²⁹⁹⁷¹

Wednesday, 3 December 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Tihic, thank you for coming back. Mr. Milosevic, you want to ask the witness some more questions; is that right?

WITNESS: SULEJMAN TIHIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I certainly do. This is a very extensive statement, 65 pages.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not really hear Mr. Milosevic. He's speaking without a microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I will try to finish within this first session.

THE INTERPRETER: There is no microphone for the accused.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. You're asking for an hour and a half, are you?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. There is some trouble with your microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Apparently it wasn't turned towards me. I hope it's all right now.

JUDGE MAY: In any event, what we'll give you -- we've got to look at the whole time, the time of the case and the time you've had with the witness already. Twenty minutes is what you've got. Yes. ²⁹⁹⁷²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot manage to examine within 20 minutes, Mr. May.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tihic, in view of the fact that this statement is much longer and substantial than your statement itself, do you agree that this memoir, as you called it, is much more relevant to the establishment of facts than your statement?

A. I do not agree. This is -- these are my thoughts and my doubts and dilemmas I had at the time.

Q. All right. Yesterday during your testimony you said you were a member of the SDA since it was founded.

A. Yes.

Q. And from your notes, we see that it is not true. You hesitated, apparently, a great deal before joining the SDA. On page 3, in paragraph 2, you say: "During the summer and autumn of 1990, it was clear already that national parties would win the elections. I contacted the SDA a lot and I assisted as much as I could in town because many people were illiterate, both politically and literally." Can we say, judging by this paragraph, that you were in doubt, you hesitated?

A. After the SDA was established, perhaps two months later, I joined. But before that, I worked a little for them.

Q. On page 2, paragraph 4, you say that the party was made up mainly of people who were not really prominent or renowned in your community, small businessmen and others and outsiders who moved in recently. What do you mean by that? ²⁹⁹⁷³

A. I mean people who were not originally from Bosanski Samac, who moved in from other places in Bosnia.

Q. In Bosnia?

A. Yes, mostly from Bosnia. I believe there was one from Sandzak as well.

Q. On page 4, you strengthen this statement and you say: "These outsiders, newcomers, did not know the spirit of Samac and the Muslims and were hard-liners to a greater extent than the locals of Samac."

A. Yes.

Q. You were not a member of the SDA even during the founding session that was held in September 1990 in Bosanski Samac, attended by Alija Izetbegovic.

A. Yes.

Q. And your hesitation to join the SDA was strengthened by the differences between Alija Izetbegovic on one hand and Mr. Zulfikarpasic and Muhamed Filipovic on the other hand.

A. Those were my dilemmas that other people shared perhaps as well, when there was a rift.

Q. And you were at the time a friend of Zulfikarpasic and Filipovic?

A. Yes.

Q. When you joined the SDA, you spoke of some defence activities of the SDA. How do you explain the fact which you mention on page 7, paragraph 1? You say that in that -- to that end, expert seminars were organised, and you sent people for sabotage training courses.

A. I don't know exactly what went on there, but I know that two or ²⁹⁹⁷⁴ three members, I believe, went to either Doboj or Tesanj, and somebody from Sarajevo came and explained, as far as I know, how these units were established and made plans.

Q. Everybody knows what sabotage training means. You use the term "sabotage training." Were those people responsible for all those sabotage actions on the territory of the municipality I asked you about yesterday and you replied that you didn't know who committed them?

A. We supposed it was the JNA. That means their intelligence service.

Q. You say in the same place that you didn't believe in the concept of defence of Doboj imposed by the Regional Centre of the SDA, and you turned towards the HDZ centre in Slavonia.

A. I realised that these preparations were not really of good quality, and they could not cover Samac, which is 50 kilometres away. And in view of what was going on and the crimes in Bijeljina and elsewhere in Bosnia, we turned more towards the HDZ.

Q. All right. Yesterday you denied the existence of any military structure within the SDA. However, in your notes it says very clearly that you had established a Crisis Staff which you yourself called "command." You used the term "command." And even then it had developed a plan of war. You can see that on page 7 of your notes.

A. I said even then that all presidents of municipal organisations of the SDA were simultaneously heads of those Crisis Staffs. They were formally called Crisis Staff, but they were bereft of what Crisis Staffs normally included, because they involved very small numbers of Muslims ²⁹⁹⁷⁵ from town. We accounted for only 7, 8 per cent of the population. It was not enough in terms of structure.

Q. You said that yesterday. But you say here very clearly: "We simultaneously formed a Crisis Staff." And you used the term precisely "command" and developed the necessary documents such as plan of war?

A. Why you don't you read the entirety of that document? We received a document from Sarajevo which specified the things we needed to have. You can establish that and call it command in big places and big municipalities with a large population. You receive papers where it says you should have a command, and we do call it "command," but in reality there is nothing behind it; no manpower, no troops, nothing, no equipment.

Q. Well, you are putting it very differently now. Now we're talking about 1990 and beginning of 1991. Is it indisputable, contrary to your testimony of yesterday, that you were preparing for war? Otherwise, why would you need a plan of war?

A. First of all, it didn't happen in 1990. And we were not preparing for war.

Q. You say that you had made a plan of war.

A. It was not in 1990. It was just before the war itself when we received those instructions which said that we should have a Crisis Staff, a security commission, that this commission should make a defence plan.

Q. I have no time to read everything that is written here, but what you say here is completely different to what is written. When you speak of the person you appointed head of that command for Samac, Alija Fitozovic, to whom referred -- to whom we referred ²⁹⁹⁷⁶ yesterday on a number of occasions, you say - and that is not mentioned in your statement - that he had a drinking problem, that he was an extremist bent towards the Croats. It's all written on page 7.

A. Well, everything is relative, both drinking problems and sympathies for Croats. Everybody, if we're speaking about Muslims, had sympathies for one or the other side. Those who were for the 4th Detachment had sympathies for Serbs. Other people, like Alija Fitozovic, were on the Bosnian side, and that's why he was inclined towards Croats.

Q. But you entrusted leadership to a person with a drinking problem.

A. What you're saying makes no sense.

Q. "We accepted explanations regarding Alija Fitozovic who, due to his drinking problem, did not have a really high rating." That is what is written here. And he was a bit of an extremist.

A. I said a bit an extremist. That sounds completely different.

Q. We can understand from the text what you really meant. On the same page you say that you then believed that Croats would assist you in case of attack, as was the case in Bosanski Brod, where strong forces of the HV were stationed in Samac -- in Slavonski Brod, sorry.

A. I believe that in case of attack, the Croat side would help us. However, it didn't happen.

Q. All right. Did Croat forces take part in the actions in Bosanski Brod?

A. I don't know what happened in Bosanski Brod. I know they didn't assist us in Bosanski Samac. ²⁹⁹⁷⁷

Q. All right. When you speak about obstruction and failure of Muslims to respond to the reserve forces of the JNA, to join the reserve forces of the JNA, you said yesterday you knew nothing about the appeal made by Alija Izetbegovic.

A. I didn't say that.

Q. And you say here, I quote: "In keeping with the appeal of Alija Izetbegovic, Muslims, apart from a number of traitors, did not respond to call-ups to do their military service or to join the JNA."

A. That's true. Alija Izetbegovic said we shouldn't go into the JNA.

Q. So they didn't want to do either their regular military service or to join the reserve.

A. The JNA attacked Croatia, and in view of everything that happened there, of course we didn't want to take part in the attack on Croatia. We didn't want our boys to die there.

Q. Well, there was no question of that. What you said is that Izetbegovic and everybody who did not comply with his appeal were traitors. Can we establish that much?

A. Well, they did not listen to the legal authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alija Izetbegovic was then the legal authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. Did it apply to the Muslims only?

A. It applied to all residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some complied, some didn't.

Q. You said yesterday the 4th Detachment was part of the JNA. It was set up by Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic, but here on page 10 of your notes ²⁹⁹⁷⁸ you wrote: "Simo Zaric, without the knowledge of municipal authorities, established the 4th Detachment mainly made up of members of the Serb community and outcasts of the Muslim and Croat communities."

A. Yes, that's what I wrote, but Simo Zaric was a reserve officer of the JNA. He was part of the JNA system, and as such he was appointed by Nikolic assistant commander of the 4th Detachment.

Q. Yes, but this 4th Detachment was indubitably multi-ethnic, made up of Croats, Muslims and Serbs. Right or not?

A. Mainly Serbs, and to a lesser extent, Muslims and Croats.

Q. All right. So there's no doubt that the 4th Detachment was not set up by the JNA. This was not a JNA unit. It was predominantly the Territorial Defence.

