained?
A. Yes. I'm 60 per cent an invalid, and I will be for the rest of my life.
Q. I would now ask you to take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 468, tab 8. Do you recognise what this document is? What I recognise here are the people who were shot, not all of them, but some of them.
Q. And the names that you told us the people you knew, do their names appear on this list? 22508
A. Yes. Under number 3, Osman Muratovic; number 4, Safet Sehic; number 5, Mehmed Sehic; and then number 9, Dervis Sehic.
Q. Last week were you asked --
MR. GROOME: I'm finished with that exhibit. Thank you.
Q. Last week were you asked to look at a videotape of a number of corpses, the video being taken by some investigators from the Bosnian government?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you recognise some of the names on the name tags on the bodies as well as some of the clothing that was worn in that video by the victims?
A. Yes. I recognised the names, and I recognised the clothing worn by Mehmed Sehic.
Q. And can you describe for the record what that clothing looked like in the video.
A. I remembered the jumper Mehmed Sehic was wearing very well, but I couldn't recognise the rest because the bodies were already disintegrating.
Q. Were any of the bodies -- or did any of the people who were shot that day have on military uniforms or were they armed in any way?
A. No, nobody was wearing a military uniform nor were they armed.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm going to ask that at least a portion of this video be played for the witness to establish that it was the video he looked at earlier or last week. It's a five and a half minute video. I'm not sure that the Chamber would want the entire video played. But 22509 I'll be guided by the Chamber on how much of the video is played for the witness.
JUDGE MAY: Would you select the passages which you think most appropriate.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, perhaps I will play the first 30 seconds so he can establish that it was the video that he looked at in its entirety.
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MR. GROOME:
Q. Sir, I'm going to ask you to look at the video screen in front of you, and we will now play the video. And I will ask you to confirm whether or not it's the video you viewed last week.
[Videotape played]
Q. Do you recognise this video, sir?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Do you need to look at more of it to -- to tell us with certainty whether it's the video that you saw in which you recognised the clothing and the names of the other people that were killed on that night?
A. Yes, that's the footage. And those are the people.
MR. GROOME: Okay. We can stop the video now. I have no further questions, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
Q. [Interpretation] Mr. 1047, on page 2, paragraph 5 of your statement you say that the Serbs took Kljuc in April 1992; is that right? 22510
A. Yes.
Q. So who did the Serbs seize Kljuc from, in fact?
A. Well, first of all, they proclaimed the police force the Serb police, and the Bosniaks and Croats from the police force they expelled. Then in the municipality all the Bosniaks and Croats were sacked and their jobs -- in their jobs were put people of Serb ethnicity.
Q. And do you have any personal knowledge about the fact that all Croats and Muslims were sacked, dismissed from their jobs?
A. Yes.
Q. Who told you that?
A. I know for sure that nobody worked after that.
Q. Tell me, how many Serbs lived in Kljuc before April 1992?
A. I can't say. I don't know.
Q. Did you take part in the fighting around Kljuc?
A. No.
Q. Was a Muslim Crisis Staff set up in Kljuc, as it was in other places?
A. I don't know that. I don't know that because I wasn't able to go to Kljuc. You needed a special permit if you wanted to go into town.
Q. I'm talking about before April 1992.
A. I don't know. I really can't say.
Q. Did you have to have a special permit to go into town before April 1992?
A. No.
Q. Tell me, please - and I'm talking about the time before April 22511 1992, when, as you say, the Serbs took control of Kljuc - so before that time in Kljuc was there an organisation that was called the Patriotic League that was functioning?
A. I don't know that.
Q. All right. Tell me, then, were you in the town of Kljuc at all before April 1992?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, did you take part in any activities on the part of the Muslim forces in Kljuc?
A. Absolutely not, no.
Q. And do you have any knowledge of Muslim forces in Kljuc before April 1992, that they were there?
A. No.
Q. You didn't see anybody there?
A. No, I did not.
Q. I can see from your statement that you stayed in your own village after April 1992; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that a purely Muslim village?
A. No.
Q. Did any of the Muslims leave your village at all?
A. I don't know that anybody left.
Q. So you all stayed on; is that right?
A. Yes. If you mean during the war, whether anybody left.
Q. Yes, that's what I did mean. 22512
A. Well, a lot of people did leave my village. Yes, they did.
Q. But you remained? How come?
A. Well, I remained because when I wanted to get my travelling papers, they stopped this process and said that nobody was allowed to leave any more.
Q. So they didn't allow the population to leave the area; is that right?
A. They kept back some of the inhabitants so that those inhabitants could do the dirtiest jobs. And even some Serbs confirmed this because this was to show the world that they were not actually expelling the Muslim, Bosniak people.
Q. So they said that you should stay so that they could demonstrate to the world that they weren't expelling the Muslims; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. On page 2, paragraphs 5 and 6 you say that you had a work assignment which included various jobs either up at the frontline or in Kljuc itself; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You said you had to dig trenches and a moment ago said you had to fetch and carry for the army food and water and so on; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you happen to know that a work obligation or task was something that was assigned to the Serbs too who weren't part of the army?
A. Yes, they did have a labour obligation, but in companies in town, where they had worked prior to the war. 22513
Q. All right. And do you know that they were given a choice, either to join up, to join the army, or to accept this work obligation or labour obligation which was compulsory?
A. We weren't offered to take up arms and join the army. That wasn't the choice we had. All they did was to make us do our labour obligations.
Q. Yes, but I'm asking you about the Serbs. Did you know that the Serbs had a choice that they could either join up or have a work obligation?
A. Yes, I do know about that.
Q. All right. Tell me, then, please: As you say you drug trenches, fetch and carried for the army food and water and so on, did you eat and were you supplied with food like the army was?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you live? In your village throughout that time?
A. Yes.
Q. So you would go home regularly, after you had performed your labour obligation.
A. Not regularly, no. We would do our work for a month or two and then go home. And soon as we would arrive home, the local Serbs would engage us to do some tasks for them and we didn't dare say no, refuse.
Q. All right. Now, when you were going back to your village after your labour obligation and then came back, were you escorted under armed forces or were you free to move around, to go back to your village freely and then back again to your work obligation?
A. When we would come back from Kljuc itself, having accomplished our 22514 obligation, we would go alone. But we were escorted to Kljuc by soldiers.
Q. So you would come in when some jobs had to be done and then they would come and fetch you; is that right?
A. Would you repeat that? I'm not sure I'm following you.
Q. I was saying you would go into Kljuc when somebody came to call you to go to Kljuc, and then you'd go to Kljuc with them. But on the return journey for your free time you would go alone. That's how I understood it. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And I made a note of this here from what you were saying. In the village, when you were in your village, you would chop wood, you would mow the fields and so on.
A. Yes, and repair the local roads and paths, that kind of thing.
Q. All right. Did you have an obligation to wear any kind of uniform at the time?
A. No.
Q. And during that period of time, while you were in your own village, did you live normally, watch television, live like anybody else?
A. During the daytime, you could live like anybody else. But at night we had to sleep in the meadows and fields, in the gardens and yards, in the woods.
Q. But if you went back to your village, I assume you slept in the village, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you slept at home, in your own house, didn't you? 22515
A. I've just said we didn't dare sleep in our own homes, or very rarely.
Q. All right. You mentioned the mayor of Sanski Most, Rasula, and said that you had seen him on television many times. So where were you watching television?
A. We were able to watch television from time to time because there wasn't electricity on a regular basis.
Q. Yes, but you watched television in your own home, not in fields, meadows, woods, or wherever.
A. Well, yes, and we watched it in the house of a good colleague of ours. I don't want to mention his name. We're still very good friends, and he's a Serb.
Q. So throughout that time, you were wearing civilian clothes. You never had any army uniforms or insignia or anything of that kind, as far as I understood it. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was your immediate superior when you went about your obligations?
A. He was Drago Ivanovic. That was his name.
Q. And what was he?
A. I think he was the head of the civil defence and Territorial Defence. I think civil defence, actually.
Q. And these various work obligations and jobs, like repairing roads and various other things, did that come under the Territorial Defence tasks, civil defence tasks? 22516
A. But not escorted by armed personnel.
Q. Well, were you a member of a unit within the Army of Republika Srpska?
A. When we went to the frontline, for a time we were sent to the Drvar army, and the rest of the time with the Kljuc army.
Q. So you performed your work obligations either within the unit of Republika Srpska from Drvar or from Kljuc; is that right? Is that it?
A. Yes.
Q. And as far as I was able to gather, mostly under the Kljuc unit; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me now, please: When you were performing these work obligations, was there any fighting going on at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, were you present when there was fighting or combat going on?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you see happen? Who was fighting whom?
A. The fighting was between the army to which we belonged, within the frameworks of our work obligation, and the army -- the soldiers of the 5th Corps of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Q. So that was the frontline between the Army of Republika Srpska and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. And as far as I understand it, you didn't have the status of a prisoner of war at all. You said yourself you were free to move around 22517 and you engaged in this work organisation as a citizen of the Kljuc municipality.
A. Well, I don't know what you mean by "free to move around," when we were always under guard, armed persons escorting us.
Q. But you said a moment ago when you were done your work obligation, were free to leave and to go to your village that nobody escorted you.
A. Yes. But we went home at great risk. We were always very much afraid that we wouldn't meet somebody on the road home.
Q. Well, I assume that if you were allowed to go home, that you didn't flee. You had permission to return home. Isn't that so?