A. That is questionable. That is questionable. It is quite clear that the JNA formed the 4th Detachment.

Q. Then this is some kind of regular unit which goes home. They spent their nights at home. That cannot be a regular JNA unit.

A. This is an illegal decision by the JNA, like many others were at the time.

Q. When you explain who these outcasts of the Muslim people are, you say in the same place that these were people who had no reputation whatsoever, inclined towards crime and bullyish behaviour. There were also a number of Muslims who came from mixed marriages or had wives of Serb ethnicity; is that right?

A. Some such persons were there, not all of them, because a large number of them, when they saw what kind of detachment this was, the 4th ²⁹⁹⁷⁹ Detachment, and what kind of JNA this was, then they left it and they joined the HVO units, the BH army, et cetera.

Q. All right. But when you say from mixed marriages, married to Serb women and so on, doesn't it seem to you that this is a nationalist view that you took, even a chauvinist position, if I may say so?

A. No, it's not. Because usually these persons -- I mean, for these persons Yugoslavia was the only solution. Many Muslims had already opted for Yugoslavia. They trusted the Yugoslav People's Army. And particularly these people from mixed marriages. They were for the most part inclined towards that and they were less critical, and they had more trust.

Q. From that point of view, Fadil Topcagic, Avdo Dzuheric, and Nijaz Ramusovic are three Muslims you call the greatest enemies of the Muslim people.

A. I don't know whether I put it that way, that they were the greatest enemies of the Muslim people. No, no, certainly not. They did make a mistake in joining the 4th Detachment. They shouldn't have done that. But that they are the greatest enemies, I mean, one has to do something more in order to become the greatest enemy.

Q. You say all members of the detachment were armed and kept their weapons at home.

A. Yes. Some of these people were in contact with us as well, and they said that they got a mortar from the JNA or a machine-gun or something like that, because some of them joined us later, together with their weapons. ²⁹⁹⁸⁰

Q. So this could not have been the regular army if they went home and if they kept their weapons at home. And what you're denying now, that you did not use this expression, I'm going to read this out to you: "These three members of the Muslim people were our greatest enemies." That is what you wrote yourself.

A. Well, you see what the JNA was like. They gave weapons to people to keep them at home. The Serbs got these weapons a year before that.

Q. But that's the Territorial Defence. The Territorial Defence does take their equipment home, and they sleep at home. This cannot be JNA units. JNA units are in barracks.

A. No, no, this is not the Territorial Defence, not in the system of Territorial Defence. Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic was commander of that unit together with those who he had appointed.

Q. Since you say that the 4th Detachment had the support of the JNA, isn't that a clear indicator that what you stated yesterday was incorrect? Because why would this be support if they were part of the JNA? Then they would be acting as the JNA, not as the 4th Detachment.

A. They were part of the 17th Tactical Group. That is what Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic said. And it wasn't only the 4th Detachment of Bosanski Samac. It is a fact that there was another detachment in Crkvina, in a village near Bosanski Samac. This was an entire system, the 17th Tactical Group, whose commander was Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic.

Q. All right. You claim that you were trying to avoid a conflict with them and you mentioned the reasons for that, and also you say that ²⁹⁹⁸¹ you were working on the disintegration of the 4th Detachment. How were you doing that?

A. From the inside. We were trying to persuade the people who had joined the 4th Detachment that they did not belong there, and part of them gave us information about arms and meetings and so on, and some of them crossed over to our side and were then detained as soon as they took Samac. There were people there who trusted the JNA, who believed in Yugoslavia, and who were disillusioned when they realised what this was all about, when they realised that this was not the Yugoslav People's Army, that it was a Serb army.

Q. All right, Mr. Tihic. One of the ways in which it can be broken up is the description you gave on page 10, but yesterday you did not make any reference to that. I'm quoting you: "We were spreading rumours, publishing secret pamphlets -- leaflets and naming the Muslims who had joined the detachment, and we call them domestic traitors, and we included people like Esad Delic who were not even a member of the 4th Detachment. In this way, we wanted to prevent other people from joining the detachment. We said that we had nothing to do with the leaflet but people knew that it was us."

These are your words authentically. Is that right, Mr. Tihic?

A. Yes, these are my words.

Q. So the only unit that is multi-ethnic, and you tried to disintegrate it, to break it up, and you even published secret leaflets, and you are trying to say that people who were not members of the unit were. ²⁹⁹⁸²

A. That's not the way it was, but this unit -- this detachment was part of the project to destroy Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it was joined by some people who were deluded, and we wanted to explain things to them.

Q. So you spread these leaflets against them, these secret leaflets against them in order to discredit them?

A. Why are they secret?

Q. That is what is written in your text. I'm just reading your words. And you said that you had nothing to do with these leaflets, that it had nothing to do with you and so on. And then there were threats, et cetera.

A. There were no threats. And of course one disavows something if one does not sign it.

JUDGE MAY: Now, your last question, Mr. Milosevic. You've had your time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I really don't know, Mr. May, how to put a question to Mr. Tihic if you won't give me any time at all. This is 65 pages, a 65-page statement, Mr. May. How can you give me 20 minutes only?

JUDGE MAY: Do you want to ask another question or not?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I want to ask a few more questions unless you turn off my microphone.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. You were given 20 minutes, Mr. Milosevic. Now, it's a matter for you; do you want to ask him one more question or not? We'll go on to re-examination if not.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ²⁹⁹⁸³

Q. Mr. Tihic, on page 15 you say the attack on Samac was not expected. You did not expect it because on the other side of the Sava River were these forces as well as the Green Berets that on several occasions crossed the bridge, and you say that they disarmed the Serbs. So your forces were there together with the Croat forces. Is that right, Mr. Tihic?

A. It's not right. You take things out of context and from different parts of my memoir and then you twist it. We were expecting a JNA attack but we were sort of hoping it wouldn't happen. And we were trying to avoid it.

Q. Let me just ask you one more thing, Mr. Tihic. You said yesterday when I asked you about different occasions when you organised the shipment of weapons. I put -- you said that I was putting the same question to you five times.

A. Yes.

Q. And in your memoir, you give six examples of different situations in which you bring in weapons, and you even say that you yourself gave instructions for this. The first example is 100 kilogrammes of explosives and then 10.000 bullets, and then mines and grenades. And then the third example, 30 automatic rifles and five pistols. And then Sead Memic, who also drove weapons. Then also on page 14, you have yet another 50 rifles, mortars, Zoljas, ammunition, and so on.

So you gave more examples than I did in your memoir, and yesterday you said to me that I keep quoting the same example to you five times.

A. That's not correct. You keep repeating one and the same thing ²⁹⁹⁸⁴ twice. Even now, Sead Memic.

Q. But please let us clarify this. Please look at page 12, paragraph 1. You said: "We said that we were not opposed to having the JNA in Crkvina, because ultimately it is already there in accordance with the agreement between the republican MUP and the so-called JNA. While we were opposed to their stationing in Uzarija. As a reason, we mentioned the reaction of the Croat side which could cross -- which could close the bridge, and that is Bosnia's only outlet to Europe." I'm quoting you. I'm not drawing on any conclusions. "The real reason was because we knew that ours were transported to Bosnia across this bridge. So a checkpoint by Uzarija would stop the import of weapons."

Do you have any comment to make with regard to the assertion you made here which you totally denied yesterday but I'm quoting you right now, Mr. Tihic?

A. Well, you see, you destroyed all the bridges on the Sava River.

Q. I did not.

A. Some weapons came across the bridge on the Sava River, and in comparison to what you distributed to only one ethnic group in Bosnia, this was nothing.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Do you want to exhibit this document?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well. Any objection to that Mr. Groome?

MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: We'll get the next D number. ²⁹⁹⁸⁵

THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit 222, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Now, we have this document and we read it. We don't propose to allow any more cross-examination on it. It was for the accused that the extra time was given.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in light of the fact that the document is now in evidence, I have no further questions. I will rely on the document.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Very well. Mr. Tihic, thank you for coming back, and you're free to go.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Agha.

MR. AGHA: The Prosecution would like to call Mr. Ahmet Zulic.

JUDGE MAY: While we're waiting for him, we may as well get a new number for the exhibit bundle.

THE REGISTRAR: 609, Your Honours.

MR. AGHA: Your Honours, may I also give to the Court and also to the accused and the amici just a brief note which the accused [sic] wanted to put before the Court concerning a slight correction he wanted to make in his statement which he only was able to tell us last night.

JUDGE MAY: The witness.

MR. AGHA: Yes, when he comes in.