A. Yes.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, when you get to a convenient time, we're going to break.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see. It's time for the break. Well, that's fine, Mr. May. We can break now.
JUDGE MAY: Very well. Witness B-1047, we're going to break now for 20 minutes. Could you remember, please, not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that includes the members of the Prosecution team. Could you be back, please, in 20 minutes.
--- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.
--- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you have three-quarters of an hour left if you want for this witness.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] 22518
Q. Mr. 1047, since you were staying in your own house at that time, where was your family at that time?
A. In the same house.
Q. Did they have any problems?
A. Occasionally they had problems, until a Serb spared us and helped us and relieved us of many of those problems.
Q. You say that in 1995 you were assigned to a unit of the Army of Republika Srpska from Kljuc that was accommodated in Poljak, a village close to Sanski Most; is that right?
A. Yes, that is where they were quartered, after they had withdrawn from the Bihac battlefront.
Q. And then following orders, you went to Poljak to find your unit commanders; is that right?
A. Not following orders. We set off on our own, because we had no other choice.
Q. So you set off on your own and no one was escorting you, were they?
A. Through the town itself, no one. But up to the town, there were six soldiers accompanying us always.
Q. But over there you were free, weren't you?
A. In the town itself, we were free to pass through to reach Poljak.
Q. How far is Poljak from the town?
A. I think about 1 kilometre.
Q. So as you were passing through the town itself, going to Poljak, there was no armed escort that could prevent you from escaping if you had 22519 decided to do that.
A. No, there wasn't.
Q. Why, then, were you forced to go there? Why didn't you escape?
A. Because we didn't know which direction to take in fleeing, because there were troops everywhere around us and we didn't know who was where.
Q. Tell me, how do you explain the fact that together with other members of your group you were moving freely in territory under control of the Serb force and you reported to the unit commander to whom you had been assigned?
A. We had been left to our own resources, and we simply had to go through the town on our own. That was the only choice we had.
Q. A moment ago, looking at a videotape, you recognised bodies, though I didn't have the impression that one could recognise anything on that tape. But I would now like you to look at a tape and then I'll ask you a question.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, it won't take more than a minute. It was taken in those days in the surroundings of Sanski Most.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. And I will put a question to you in advance. That is, my question is: Do you recognise anyone on the tape? Do you know who they were? As you can see them very clearly, unlike what we saw on the previous tape.
[Videotape played]
THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Have you surrendered? Do you know me?
No, I don't. 22520 Where are you from?
What do you mean you don't know? Who is he? The army.
And where are they from? From different countries.
And why are they coming? They're coming to fight.
THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise. We do not have a transcript and it is very hard to follow.
THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] You don't have to live at all, I will kill you, the killer promised. That is how on the 16th of October -- these were Serbs. Who's going to --
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] You can stop now. That is enough.
Q. These are Serb victims. Did you recognise this warrant officer who was captured and later on slaughtered there? And did you recognise any of the men around him from the 5th Corps corps? This was filmed by a cameraman of the 5th Corps of the Muslim army.
A. I did not recognise anyone.
Q. Very well. On page 4, paragraph 3 you say - and on page 5, first paragraph - you describe the events while you were at the Sanus Hotel in Sanski Most and you describe the conversation between Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and a certain JNA officer -- no, I'm sorry, an officer of the VRS; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And a moment ago you said that Raznjatovic criticised this officer 22521 for allowing his soldiers to go home; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And was all this happening at the time when the VRS was withdrawing after the NATO bombing?
A. I am not familiar with the NATO bombing because it didn't happen in the parts where we were.
Q. And you quoted - and I noted down here - that Arkan said, "How dare you allow men to go on leave when the situation is so difficult? I've brought my son here, and he's on the frontline."
A. Yes.
Q. So in that chaos he was even trying to keep hold of the line. He even brought his son who on the frontline could also have been killed. Isn't that right?
JUDGE MAY: Well, the witness can't answer that. It's merely what Arkan said. Whether it's true or not is not for the witness.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. And this young soldier that you describe, he was sent back to the front; is that right?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Tell me, when this was happening, you were still a captive.
A. Yes.
Q. How did you then manage to hear the conversation between Arkan and this soldier?
A. Because the conversation was taking place a couple of metres away from me. 22522
Q. So you were all present and you heard that conversation, your whole group. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. In view of the fact that you say that they also discussed some other things, tell us, what other things did they discuss?
A. I personally don't know what else they talked about, but this I remembered very well, and that is what I said.
Q. So the conversation wasn't in an office but in the corridor, where you were all present.
A. Yes.
Q. And what was happening in Arkan's office that you mentioned that was right next to the entrance?
A. I don't know that anyone else went inside except for Arkan, who would go inside occasionally into that office.
Q. On page 5, paragraph 3 of your statement, you say that members of the Serbian Volunteer Guards, that is, Arkan's Guards, after completing their work assignments had -- tied you up two by two and loaded you onto a truck.
A. Yes.
Q. And after transferring you to a particular place, two men from the truck were taken in an unknown direction; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you heard two shots?
A. Yes.
Q. Immediately after that, those two returned safe and sound and 22523 climbed onto the truck; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever explain this situation to yourself? Because you say later on that there were executions.
A. I came to the conclusion that this was done for us to believe that that is how we, too, would fair, that we would return safe and sound to the truck so as not to provoke panic which would prompt us to try to flee or something like that.
Q. In the trailer, were any members of Arkan's unit with you?
A. Yes.
Q. But you asked those two what had happened.
A. Yes, quietly.
Q. But you didn't get an answer.
A. No, none.
Q. And after that, with another person, you were taken to a spot where you say executions took place.
A. I was the fourth in order. I was the fourth to get off the truck. There were three pairs in front of us and then the two of us got off.
Q. And that is where you saw those men killed?
A. Yes, when they showed us to go inside, I looked around, and I saw those men.
Q. Tell me, please: Since you had your back turned to the soldiers that were shooting at you, how many soldiers were shooting at you?
A. They shot individually.
Q. How many were there in all in the truck with you? 22524
A. There were three soldiers with us under a tarpaulin.
Q. And who -- which unit did those soldiers belong to?
A. They were Arkan's men.
Q. All three of them?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because they spoke the Ekavian dialect.
Q. So you say that when they -- when you were climbing up onto the truck they said that a young man was due to come and you said he was 15 or 16 and they called him Zeljo.
A. Yes.
Q. And Zeljo, as you know, is not a name used in Serbia but exclusively in Bosnia. Is that right or not?
A. I don't know that.
Q. In Serbia it would be either Zeljko or something like that. But Zeljo is more typical of Bosnia. As you are making this distinction in the speech people used, so you could tell they were from Serbia. But Zeljo couldn't be from Serbia, could he?
A. I really don't know that. But I claim with full responsibility that they used the word "Zeljo."
Q. I believe you, but I'm just asking whether you know that Zeljo could not have been from Serbia.
A. I don't know that.
Q. What was the distance from which they opened fire?
A. Well, a maximum of one and a half metres to two. As soon as you 22525 enter the room -- as soon as you entered the room, they would open fire.
Q. Very well. Tell me, please, as something is not quite clear to me: You were given here a list, and on it there are 11 names; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. When we were looking at the tape shown to you by Mr. Groome only a part of it was shown, but as the camera covered the scene they reached the number 19. How can you identify that tape where there were at least 19, because we saw the numbers - there could have been more - with the people that you identified and who are on this list of 11?
A. I don't know at all what those numbers mean, but I did see below the numbers the names of the people who were executed at the time and whom I knew, and I recognised the one among them by his pullover, and he is Mehmed Sehic.
Q. The one you recognised was from your group, wasn't he?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. As there were three soldiers there, someone called Zeljo and another two that you claim were Arkan's men, do you believe that they did this of their own free will or following somebody's orders?
A. Absolutely not. In my view, nothing could occur without Arkan's knowledge.
Q. Even if he wasn't present?
A. Yes. They had to wait for him before doing anything at all.
Q. Will you now please look at -- it is tab 6.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume you won't show the picture, 22526 Mr. May, on the screen, because the witness can be seen on it.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. The picture is very clear, so please look at it. Will you please find it. It is in tab 6. It's the first photograph following the medical reports. It's marked 00474104.
You have explained -- I hope you can see the picture.
A. Yes.
Q. That's you, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. You can see the wound near the collarbone.
A. Yes.
Q. And nowhere can you see the wound on the chin.
A. Yes, you can see it on this first photograph, if you look a little more closely.
Q. If I do look more closely, then even if this hardly visible dot on the chin could be that wound, wouldn't -- could it differ from the one on the clavicle? Because this one is very visible. It clearly -- it can clearly be seen that it was made very briefly prior to the taking of the photograph. So wouldn't the other one -- shouldn't the other one look similar to that one?
A. I don't remember the exact date when the photographs were taken; however, this wound near the collarbone that you see, I had problems with it for a whole year, because it wouldn't heal. And that --
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MR. GROOME: If I may assist. The date that the photograph was 22527 taken has actually been printed on the photograph itself.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, July -- it seems to be July 1996. But the witness isn't a doctor. He can't help us to medical matters. He can only say what he himself suffered.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand that.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. But where is the exit wound, if this is the wound on the chin that you're speaking about?
A. At the time, I had the luck in this tragedy for the bullet just to scathe me. There was a lot of bleeding, but you can't see it too well on this photograph.
Q. Very well, then. I won't bother you with any more questions about that, because clearly there's a difference between the appearance of the wound on the chin and the other one on the collarbone. But tell me, please: As we see on these -- we don't see on these photographs, but you also were hit in the hip?