JUDGE MAY: You said the accused wanted to put the statement before the Court. I rather doubt that. No doubt the witness.

MR. AGHA: Thank you for your correction, Your Honour.

[The witness entered court] ²⁹⁹⁸⁶

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.

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

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

WITNESS: AHMET ZULIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Examined by Mr. Agha:

Q. Mr. Zulic, you made a few corrections to your statement yesterday. We'll kindly show you a piece of paper and you can confirm that those corrections were indeed made by yourself.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. AGHA: And may I ask that this be placed before the Court.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have it. It should be probably exhibited. It may be convenient to make it part of Exhibit 609, give it a tab number in 609.

THE REGISTRAR: Tab 12, Your Honour.

MR. AGHA: Thank you, Your Honours.

Q. Mr. Zulic, have you already given evidence before this Tribunal on the 7th, 17th and 18th of June 2002, in the case of the Prosecutor versus Brdjanin and Talic?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. AGHA: And it is that evidence, Your Honour, which has been ²⁹⁹⁸⁷ exhibited, with associated exhibits, before this Tribunal. Thank you. Now, this witness is from Sanski Most municipality in Bosnia, and he is a 92 bis (D) witness, so I shall briefly summarise very quickly the essence of his evidence.

He was born and grew up in Sanski Most where he also worked, and in 1991 when the war in Croatia was starting, there was a great deal of nationalist propaganda on the radio. The JNA started to set up barricades and search vehicles, and it was only the Muslim vehicles that were searched.

The SDS, in April, wanted to divide the municipality into two parts, a Serbian part and a Muslim part. However, the SDA party were not agreeable. Then followed various paramilitary groups, including the White Eagles from Serbia, coming into Sanski Most.

On the 13th of May, the Serb army attacked the village of Trnovo with mortars and anti-aircraft cannons, and on the 14th of May, the Serbs attacked Sanski Most police station which had already been divided. The witness heard these explosions.

The Muslim population were then required to surrender all their weapons, which they did, at least most of them. And then on 27th of May, 1992, the inhabitants of the village of Mahala were gathered in the local soccer stadium. On the 28th of May, the Serb artillery shelled Mahala. There was no resistance because that suburb of Sanski Most was empty, the inhabitants being already in the soccer stadium. After that, some of the houses were set on fire and the village was looted. This was witnessed by Mr. Zulic. ²⁹⁹⁸⁸ On the 18th of June Mr. Zulic was arrested and taken to the Betonirka factory, which became a detention facility. It consisted of three small garages and there were 30 people in this garage. There was not enough room, it was too hot, and they were regularly beaten by the guards.

On one occasion, on the 22nd of June, the witness was taken out of the garage and was taken by car to a place called Kriva Cesta where he was given a hoe and ordered to join about 20 to 25 other men and to start digging his grave. Whilst at a picnic table about a hundred metres away the witness saw the then-president of the SDS, Mr. Rasula, with other officials and also Serbs wearing JNA uniforms. All of the men except three were slaughtered. The witness however, had a pistol put in his mouth, had some teeth knocked out, but was taken back to Betonirka detention facility.

On the 7th of July he was transported to Manjaca camp. Before getting on the truck the detainees were all again severely beaten. Inside the truck, again, it was overcrowded, it was extremely hot, there was no water hardly, and despite their shouts for assistance, a number of the people in the truck died. They were not given any assistance. A young man of 18 died in the witness's lap.

On reaching Manjaca, when the witness got out of the truck, there were about 18 to 20 people lying in the truck, most of them motionless. About six of these showed some signs of life but a doctor examined them and they were put back on the truck because the camp commander didn't want them because they were dying. ²⁹⁹⁸⁹ Whilst in Manjaca, the witness was held in a stable with other detainees. The food was inadequate. He was severely beaten, as were most of the other detainees, and he also witnessed at least two of the detainees being killed.

After such beatings, often the witness would fall unconscious. The beatings were carried out by guards, and he suffered broken ribs and injuries to his head. He was eventually released from Manjaca on 24th, 25th November, 1992, with his weight having been reduced from 90 kilos to 55 kilos.

Now, that is the essence of this witness's evidence, which is also before you in his transcripts together with a number of exhibits which include diaries which were made by the witness and set out in far further detail actually what happened to him and the conditions in which he was detained, and that ends my examination-in-chief.

JUDGE MAY: One hour for cross-examination, Mr. Milosevic, if you require it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zulic, you made and signed two statements, the first on the 24th of May, 2000, which is shorter and which you made to the authorities in Bosnia; and the second, considerably longer, you made on the 15th and 16th of February and on the 14th of June, 2001.

A. Yes.

Q. Is this correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you telling the truth in both statements? ²⁹⁹⁹⁰

A. No.

Q. In which statement did you tell the truth and which didn't you?

A. I didn't tell the truth in any of them. If Their Honours will close the session for the public, I will explain why.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted) ²⁹⁹⁹¹ Page 29991 - redacted - private session.

²⁹⁹⁹² (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mr. Zulic. We have established then that you were not telling the truth in both statements, but let us see what, in fact, can be clarified. I hope you will assist.

Tell me, please, what was the composition of the population in the Sanski Most municipality before the war?

A. To tell the truth, I can't be precise, but I do know that there were about -- that there were about 2 or 3 per cent more Muslims than ²⁹⁹⁹³ Serbs in Sanski Most. Whether it was 2, 3, or 5 per cent, I can't be sure.

Q. Very well. I'm not insisting on precise data. At the elections in 1990, the Serbian Democratic Party won the elections. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the president of the municipality was Nedeljko Rasula.

A. Yes.

Q. And right after the SDS was the SDA; is this correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the deputy, Mirzet Karabeg, the deputy mayor, was from the SDA.

A. Yes.

Q. So who does Sanski Most belong to now; the federation or Republika Srpska?

A. The federation.

Q. Tell me, how many Serbs are there now in Sanski Most?

A. I don't know.

Q. Very well. Do you have information as to how many Serbs fled from Sanski Most?

A. I'm not a politician. I'm not interested in this. I was not active in politics either before the war or after the war, Your Honours. I'm not interested in this. I know that very few Serbs have come back, but I'm not a politician, and I don't keep statistics.

Q. Do you know that the Serbs were expelled from Sanski Most?

A. No, they weren't expelled. They fled. Those are two different ²⁹⁹⁹⁴ things. To be expelled and to flee, those are two different things.

Q. Very well, Mr. Zulic. We won't go into these nuances as to whether they were expelled or whether they fled because their lives were threatened. Let's leave that aside now.

Tell me, please, you say that you were not active in politics, and I respect that, but on page 1, the last paragraph, and on the third page of your statement of 2001, you say: "I noticed the first changes in the municipality when the war in Croatia began. For example, I heard some miners, Serbs who were coming back from the front in Croatia, as they said, and who said that the Muslims would have problems when the war started."

A. That's correct. That's what I heard, because I was a shift leader -- don't interrupt me; I don't interrupt you. I was a shift leader in the mine, and as we went to the mine by bus, I was actually foreman under the ground, and I was able to visit every part of the mine. And people split into groups, and those who were called up for regular military exercises went to Croatia, and they received their salaries. I was able to have access to them and to hear what they were saying, and of course these were changes that took place, of course.

Q. Yes. But I'm sorry if you think I interrupted you. I wasn't interrupting you, I hadn't completed my question. I was quoting you. And three sentences further on, only three sentences further on, you say: "In June 1991, I remember telling my friends that the Muslims were expecting terrible things to happen."

This was in June when the war hadn't even started in Slovenia let ²⁹⁹⁹⁵ alone in Croatia.

A. Have you finished your question?

Q. On the basis of what did you conclude this?

A. I concluded this -- I'll tell you the names. Todor Bilbija -- let me just remember the other man's name from Koprina [phoen]. Lazo Damjanovic, Mile Apac. The three of them were standing there in a corridor near the rubber conveyer belt underground, and they were saying that they were going for military exercises, and they said that everything that bore the Muslim name would vanish. I said to them, "But we're working here together." And they said, "No, we know what we know, and you do your job."

Q. Very well, Mr. Zulic. So you concluded that the Muslims would have problems when the war began before any war had broken out.

A. Would you repeat your question?

Q. So you discussed the problems that the Muslims would have at a time when no one could have come back from the front in Croatia, when you couldn't have heard about this from Serbs. Is this correct or not?

A. They were already going for military exercises. And when they came back, they would gather together as I have just explained. They went for military exercises, and they talked, and I overheard their conversations, and I told them what I've just said. I said, "Men, don't you see that we're working here, working together?" And they said, "You mind your business and we'll mind ours."

Your Honours, if anyone is intelligent, they can understand. I heard this with my own ears. Todor Bilbija, Lazo Damjanovic, and Mile ²⁹⁹⁹⁶ whose last name I can't remember but we all called him Japa, they said this.

Q. Very well, Mr. Zulic. Please don't go into these details, and don't tell us the names of people standing by the conveyer belt in the mine, because this is a waste of time.

Let me just ask you: According to your statement of 2001, you saw the first checkpoint in September 1991.

A. Correct.

Q. At that time, everybody was stopped. No differences were made. This is what it says in your statement.

A. Yes, this is correct.

Q. Mr. Agha just said that only Muslims were searched. What is true?

A. I think that the gentleman mistook the year. I think that it says in my statement that starting in March 1992, it was only Muslims who were searched, and I think it says in my statement that starting in 1991, when the first checkpoints were set up in 1991, that's how it was. And in 1992, starting in March or April -- I can't remember because 12 years have elapsed, but since -- after that time, only Muslims were searched, only non-Serbs, that is, Croats and Muslims. I know because I sometimes went to work by car, and my car was regularly searched.

Q. How do you know that Serb cars were not searched, and how would they know which car was Serb and which was Muslim? The cars did not have any signs on them.

A. Yes, they did. You could see on one's driving licence what ethnicity they were. They would stop people, check them. And Sanski Most ²⁹⁹⁹⁷ was so small that we all practically knew each other.

Q. All right. In September you saw the first checkpoint. At that time, everybody was checked without distinction, and you heard about the arming of the Serbs the eve of Bajram 1992, from Erevin Bajramovic [phoen].

A. I think it's Elmin Nadarevic. And we left work early for Bajram. We were in the second shift.

Q. I apologise for interrupting you but there's no need to explain what shift you were on. All I'm trying to establish is this: The first checkpoint you saw was in September 1991 when everybody was checked, and on the eve of Bajram 1992, you heard from this colleague of yours that Serbs were arming. So you say so both of these phenomena, the checkpoints in 1991 and what your colleague told you in 1992 on the eve of Bajram, this could not be the basis of the allegation you made that the Muslims were expecting terrible things to happen, because you learned about this several months after June 1991. Both of these things happened much later and couldn't have prompted your expectations.

A. First of all, you did interrupt me, and secondly, I have to expand because you're putting lengthy questions to me, because if I don't explain everything, you ask the same question again.

I wanted to explain, for example, that I think this man's name was not Bajramovic but Nadarevic. I think it's a mistake in the translation. And secondly, he got back to the car -- he got into my car and he said, "Please, I can't pass through here. Put me in the car and drive me home taking a roundabout route." He said, "The army is distributing weapons ²⁹⁹⁹⁸ here. Who are they distributing the weapons to? Serbs." I said, "Well, let's join the queue and get weapons too." I'm just saying what I said. But we did go around and I saw a military truck parked there and people coming and taking weapons from it. I saw this with my own eyes together with this other man.

Q. Have you finished, Mr. Zulic?

A. Yes, I have, thank you.

Q. From your statement from 2001, it follows from the last two paragraphs on page 3 that most Serb soldiers in Sanski Most were local Serbs, as you say.

A. That was the SOS, the Serbian armed forces, SOS. I think it should state that somewhere here.

Q. I'm asking you is it correct that most of these forces were made up of local people, local Serbs, as you say?

A. Most of them, yes. In the town, yes. The ones manning the checkpoints, the ones driving around by car -- by truck, Nunja, Medeni Saovic. Medeni, that was his nickname, I really don't know his name. Nunja was a driver in my company. Medeni was a mechanic. They were the leaders of the SOS.

Q. All right. They were your colleagues from work.

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. Then you say that in May 1992, and that is the last paragraph on page 3, you noticed that many different units were passing through the municipality. What were those units? Were they passing on a road that units were using? ²⁹⁹⁹⁹

A. Right below my village - my village is called Pobrijezje, and it is called Pobrijezje because it's in the foot of a hill or on the slope of a hill - there is a road, so you can see well when units are passing.

Q. Where were they going, in which direction?

A. Some of them were going in the direction of Lusci Palanka and Bosanska Krupa. Others were going towards a hill called Dzedovaca.

Q. Were they also local units, the Territorial Defence, something like that? What were they? Were they paramilitaries?

A. In those units, there were lorries -- not only lorries but tanks and those armoured vehicles with a gun turret on top. There wore JNA emblems.

Q. All right. You speak of various paramilitary units. You mention White Eagles and then you use the term "Seselj's men," and you say they were coming from all parts of the country, dressed in olive drab grey uniforms. How did you establish that they were White Eagles or Seselj's men, on what basis?

A. Well, White Eagles wore those white ribbons on the left arm, as far as I remember, and Seselj's men wore fur-lined hats with cockades, and they wore long beards.

Q. Was that a paramilitary unit or what?

A. I think they were paramilitaries. How could I know? I know they had weapons. I know what they looked like. But whether they were regular troops, irregular troops or paramilitaries, I have no idea. I didn't put those emblems on them, so I don't know.

Q. Well, that's precisely what I'm asking. How can you know that ³⁰⁰⁰⁰ some of them were Seselj's men? According to my information, they only joined the JNA or the Territorial Defence as volunteers. They didn't have units of their own. Did you see a unit of Seselj's men?

A. Their unit was stationed on a cemetery where Partisans from World War II are buried. It's called Milen Birit [phoen]. One of them was a local resident, because whenever these paramilitary units came, they would recruit a couple of local men. And I know one of these locals. He was a digger in the mine. I can't remember his name right now. I saw this man on one occasion and I was very surprised to see that he had a cockade on his headgear. His name is Milo. If you give me a second, I will remember his name. Uros Boranovic [phoen].

Q. In a transcript I'm reading from your testimony in the Brdjanin and Talic case, page ending with number 6856, lines 4 to 8, it seems to follow that White Eagles and Seselj's men are one and the same thing. I think you must be confused in your mind, and that's what you said in response to a question from this bogus Prosecution. Could you tell me just one thing: Are these two different groups or one and the same?

A. They're all the same to me. He came to our town to kill Muslims, and to me it's all the same whether he's an Arkan's man or Seselj's man or a White Eagle. They didn't like Muslims, obviously. If they did, we would have met them with flowers.

Q. All right, Mr. Zulic. As to how these conflicts began, there is enough information available. I will only stick to your statement. On -- towards the end of page 3 of this statement from year 2000 you say that: "I know that Rasula --" that's the man who became president ³⁰⁰⁰¹ of the municipality, right?

A. Yes.

Q. I continue: "I know that Rasula and these SOS men met behind the cafe called United Brothers, owned by Mustafa. I know this because Muhamed Karabeg, who was a maintenance man in my mine, had a shop behind this location and he told me that Rasula and other members of the War Presidency regularly meet with SOS men and with Mr. Saovic, who is commander of the SOS men."

Now, tell me, don't you think it doesn't make any sense at all to conceive that the president of the municipality and members of the War Presidency, that is to say the authorities who have their own offices, would meet behind some cafe?

A. I have to clarify this, Your Honours. Since one of the Krunic brothers - whether it was Buco or Milorad, I don't know - owned a cafe a little bit to the front and the other had a cafe behind, they would meet there. So when they were organising parties, dinners, festivities, they would do it in the second cafe behind the first cafe.

Q. Is that to say that they sat together in a coffee bar having dinner or drinks?

A. Yes. That's how it was.

Q. So you saw them having dinner or lunch together or something like that?

A. I didn't. Muhamed did.

Q. All right. Muhamed did. Now --

A. But look, I saw them once when I was bringing material. And I'm ³⁰⁰⁰² sorry I'm interrupting you. I brought some material because he had asked me to. That material was some progress report for work. And I saw this drinking party with my own eyes.

Q. So you saw him sitting in a cafe and drinking and eating, but that's not what I'm asking you about. From your statement, pages 5 and 6, it follows that in the second half of May 1992, you went to the mine to collect your salary, and you saw with your own eyes members of the War Presidency meeting outside of the Slozna Braca cafe, and you named them, Rasa, Zjenic [phoen], Tripkovic, Maric, and others. You knew about these meetings from the stories of Muhamed Karabeg.

A. Yes. I submitted my report, I collected my salary, and that's what I wanted to ask you. Just ask me your questions so we save time for your own sake.

Q. Okay. And you name on one of the pages the members of the War Presidency, and you say that Boro Tadic, who was a friend of yours, was in the War Presidency, in charge of the SOS. You say: "I would see him coming to those meetings."