A. No, in my leg, the upper leg.
Q. And then you started running, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me, when did you manage to escape? When they had finished everything and the truck left or before that?
A. When I heard that the truck was moving away from the spot, I got up and moved away from that spot.
Q. And before that, you heard one soldier order another to shoot everyone in the head, and he's the one who hit you in the chin; isn't that 22528 right?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. So you had the good luck that he missed you; is that right?
A. I can't say that he missed me, but -- he did hit me, after all.
Q. Tell me, please: Judging by what it says here, that when they established that all of you had been killed, they left the spot and you then heard somebody's moans; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And I see here that you say that the man who was moaning, as you yourself say, had a big hole on his forehead. That's what you said.
A. Yes, that's right. He wasn't moaning. He was just gurgling. That's all you could hear.
Q. Well, how do you explain that a man who has a big hole and a direct hit in the forehead is not dead on the spot?
JUDGE MAY: Well, that's not for the witness to guess that. As I say, he's not a doctor. All he can say is what he saw and heard himself.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. As far as I can see from your statement, after you were wounded you walked all day, you spent the night under a plum tree in an orchard, and then you arrived in Poljak on the 21st of September, 1995.
A. Correct.
Q. During those two days, did you ever pass out?
A. No.
Q. Did you use anything to bandage your wound?
A. No. 22529
Q. You spent a night underneath a plum tree in an orchard?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you manage to get some sleep?
A. I don't think I got any sleep.
Q. During the examination-in-chief, Mr. Groome examined you along the lines of your statement up to a certain point, up to this point. And now I'm going to read out to you what you said on page 7 of your statement in this second paragraph, if we do not count the one that started on the previous page.
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have a copy of his statement. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. This is what it says. This is the second paragraph, if we do not count the paragraph that started on the previous page. So this is page 7 of your statement. This is what it says: "I arrived in Poljak around noon the following day, on the 21st of September, 1995. As I expected, the Serb army was there." So you were hurrying to Poljak to come to a unit where the Army of Republika Srpska was.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you proceed, you say, "Near one of the houses I saw a group of soldiers and approached them. As they observed me, there was great consternation among them. I must have looked appalling, all covered in blood, since there was nothing I could have done for my wounds."
A. Yes.
Q. "I passed them and climbed on the barn where there was still my 22530 bag with my clothes."
A. Yes.
Q. And then you move on to say: "Djoko Mladjenovic showed up soon. He was a Serb but a good colleague of mine, and I was sure he would not give me away, so I told him all what happened."
A. Yes.
Q. "I described the village and its location and he said that it was Trnova. He gave me some food and then went to see the commanding officer, a certain Malic" -- I do not know his name or rank -- "in order to try to get me to a hospital."
A. Yes.
Q. So when you say that he would not give you away, could you please explain that to me. You came there and everybody saw you come. Everybody saw you covered with blood, and you went to get your bag. It was a unit of the Army of Republika Srpska. So nobody could assume that you came secretly. Everybody saw you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. This friend of yours went to the commander -- to his commanding officer and asked for you to be taken to hospital.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you say further on: "Malic said to send me to Sanski Most or Prijedor but I refused because I knew I would never stay alive there. Instead, I asked to be sent to Banja Luka."
A. Precisely.
Q. "Because I knew that a neighbour of mine whose name I do not want 22531 to state for the sake of her safety was a nurse in the local hospital and I was sure she would help me.
"Finally, the commanding officer agreed to that, even though there was a problem with fuel." I assume that Banja Luka is further away than Prijedor and Sanski Most, if you were to be taken to a hospital there. Right?
"They transported me to the headquarters which was located about 15 kilometres from Poljak towards Bronzani Majdan in the direction of Banja Luka because the ambulance was there." Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So these Serb soldiers from your unit and their commander, whose last name is Malic, took all necessary measures for you to receive medical treatment and to be sent to a clinic first and then on to hospital.
A. Yes.
Q. That practically means that the Serbs with whom you worked, among whom you moved about freely, after everything that had happened to you practically saved your life. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you say, "In the morning of the 22nd of September," on the other side, I -- "they put me on a bus to Banja Luka and I finally reached the hospital that same day. I spent ten days in the hospital and was then released." Banja Luka was in Serb hands all the time. It was never taken by the Muslim forces. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You spent ten days in hospital. You were taken care of, as much 22532 as possible during those ten days. And after that, you were released, and then later on you went to the territory that was controlled by the Muslim forces. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you, Mr. 1047. I have no further questions -- oh, I beg your pardon. Just one more question. One more question. I omitted to mention that. I didn't find this clear.
You said that they had said to you that they would spare your lives if you gave them 5.000 Deutschmark each. That seems illogical to me. If they wanted to kill you and if they wanted to take away your money, they could have taken your money irrespective of whether they killed you or not. Is there some kind of confusion there, or is it something that I'm missing?