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If -- and this is my question: If you knew about these meetings from the stories of Muhamed Karabeg apart from that one case when you saw them gathering outside the cafe with the exception of Boro Tadic, how can you say that you would see Boro Tadic coming to the meetings?

A. No. I saw him that once. Maybe it's a translation mistake. Maybe the translator said "meetings" and I said "meeting." It could be an error. ³⁰⁰⁰³

Q. All right. In the penultimate paragraph on page 4, statement of 2000, you say that in April you bought a machine-gun from a Serb for your own personal protection.

A. Correct.

Q. Isn't that a bit too much, to buy a machine-gun?

A. Have you completed your question?

Q. How did it ever occur to you to buy a machine-gun?

A. I went to this cafe with my nephews, and this Serb took me aside and said, "Come on, buy this. You'll need it." I paid him 500 deutschmark for it. He chipped in 20 rounds. And if you ask me how it ever occurred to me, of course it occurred to me. I had a family to think of. Of course, if life had been normal, if everything had been as usual, of course I would have never bought it. And for many years, withdrawals were made from my salary to finance the JNA. And the same goes for all the Muslims. We armed the JNA, and they took and distributed weapons to only one ethnic group. If they had been a real army, they would have either disarmed all ethnic groups or distributed weapons to all ethnic groups, and then there would have been no bloodshed. But it's true. They did distribute weapons to one ethnic group.

And it was, I think, some sort of foul play because you might say that 500 deutschmark was very little to pay for a machine-gun, but that's how things were at the time. And I think it was a set-up, because people who later came to look for a weapon in my house had the serial number of my gun.

Q. Did you say you threw it later into a well in your village? ³⁰⁰⁰⁴

A. Yes.

Q. Not because you gave up the idea of defending your family but because you thought it might have been a set-up; right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. I understand now. Because I found it difficult to understand earlier when you say that the Serbs later interrogated you about this purchase, "And I kept denying that I had ever bought a gun, otherwise they would have killed me for sure." If they knew you had a machine-gun, and they probably didn't since they were only questioning you, and moreover, if you had been set up by them, wouldn't you think that denying it was more dangerous than just confirming something they knew anyway, all the more so because you never used that machine-gun?

A. Your Honour, well, that's exactly the crux of the matter. That's the reason why I didn't turn over my gun, because all those who did were killed. They're dead now. Anybody who had a weapon of any kind is dead now. They're not among the living any more. Anybody who ever surrendered a weapon, even a sporting rifle.

Q. Is there any sense in what you're saying? I can't understand how somebody could have been killed just because they turned over a hunting rifle.

A. I can tell you the names.

Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm not asking you about the names, I'm just trying to fit facts together. I don't know the names even if you told them. But does it make any sense at all that somebody would be killed just because they responded to an appeal and turned over the gun ³⁰⁰⁰⁵ to the police?

A. I'm sorry, Your Honour, but I would have to take some time to explain this. I know about my village. I made those -- I made a picture in my head. I have an understanding. Teufik Camber [phoen] turned over a sporting rifle at the time. He's now dead. Idriz Karabeg was killed that same year after turning over a hunting rifle. Mr. Omic also turned over the same gun and was killed. Another man I know turned over an army rifle and was killed. It wasn't difficult to understand.

Q. All right, Mr. Zulic. On page 4 you say: "I have never been a member of organised or unorganised resistance. I know people who wanted to organise some sort of resistance, but nobody actually did it." And already on the next page, on page 5, in the paragraph which begins with the words, "On the 13th of May, 1992 ..." you say: "In our patrols in Pobrijezje, we were still using hunting weapons and our own rifles." So after all, you did conduct some armed activities.

A. That's not true.

Q. I'm only quoting you.

A. Well, you can continue to quote me. We agreed with people from the next village, with Serbs, to have guards organised, not patrols. I think you are misquoting me. I could not have said that. All I said was we had a meeting with the Serbs, not only Pobrijezje but also villages of Sehovci, Trnova, and Podlug. And we agreed at this meeting to have joint guards with Serbs. However, when we came actually there to stand guard to Podlug, the Serbs said you stand your own guard and we'll stand our own. So Serbs wanted to have their own Serb guards and Muslims wanted to have ³⁰⁰⁰⁶ -- Muslims were told to keep their own guards. So it was not a military organisation of any kind.

Q. But it is beyond dispute that you had weapons.

A. Well, I did have a hunting weapon.

Q. So those were not unarmed guards or guard posts. You were using the guns you had.

A. So were the Serbs. They were not unarmed.

Q. I'm not even saying that.

A. I am saying that. I saw it with my own eyes. They put up a guard post outside the house of Aco Veselinovic. They put up those iron grills, sandbags, and machine-gun nest. And when we came to join them, as agreed, they said, "No. You keep your own guards." I'm telling you what I saw with my own eyes.

Q. Mr. Zulic, I understand you full well. My question only referred to this quotation from page 5 where you said: "In our patrols in Pobrijezje, we were still using hunting weapons and our own rifles." So at any rate, you were armed, as I want to establish because you previously said you were unarmed, having turned over all your weapons previously.

A. Well, something doesn't sound right here. Wait a minute. Somewhere in my statement that I gave to the investigators you should be able to find a place where I said that guards stopped after weapons were turned over. Dragan Adzic, son of Slavo Adzic, came and picked up all our weapons. From that time on, there were no more guard posts. So those are two different things. One thing is your interpretation, and the other ³⁰⁰⁰⁷ thing is reality. You want to represent me as saying that we had weapons throughout that time. You may be a better reader than I am, I have only the secondary school, but if you are careful and if you read carefully, you find that; I said it.

Q. Very well, Mr. Zulic, but please bear in mind the fact that I'm just quoting your statement. I really don't have any other information except for your own statement. That is why I'm asking for an explanation, because I quoted to you what is written over here. But let us move on. In the second paragraph on page 5, before the sentence on patrols, so before the sentence on patrols, it says, and I'm reading out from your statement exactly the way it's been written, I'm quoting you: "Until then --" and that is the 13th of May, 1992 -- "until -- by this time, Muslims and Croats had to return the former JNA uniforms and any private weapons in their possession. Also, the weapons that Muslims and Croats were issued in the TO were seized, that the TO had given them."

A. Correct.

Q. So Muslims and Croats had not acted in accordance with that order because, according to what you said, they had their own patrols and they had guard duty; is that right?

A. I explained this the first time in relation to the 13th of May.

Q. All right. All right.

A. After the 13th of May, after this was taken away -- well, it wasn't taken away.

Your Honour, I have to go on for a while. I do apologise, but I have to explain some things. ³⁰⁰⁰⁸ These weapons were not seized in the sense of them going from one house to the other. Quite simply, over the radio they said Muslims and Croats -- this is quite literally what they said: "Muslims and Croats, hand over your weapons. The Serb authorities guarantee your safety and security as well as that of your property." That was over the radio. And immediately over the radio they said, for example in the case of Pobrijezje, that this would be by the social centre in the village of Pobrijezje, that military personnel would come there and they would take these weapons. And people did bring the weapons in. And that is why I threw my weapon away.

Q. All right, Mr. Zulic. On the 13th of May you did that, and from the 13th of May onwards you didn't have any weapons.

A. No one in the village had any weapons.

Q. All right. On page 5 you say: "On the 13th of May, I saw Serbs leaving in military trucks for the mountains. I saw that they had their families with them, with tractors. They left behind those Serbs who had not yet made up their minds and threatened them because they had not put on their uniforms." That is a quotation from your statement.

A. Exactly.

Q. Now, tell me, isn't it pointless for Serbs, who are in charge of the authorities in the government there and who, in your opinion, have Sanski Most under their control, and there in Sanski Most, in your own words there are no Muslim or Croat armed forces and there are no operations, they are fleeing with tractors into the mountains. Why were they fleeing into the mountains? I've quoted you just now. ³⁰⁰⁰⁹

A. Correct, you've quoted me.

Q. With tractors, their families going into the mountains.

A. Have you finished?

Q. Of course I have.

A. In your opinion, that is pointless, right, but there seems to be something different involved there, a different example altogether. Since the town had a mixed population, Mahala and Muhici were, say, 90 per cent Muslim, and the remaining 10 per cent were Serbs and Croats. Now, since Sanski Most was supposed to be targeted from the hills, was there the possibility of a shell straying into a neighbourhood where there was a Serb majority? That was the reason. Because Zeljko Srbac, an engineer from the mine, said -- and I'm sorry I'm using an expletive now when I quote, I'm quoting what Zeljko said, "Oh, fuck they left me and my family just because I didn't want to get dressed, and they took everything." Because I asked him why they were going into the mountains. Are you happy with this answer?

Q. Of course I am.

JUDGE MAY: Don't ask the accused if he's happy with the answer. He'd better be. He can ask you some further questions. But you've only got a quarter of an hour left, Mr. Milosevic. We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes.

Mr. Zulic, I must tell you, as we tell all witnesses, please don't speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team. Could you be back, please, in 20 minutes. ³⁰⁰¹⁰

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, could you please explain something to me. This witness is testifying on the basis of your Rule 92 bis, that is to say without examination-in-chief. The basis for my cross-examination are the statements that were provided to me. But then the witness said that they are not correct, these statements. So I assume that you should give me some time to establish what in actual fact did happen over there. Otherwise, I do not see how I can carry out a cross-examination on the basis of the statements that the witness himself said were incorrect. He admitted that they were incorrect.

JUDGE MAY: The documents which were admitted are in the bundle of Exhibit 609, and the document which has been admitted is the transcript of his testimony in Brdjanin together with several other exhibits which aren't statements or anything connected with it. So no statement has been admitted.

We have got an addendum in which he clarifies something, but at the moment, his statements aren't admitted.

MR. AGHA: Your Honour, if I may be of assistance. I don't believe, actually, the witness has said that his statement which he gave the ICTY is incorrect.

JUDGE MAY: Well, no doubt that's something you can clarify in due course, Mr. Agha.

Yes. If you want to ask any further questions about the ³⁰⁰¹¹ statements, which are not in evidence at the moment, if you want to ask any further questions about them, you can, but bear in mind you may have to go into private session to do so.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May, but do I have the time now for questioning this witness?

JUDGE MAY: If you move on with it, we'll see. There's a limit to the time you can have, as you know, with any witness. We'll see what use you make of the quarter of an hour which remains for you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Mr. Zulic, in your statement of 2001, you said that on the 14th of May, over the radio, you heard that the Serb forces had attacked the Muslim police station located in Sanski Most, and that after it was divided, the police station, that it was in the basement and that you personally heard explosions around 2200 hours in the evening.

A. Yes.

Q. Were these explosions a result of the attack on the police station?

A. I think so.

Q. If there were explosions, that means that some kind of heavy weaponry was used. How is it possible for someone to attack the basement of the municipality with some kind of heavy weaponry without damaging in any way the municipality building itself? Because it was the SDS that held the municipal authorities in its own hands in that building.

A. Not then. At that time, the municipality was empty. After the municipality was divided, the Yugoslav People's Army was there too. On ³⁰⁰¹² the 18th of April, the Yugoslav People's Army blocked the town, and it was announced over the radio that the town would be divided into the Serb and Muslim sections. The army stood by the bridge on the Sana River and in front of the police station and in the square while they held a meeting at the municipality building on that day. I know that because I went for the memorial service of Hamil Asic [phoen], a relative of mine, and we could not get from the mosque to the cemetery. We had to walk all the way around town. Then we had to pass by the police station in order to get to the Greda cemetery. And I saw a military vehicle there in front of the police station at the crossroads where the road to Greda is as well as the road leading to the centre of town.

The mosque is on the other side of the bridge, so I saw this on the other side of the bridge. And when they divided the town, they said that the Muslims had control of the municipality building, whereas the Serbs had control of the police station, the Kljucka Street, and I cannot remember everything else now, how it was divided exactly. It's been almost 12 years now -- no, almost 13 years now since that division, but I know that it was roughly along those lines.

Q. All right. In relation to the attack on the SUP, the members of the Muslim SUP, did they offer any resistance or not?

A. No, they didn't.

Q. Tell me, if they did not offer any resistance, why would anybody use weapons to attack someone who was not resisting? And with heavy weaponry at that, because you heard an explosion.

A. Well, look: My assumption is, and you will have to ask those who ³⁰⁰¹³ did the attacking, but my assumption is that this had the intention of expelling the Muslims from the municipality.

Q. All right, Mr. Zulic. On page 2, in paragraph 2 -- let us try to deal with this as fast as possible -- you mention your diary that you kept in Manjaca from the 15th of July, 1992, onwards; is that right?

A. I think it was from the 28th of August that I started keeping not a diary but simply started jotting things down in a pad that I got from a Serb from Banja Luka.

Q. All right. You say that you got this in a package that this Serb friend of yours sent to you.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So people were allowed to receive parcels at the camp in Manjaca.

A. From the 28th of August.

Q. When arriving in another country, as you said in the same paragraph, you copied your diary in three new notebooks; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me now, what happened to the original notes that you wrote down in this writing pad that you got in the parcel from your friend?

A. I have them. I mean, what notes do you mean?

Q. The original notes that you made in that writing pad in camp, because you say that you copied this in three new notebooks. What happened to the original writings?

A. I have the original. Here it is. And, Your Honours, this is it.

Q. So you did not hand it in, so it cannot be seen?

A. I handed in copies and copies exist. That is in the transcript, ³⁰⁰¹⁴ that I handed in copies of this.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Agha, will you help us, please. Is this -- we have a handwritten text attached to the exhibits, Exhibit 609, tab 3. Is that the document to which we're referring?

MR. AGHA: Yes. This ought to be his handwritten diary which was exhibited.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, let's go on. Thank you very much. No need to hand it in.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, did you submit a copy of precisely that piece of paper that you're holding in your hands now or what you wrote down in these three notebooks later?

A. Copies of this and copies of the three notebooks too. I handed in all these copies.

Q. I'm asking you this because I did not receive a copy of that or of the three notebooks.

Tell me, in these notebooks in which you copied these notes, did you refer to events that took place before the 15th?

A. Yes.

Q. So even before you started keeping this diary as of the 28th of August, as you had put it?

A. Yes. On the basis of my memory, as far as I could remember. I started keeping it sometime from the village of Ravno, when the village of Ravno was levelled. And then through Bijeljina, Sarajevo, I just briefly wrote down how things went there. ³⁰⁰¹⁵

Q. All right. In this same paragraph you say that your diary is a lengthy one and that it includes information that is not contained in your statement. At the same time, you say that your statement contains things that do not exist in the diary. So what is this all about?

A. I think that you're putting the wrong questions to me or that you're trying to say something wrong.

First of all, I stand by what I said to the Judges, that my diary is the way it is. It doesn't even contain 10 per cent of all the things that happened to me and that happened in Sanski Most. That is the first thing I wish to say.

The second thing I wish to say is I did not want to write down many things in these -- this diary, because when this diary was written, nobody knew anything about The Hague. I did not think that I was writing it for the public. I wrote on the first page of this diary "Lest our grandchildren forget." So there are many things I did not write down, because I wanted -- I did not want my grandchildren to know everything that I had gone through, Your Honours, because there would be even more hatred in their hearts if they knew everything that had happened. Mr. Milosevic insists on quoting only one thing, I mean, why I did not want to say everything, but could we please move into private session now so that I could tell you at least part of this, just one little part of what I experienced and why I did not write it down, please?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

[Private session] (redacted) ³⁰⁰¹⁶ (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Zulic, my question was related only to a quotation from your statement, where you say: "My diary is a lengthy one and it contains details that are not in my statement, and the statement contains things that I eyewitnessed and are not contained in my diary." ³⁰⁰¹⁷

A. I don't think that it says that my diary is a lengthy one.

Q. I'm reading what it says here. "My diary is a lengthy one, and it contains details that are not in my statement." I'm reading this from page 2 of your statement. Basically it is the first page of your statement, but it is marked as page 2 of your witness statement. This is the one but last sentence in your second paragraph. So it says: My diary is lengthy and contains details that are not in my statement, and my statement contains items that I witnessed and that are not in my diary." I read the whole sentence to you, from the first capital letter up to the full stop at the end. I have no other basis for putting questions to you except for your own statement, Mr. Zulic.

A. It is true that that is what it says here, but if you look at this, it should not have been the word used, "lengthy," no, because the day before yesterday, when I was with the Prosecutor, I said that only this much was written in my diary. And probably as I was reading this, I skipped that.

However, in the transcript from the last trial, there is what I said exactly in the transcript when I testified the last time, that my diary is this big, just -- just so that my grandchildren would not forget, and that I did not explain anything in detail.

Q. All right, Mr. Zulic. In paragraph 1 on page 14, you say that on the 29th of August, when you arrived in Manjaca, you stopped taking notes in your diary; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] However, in the case that I ³⁰⁰¹⁸ mentioned for you, Mr. May, here, and then I'm giving you the exact case number --

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that this is being read out too fast, they cannot keep up.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is the Kvocka case.