A. If you listen to me carefully, this soldier said that we should board the truck and go to our homes, that he would drive us to our homes. He probably thought that we had money at home and that we should give it to him.
Q. All right. 1047, thank you very much.
A. Thank you.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would have a few questions. If the witness could please give a few additional explanations to you.
Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, on page 1 of your statement, that 22533 is, the sixth paragraph, the end of that paragraph actually, in the Serbian version - and it's the same in the English version too - you said here: "Our job consisted of digging trenches, pulling out the wounded from the battlefield, and other dangerous tasks." Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. While you were engaged in these dangerous tasks, were any of you wounded perhaps or were any of you even killed?
A. In my group, Jasmin Brkic was seriously wounded in the legs, and also Hilmije Bukvic [phoen] was also wounded in the legs. While I was in that group, I was just grazed by a bullet on the nose during all the shooting that went on.
Q. How many soldiers were killed on the Serb side while you were in the trenches? How many Serbs were killed?
A. I really wouldn't know what the number was.
Q. But if you were carrying the bodies of the dead, then you should know at least approximately.
A. I personally did not have occasion to carry any bodies.
Q. All right. Can you tell me, or can you tell the Trial Chamber, when you went to do this work, you and the other men who were engaged in these tasks, did you have any documents on you?
A. Yes, for the most part we did.
Q. Then, Mr. Witness, I would like to take you to page number 7. A few minutes ago you were answering questions in relation to that. But here on page 8 -- or rather, it's page 7 in the Serbian version, and -- I mean, the B/C/S version is page 7, and in the English version it's page 8, 22534 the last paragraph -- or rather, the one-but-last paragraph. You said that "After having walked for a long time in such a state," you said, "I somehow managed to climb a small hill not far from the house where the killing took place." So after having walked for a long time, you managed to get back to that house.
A. No, not after having walked for a long time. The same morning, when it dawned, I climbed on this small hill and I saw Sanski Most from there.
Q. Tell me, Poljak was the place where you were taken from and where you experienced what you experienced.
A. Yes.
Q. And you returned to this same place where you experienced everything you experienced?
A. Yes, after my suffering I returned to Poljak.
Q. Then in the last paragraph it says when you were asked how come you were wounded, you said, "I lied and told them that Arkan sent us to the front line, that I was wound there had and that I did not know what happened to the others."
A. Precisely, that's what I said. To the other soldiers, while I told Djoko Mladjenovic the actual truth.
Q. But that's not what you said here in your statement you did not say that there was anyone you had told the actual truth, not even this friend of yours.
A. I stand by what I said now, that I told Djoko Mladjenovic what had happened to me. 22535
Q. All right. Now, I don't know whether you have the document from tab number 7 in front of you. It's the medical document which shows the wounds that you had sustained. This document shows that you were in Banja Luka from the 22nd of September until the 2nd of October, 1995, so it's ten days. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. This document shows at the very end that it describes only wounds in your ribs and collarbone.
A. Yes.
Q. No other wounds are described. So this was the day following the day everything happened to you that you described here.
A. The exit/entry wound was not shown here because the bone was not hurt. Also, the wound on the chin. But then I'm not a doctor; I don't know.
Q. As far as I managed to understand, in three different situations you got these three wounds in completely different ways.
A. I don't understand what you're saying.
Q. You were shot at three times; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, please take a look at tab 9. It's this document in which it says in the first sentence --
JUDGE MAY: -- Tab 9.
MR. GROOME: I believe Mr. Tapuskovic is referring to tab 8.
MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. That's correct. I made a mistake. It's tab 8. 22536
Q. It says here in the document that says the 18th of October, 1995 - so this is almost a month after everything that had happened to you happened - and it says in the first sentence that "Within Betonirka and in the halls there were 11 bodies that were brought by the soldiers of the ARB from Trnova." And how many corpses were in the photograph that you looked at a while ago? I mean, on the footage we saw.
A. On this footage, I did not see clearly how many bodies there were.
Q. Can you give some kind of an explanation? Did you learn anything about this? How come these bodies were found so much later in relation to the day when this happened, although they had not been buried?
A. I don't know exactly when the bodies were found, because by then I was there are in Tuzla and Zenica in various hospitals and so on.
Q. I think that you did not know some of the people who were killed, you did not recognise some of the bodies, and there were four that you did know.
A. Please, I said quite clearly that I recognised the sweater of Sehic Mehmed.
Q. And three other friends of yours. I understand that. But how did you recognise the remaining persons, the remaining eight persons -- or rather, seven persons?
A. I did not even know these people during the execution, before or after.
Q. Can you just explain to the Court --
A. I never said that I knew these people. Quite simply --
Q. Are you sure these people lost their lives in the same place where 22537 you were?
A. I heard about that when I returned later from Tuzla and Fojnica, where I was being treated medically.
MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you, witness.
MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no questions. But just to clear up something that seems to have become unclear, is that if one reads tab 8 of that exhibit, it's clear that identifying documents were found on the bodies of these people, and that is what the identification is based on. The witness has never testified that he recognised the people but simply that the names that were then tagged to the bodies for those names were for the people whose names he knew that were killed inside the garage.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Witness B-1047, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are now free to go. If you'd just wait for the blinds to be lowered.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
[The witness withdrew]
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, we are not, I regret, in a position to start the next witness. And I apologise for the failure to use the last 15 minutes of today's session.
As the Chamber may have been notified, there was at one stage a plan to call Mr. Riedlmayer next, followed by Mr. Lilic. But in order to ensure that Mr. Lilic is completed this week, the prudent course is to 22538 take Mr. Lilic first and to accommodate Mr. Riedlmayer later in the week or later.
I don't know what time, if any, the Chamber will have to prepare for the evidence of tomorrow's witness, but for the fact that we'd finished 15 minutes earlier I was going to provide you with a clip of documents which I'd hoped would be of assistance. And perhaps I can explain what they will be, and they will be coming your way as soon as, maybe, after this adjournment.
First of all, I thought the Court would be assisted by being reminded, if it hasn't done so already, of its decision of the 31st of July. And I'll make that the first document. It's paragraph 20, that deals with the steps that had to be taken for this witness to give evidence, and particularly the Chamber will recall that an outline had to be served on the government of Serbian Montenegro, as it now is, and an outline of the topics the witness would be covering. The next document, which has one or two letters, faxes and so on associated with it, so that we can be satisfied it's the relevant document, is the outline of topics provided by the Office of the Prosecutor to the government authorities together with an attachment which listed a number of documents that it was our intention to deal with through the witness. As the Chamber knows from other hearings, those documents haven't all been provided and it won't be possible to deal with all of them.
There is then the waiver that was required from Serbian Montenegro. It comes in two parts. The first part is the waiver itself, 22539 dated the 27th of March, 2003. The second part, sent the following day, being a list of topics. It looks very similar to the outline that we sent the government. In fact, you'll discover that it is probably the translated version of our outline retranslated back into English so that it's similar but not identical. But it's important that the Chamber should have those documents because by reason of the limited waiver given to the witness, we've all got to be alert to the reality that he is not allowed to stray outside the topics identified by the government as covered by the waiver granted to him.
With that in mind, it seemed to me that it would be most helpful for the Chamber and for all those who are going to have to track his evidence with the waiver in mind, it seemed to me most helpful that the summary you should have should be broken down by the same -- in the same way as the list of topics submitted is broken down, because it's that list of topics for which a waiver has been granted. That summary is in the process of being prepared, but I'm afraid it won't be ready until tomorrow morning. But it seemed to me if we have a summary that says "topics covered by the waiver," and then the relevant part of his proposed or expected testimony immediately underneath that, then if there's any challenge by the lawyers representing either the government or indeed the lawyer representing the witness to his ability to give that testimony, the Chamber will immediately see what was covered by the waiver. It occurred to me that in this way --
JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.
MR. NICE: Yes. 22540
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MR. NICE: I'll come back to something in just a second. There being no summary of testimony available for Your Honours this afternoon - and I not knowing whether there'll be any time for Your Honours to read material overnight, in any event - it had occurred to me that in this witness's case, the draft statement that was prepared last year might be a document that you would find as useful as a summary to pre-read. It's a document upon which the reformulated summary is based, with some amplifications. And indeed, I think nearly all of this particular witness statement or draft witness statement is included one way or another in the new summary, but under, of course, the particular headings, which will make it easier to police whether the material is within or -- or outside the waiver. And so I propose - unless the Chamber indicates that it wouldn't find this helpful - to serve as part of this small bundle the 21-page statement of the witness. I have to say that in the same way as one or two other statements you've seen have been easy to read because well prepared, I think this falls within that category. It's a coherent document and therefore quite a swift and easy read. So I propose to make all that material available to you as soon as I can this afternoon and hope that will be helpful.
Two other points --
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just help us about the waiver and how that's going to work. The waiver permits the witness to give evidence. And I haven't refreshed my memory from the -- the order we made or indeed of 22541 anything else. I'm just recollecting. The waiver permits the witness to give evidence about topics which may be confidential - is this point - but are limited?
MR. NICE: Yes, the historical position is this, so far as this particular witness is concerned: The government entered into the arena expressing its concerns about the testimony that he might give, given his position as a former head of state. The broad history of the satellite litigation can be seen from the written order.