JUDGE MAY: If you're going to read, read fairly slowly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says, and it was established by your own decision or the decision taken by your colleagues, that this was some kind of a fact, that 1.464 persons from Prijedor were taken to Manjaca on the 6th of August, 1992. You are talking about prisoners of the 29th of August, that they arrived from Prijedor then, and that is when you stopped keeping a diary altogether, whereas in this other case the date mentioned is the 6th of August. Which one is correct?

A. It is correct that it was the 19th. The 19th of August is fair day in Sanski Most, and that is when they made a promise to us. People were saying that the Manjaca camp would be dissolved and that they'd send buses to drive us away. They did not come on the 6th. On the 29th of August, though, prisoners came from the municipality of Sanski Most, those who had been taken prisoner.

Q. All right. But then on the basis of this, what was part of the decision that pertains to the 6th of August is incorrect.

A. Did I say that?

Q. But you were an eyewitness. You said on the 6th.

A. I'm telling you what I know, because the 19th of August was the ³⁰⁰¹⁹ day when the fair was held in Sanski Most. In the evening, these buses came and we did not know how many of them were there or anything.

Q. All right. Just tell me one thing: For how long did you keep this diary? From which date until which date? Can that be established?

A. At this moment, I'm telling you I kept a diary until sometime in the end of August.

Your Honours, I'll explain this. I started writing this diary in this very small writing pad, and that is where I recorded the events in Sanski Most, and there is the date on the back too. And then when I came to Cologne in Germany, I went for Christmas, around Christmastime, and we had nothing to do, so I took this diary and I started writing. I started writing from the village of Ravno onwards, to the best of my memory. And I wrote until the end of August. When I left the barracks in Cologne, I got a job and I had no more time to write in my notebooks.

Q. So you wrote that in Cologne?

A. Yes, this was written in Cologne, from Christmas 1992 until the end of January, approximately, 1993.

Q. Thank you for that explanation, in Zulic. On page 3, paragraph 1, you say that the Muslims and Croats who refused to go to the front line were dismissed from their jobs. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know, for example, that the factory called Splonum [phoen] - I assume that is a brick factory - worked at full capacity and that nobody was dismissed. As a matter of fact, in the autumn of 1991 there were many more Muslims employed there rather than Serbs. ³⁰⁰²⁰

A. Well, people who were in management positions were dismissed, but the Muslims who were manual labourers were kept there in order to work. But the managers were dismissed. For example, who was a reserve captain or who was a reserve NCO or a reserve officer who did not want to go to Croatia, to the front line, they were dismissed. For example, Ramo Nalic went on working. He went to Croatia. Ahmed Alic also went on working but he went to the front line in Croatia.

Q. All right. Is it correct that in this factory in the autumn of 1991 there were more Muslims employed than Serbs?

A. Well, I'm telling you it is correct, but they were not in management positions or people who were reserve officers or non-commissioned officers and who did not want to go to the front line were dismissed. And other people were taken in who were not officers or NCOs. That's the way it was.

And also at the mine, there were more Muslims working there than Serbs. However, all of those who were officers were dismissed, for the most part only because they were Muslims who did not want to go to the front line in Croatia.

Q. Very well. On page 6, paragraph 3, you say that radio Sana on the 26th of May, 1992, called on members of the Green Berets, even by name, to hand over their weapons. Is this correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also know all these names? Did you remember them from the radio broadcast or are they names that are familiar to you?

A. They're names that are familiar to me. ³⁰⁰²¹

Q. And they were members of the Green Berets?

A. No, they weren't. And they didn't even have weapons. Let me tell you, Your Honours, Nihad Kljucanain's name, from the village of Trnovo, was read out. He was to bring back a gun from Trnovo. This gun belonged to the mosque, and do you know how big it was? The man brought it to the police station on his bicycle. And this man ended up in Manjaca. He could put it on his bicycle because it was used -- it was a bronze cannon which could be filled with gunpowder and lighted with a fuse, and this was to announce the end of Bajram, the Muslim holiday.

JUDGE MAY: You've already had an additional seven minutes, Mr. Milosevic, above the time you should have had. You can have another five. That will give you approximately an hour and a half to cross-examine this witness, and that's more than enough.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say, they read out names. I was referring to your statement. They read out names over radio Sana, members of the Green Berets, that is. Do you know that in 1991 the Patriotic League had 103 municipal staffs in 106 municipalities? That was the number that existed in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time, and Sefer Halilovic mentions this in his book.

A. Your Honours, I did not read Sefer Halilovic's books. I haven't read them. And secondly, I'm really not aware of this. I don't know that the Patriotic League existed in Sanski Most.

Q. Very well. As you say, there were no Green Berets, who, on the ³⁰⁰²² 27th of May, 1992, attacked the units of the army of Republika Srpska in the village of Hrustovo?

A. Hrustovo and Sanski Most are 15 kilometres apart, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Do you know who attacked them?

A. The local villagers. In fact, they didn't attack them; I have to clarify this. The Yugoslav army blocked the village of Hrustovo, Vrhpolje, Kljevci, and they set out to kill civilians in these villages, but the local people did not hand over their weapons. Nobody was killed in the army, as far as I know, because the civilians who were armed and the civilian population, the women and children, withdrew to a wood called Golaja, and this is just what I heard. I didn't see this. The wood of Golaja is three kilometres away from Vrhpolje and from Hrustovo, but they entered the villages because they knew that some civilians, some of whom were armed, had withdrawn into the wood. That's what I heard.

Q. Very well. So you don't know who attacked the units of Republika Srpska in Hrustovo. You don't even know about this attack; is this correct?

A. As far as I know, no one was killed, but I can't tell you what happened there because I wasn't there. This was 17 kilometres away. I wasn't there, I can't answer your question. I know that nobody was killed because had someone been killed, I have to tell you, Your Honours, I have to clarify this, the Serbs said on the radio if a single Serb soldier is killed, a hundred civilians will be shot. That's what they said on the radio. Because Dragan, who was a radio journalist, he commented on every ³⁰⁰²³ battle as if it was a football game. When there was an attack on Sanski Most - I'm going backwards in time now - he said the Green Berets, the TO, they're attacking here, they're attacking there. He mentioned officers by name, saying who was shooting, from which firearm, from where, from which unit, which battery. And we listened to this when the attack began. We had to listen to the radio.

Q. Very well, Mr. Zulic. You say he commented on this as if it was a football game, reporting from where the Green Berets were attacking.

A. Correct.

Q. So were they the Green Berets or not?

A. I'm referring to Mahala now. So wherever they said where the Green Berets were attacking, for example in the village of Skutsani Vakuf [phoen], the Green Berets were attacking, that's what they said. And we knew right away that that village would be attacked. Or Trnovo, for example, we knew the village would be attacked and burnt down, because when they were going to burn down Trnovo, they said there were Green Berets there. And then they brought in guns, tanks, and the whole village was razed to the ground. In 1995, there was not a stone left standing in that village.

Q. Very well. So were there attacks by the Green Berets or not? Was this journalist lying when he was commenting on these battles or did the things he was talking about actually happen?

A. No, this was not true.

Q. Very well. And who attacked the units of the army of Republika Srpska near Vrhpolje on the 29th of May? ³⁰⁰²⁴

A. First of all, I've already said that nobody attacked them. It was they who attacked. Not units of the Serbian army but units of the JNA. Not Serbian. Don't get this mixed up. The Serbian army operated after the JNA had done its work, because the JNA had a five-pointed star, and the paramilitary units later on looted.

Q. Very well. At the time you're speaking of, the army of Republika Srpska had already been established, which is why I'm asking you about attacks on the army.

A. Your Honours, then they probably forgot to take off their five-pointed stars.

Q. Well, maybe they didn't want to take them off.

A. Well, I can't tell you about that. You have to ask them about it.

Q. Very well. Mr. Zulic, we won't go into that, but you said that somebody said on the radio that --

JUDGE MAY: This must be your last question. You've already gone over the time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I think it's quite clear that if I'm questioning a witness who says that both his statements are not true, and this is the basis for my examination, I can't examine him.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It's well known from the Second World War that when the Germans actually shot a hundred hostages for one soldier who was killed, how can you ascribe this to the army of Republika Srpska or to the Serbs?

JUDGE MAY: That's not a proper question for the witness. That's a purely argumentative point. No doubt if you want, you can make that ^{30025 BLANK PAGE 30039} point to us in argument if it has any significance, but it's pure argument. It's not a proper question.