But at paragraph 20 of your order, Your Honours said this: "But prior to his testimony, the Prosecution should provide --" I'm sorry, not to go too fast -- "should provide the government with an outline of the matters which it is proposed that he will cover during his testimony. The government should then inform the Prosecution if the outline contains any information which it considers would be prejudicial to its national security interests." It's my recollection no such notification has been given.
"The Prosecution should tailor the scope of proposed examination-in-chief to take into account the concerns of the government in this regard, and if there is disagreement between the Prosecution and the government the matter should be referred to the Trial Chamber, in which case having heard the respective views it will decide whether to admit the evidence. However, it should be borne in mind that in so deciding the Trial Chamber will take into account the paramount importance of protecting national security interests so that the hearing that led to this written ruling was premised on the possibility of national security 22542 interests being a bar to evidence being given. The waiver --
JUDGE ROBINSON: But that has not been raised by the government, you say?
MR. NICE: It has not been. However, what they have done with this witness and indeed now require to be done with other witnesses is, consider the proposed testimony of the witness and granted or not, as the case may be, but in this case granted, a waiver. And the Chamber may recall that the witness was very concerned from time to time about the sufficiency of the waiver that he was being given or being offered.
The waiver - and I have to tell Your Honours that the -- when you see the English version of it, the translation is not entirely happy. But I can explain it tomorrow -- the translation of the second paragraph is not entirely happy. But the first paragraph, which is the material one says, "That in these proceedings the witness is released from the duty of keeping state and military secrets according to the list of proposed topics and identified -- no identified and associated documents. So that what has happened is the Chamber said we must provide a list of topics. The Chamber said that it would be sensitive to any declared national security interests. The witness was aware of the vulnerability of a witness, and in particular of him, were he to give evidence that breached the law on keeping state secrets. The government has provided a waiver saying that the witness is free of risk in respect of the state secret law, providing he gives evidence in accordance with and within the scope of the listed topics we provided. 22543 Now, in fact, it's not -- Your Honour is correct, I think, to discern that there's not an exact match there between what the Chamber was concerned about and what the government has done.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And it gives rise to this, in my view, Mr. Nice: If there isn't a question of national security which would properly keep the evidence out, what is it that will keep the evidence out? Is it the government's mere say so that this is not evidence to be given in this chamber? In other words, the question is this: Does the waiver cover any evidence which ordinarily would not be admissible in -- in this court?
MR. NICE: The answer is, I think, as follows: If the witness is asked to give evidence that would not expose him to criminal sanction, because it's a state secret, he'll give the evidence. If he's asked to give evidence that would but for the waiver be a state secret, then if it's covered by the waiver, no problem, he'll give the evidence. If it -- if it would constitute a breach of state secrecy laws but it's not included in the waiver, then he would be at risk. And therefore, it is probably the witness who would be seeking not to answer a question simply because he has not been released of the duty of keeping state secrets in respect of that particular topic.
JUDGE MAY: Or counsel for the government, presumably, if present?
MR. NICE: Yes, I think they are going to be present. But what has not happened is that there has been -- sorry. The government has not raised specific national security issues by forecast without being certain that their answer would be that their state security -- national security interests have been protected because 22544 they've seen the list of topics. They've decided that there is no problem with that list of topics and therefore they don't require to --
JUDGE ROBINSON: In other words, the state secrets are not at the level that would prompt them to raise national security interests.
MR. NICE: On the topics, yes.
JUDGE ROBINSON: So what is it that is to keep the evidence out?
MR. NICE: If the witness -- the only thing that would keep evidence out is if the witness were asked a question which he and, if it becomes a matter of contention, his lawyer and/or state lawyer would argue or accept is within the state secret limitation and there is no waiver of liability, because the witness would then be at risk. I mean, none of this is of the witness's desire or creation. Absolutely the reverse. It has all come about because there is the desire to impose some restriction on the evidence that people like this witness give.
The only other observation I'd make is this: The Chamber knows that the documents we sought for this witness have for the most part simply not been provided by the government, even if they were provided this week or next week, there would be very substantial problems of translation and there's no immediate forecast of if or when they will be provided. In those circumstances, we propose to proceed without the documents and to get the witness to give what evidence he can by way of generalities and sometimes particularities of events that would be covered by those documents. We hope in due course that the documents will be available and would then be able to give in detail an account of a kind 22545 the witness would have been able to give himself had the documents been available earlier.
The Chamber will also know that there is reference in one of your rulings to a very short summary that was prepared of some of those documents. It was part of a filing the week before last. It had occurred to me as possible at one stage to rely on that summary and to put that summary in as evidence, the best form of evidence that was available to us given the non-provision of the other documents. But for various reasons, I shan't be doing that and therefore I don't wish that -- those summaries to be distributed to the parties.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE MAY: Very well. If that's the matter you wanted to raise, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: That's all.
JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now. Tomorrow morning, 9.00.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
the 17th day of June, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.