Yes, Mr. Kay. Questioned by Mr. Kay:

Q. Mr. Zulic, I'm going to ask you questions now about something that is in your transcript of your evidence from the previous time you gave evidence, your diary, and your statement that you made on the 14th of June, 2001, and it concerns the incident that happened when men had their throats slit. Do you understand? I'll ask you questions about each document in sequence, all right?

If we just turn to the transcript now, at page 6908 in Exhibit 609, tab 1.

MR. KAY: I don't think there's any need to put it before the witness because it will probably take too long in the sense of it. You described when you gave evidence in the trial on the 17th of June 2002, that the men had their throats slit, and then at a point when you were about to have your throat slit - I'm looking now at page 6910 - a voice you recognised said, "Simo, leave him alone." And that was a man called Rasula. And then a man came up to you and put a pistol in your mouth, and another man put a pistol to your head, and you thought the pistol was fired.

Now, that evidence that you gave in the trial last year, was that an accurate account of what happened to you when you were describing the men having their throats slit by the grave?

A. First of all this, was not on the 14th but on the 22nd of June. I ³⁰⁰⁴⁰ spoke from memory. It's true that the gun was pushed into my mouth, and Your Honours, these teeth here are not my own, my front teeth. My teeth were broken. And they said they would baptise me. And then I recognised the name of -- the voice of a man who said they should let me go. I didn't say what Gojko Macura said to me, for example. I didn't say that because nobody asked me. Macura, that is Gojko Macura, also said that they had to leave me alone because they had to question me about weapons. I am simply adding this to what I said then. Because it will never be a pleasure for me to read my own diaries.

JUDGE MAY: Just clarify one matter: Simo, who is referred to, there is a Simo Simetic. It appears that it may be him that the men were referring to, when they said, "Simo, leave him alone." Can you help us with that, Mr. Zulic? Who is Simo in this context?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That Simo was a man who was a butcher. He was psychologically unbalanced even before the war. Even before the war he was not a stable personality.

JUDGE MAY: That's not Rasula, that's Simetic. Yes.

MR. KAY:

Q. Let us now turn to the diary which is in tab 3 of Exhibit 609, and I'm going to look here at page 7 in the English of the diary. And in that diary you describe about going to the place where you're given a hoe, and then you describe: "Macura put a pistol in my mouth." I'm looking at the sixth line down in English. "And Maunic against my forehead." Then a few lines further on you describe a shot, and then you go on to describe in the next paragraph, still on page 7, that Macura jerked the pistol out of ³⁰⁰⁴¹ your mouth, knocking your teeth loose. And then you go on further on that page, about two-thirds of the way down, that you realised the slaughter had begun because you heard a cry and a gurgling noise and a thud. And you describe Simo and the slitting of the throats. And then a voice said - and I'm turning now at the top of page 8 in the English - "Enough." And you go on to say about the eighth line down: "Enough for today." And you go on to say that something hit you in the back and you thought your turn had come, and you turned round, but you were taken away. Now, that order of events in your diary has, at the beginning, a pistol being put in your mouth and a throat being slit rather than what was said on the transcript of the throat slitting first and then the pistol being put in your mouth. Which is the correct order of events?

A. When I'm responding to questions today, I may not be able to cover everything that's in my diary, because I haven't read my transcript. I tried to be as brief as possible when I was making my statements, and I tried to avoid pain as much as possible because you're taking me through the same thing that I experienced then, making me relive the experience. It's my duty to answer you. If I read the diary and my statement which you mentioned to me, I would probably -- if I had read this, I would probably have corrected it, but after writing my diary, I never reread it again, so that it's quite possibly -- it's quite possible that I recounted the events in the opposite sequence. I allow that.

Q. Let's now then look at your statement on the 14th of June, 2001. And if we turn to page 10 of that statement, we deal with the same incident. In the second paragraph of the English version at page 10, you ³⁰⁰⁴² said: "They gave me a hoe," and you had to dig your own grave. And in the next paragraph you describe digging, and then in the second to last paragraph, which begins, "When I finished digging the hole, I had to stand up in front of the hole facing it." You heard screaming and shouting, and then you described Simo Simetic, the butcher, slitting the throats of the men by the grave.

And you go on to say, "When it was my turn, he put his knife under my chin and held it there. He was moving it a little bit in order to cut my skin. I began to bleed." And then you describe Macura coming up to you, forcing open your mouth, putting the gun inside, and pulling it out and breaking your teeth. And then he put his gun to your forehead, and he shot a bullet through your hair.

This is another different account of the same incident. When you described making earlier statements, to Mr. Milosevic's first questions, you indicated that this statement was false. Why have you given different versions of this incident in the transcript, the diary, and your statement?

A. First of all, I didn't say that the transcript from the trial was a false statement, or this one. What I said was that I gave our police those statements. I didn't say that the transcript from the trial and this statement were false. I said that it was possible that I had said something - how shall I put this? - because I did not reread my diary. When you make a statement after ten years have elapsed, it cannot be a hundred per cent correct because it's very different when ten or 11 years have elapsed. ³⁰⁰⁴³ Today when I talk about it, I will certainly not remember many details of what I lived through. That's the only difference, Your Honours. Because a person who goes through something like this loses his concentration very quickly, and you start trembling. You simply -- simply -- you can't concentrate. I can no longer concentrate because he tried to make me relive what I had gone through.

Q. Was it correct of you to have said in your statement to the Prosecution that your throat was bleeding because the knife had been drawn across your throat?

A. Your Honours, would you please close this session and I will show the gentleman some things that are still visible today.

JUDGE MAY: We will accept that they are visible. Mr. Kay, I don't think we can take this very much further.

MR. KAY: I have no further questions, Your Honour. Perhaps it should be the case, though, that the statement of the 14th of June should be exhibited as a supplementary part of the 609, as well as the other statement to the Bosnian police.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will do that.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, it will be added to tab 12 of Prosecution Exhibit 609.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Agha.

MR. AGHA: Thank you, Your Honours. Re-examined by Mr. Agha:

Q. Mr. Zulic, I would just like to ask you a couple of questions just to clarify some confusion which may have arisen regarding the various ³⁰⁰⁴⁴ statements which you gave.

Now, they've been exhibited at tab 12. Can I kindly ask you to look at the statement which you gave to the Bosnian police, which I believe is already before you. Now, that is the statement which --

MR. AGHA: And have Your Honours got this one?

JUDGE MAY: We've got a copy, I believe.

MR. AGHA:

Q. This is a statement which you earlier said was wrong.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. AGHA:

Q. Now, at the beginning of the session I showed you a piece of paper which has been exhibited at the back - if we could kindly also show the witness this - showing two corrections which you made regarding the fact that you were examined by the Red Cross rather than a doctor and that you were beaten in stables rather than a room.

Now, apart from those two corrections, is, generally speaking, your statement before you otherwise correct? Taking into account it might not contain everything which you experienced which you've told us you didn't cover.

A. A small part is correct. I wasn't examined by these doctors but by a doctor from the International Red Cross, and you can check this because I have my camp card and there's a number on it, and you can check this in Geneva, that I was examined by that doctor. (redacted)

(redacted) ³⁰⁰⁴⁵ (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted)

JUDGE MAY: Just go into private session.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted) ³⁰⁰⁴⁶ (redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.

MR. AGHA:

Q. Now, is this statement correct or is it incorrect? Because there seems to be some confusion. That statement which you're now looking at,.

MR. KAY: And this, Your Honours, is the one that he gave to the ICTY on the 14th of June, 2001.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do I have to read it all?

Q. No, no. All I'm asking you is, in essence, that statement there in general a correct statement?

A. Yes.

Q. That's all I wanted to clarify on the statements, because there seems to be some misunderstanding.

Now --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: No. What is it, Mr. Milosevic? We really need to get on with this case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection. The witness asked whether he had to read it all or not so that he could say whether it was correct.

JUDGE MAY: Of course he doesn't have to waste time reading it all. He asked -- answered that it was generally correct. Now, let us get on with this.

MR. AGHA: ³⁰⁰⁴⁷

Q. Just moving away from the question of your statements now. You mentioned in your answers to the accused, and you were very clear about this, is that the Serb people fled, they were not expelled from Sanski Most. In which year was this that they fled?

A. 1995.

Q. And why did they flee?

A. Well, there was the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina which liberated Kljuc-Petrovac, and so they fled together with their soldiers, they left with their military. Why they left, I don't know.

Q. Was it an armed fight or was it against civilian people?

A. From Sanski Most, I'm saying about civilians, that they fled. The civilians fled from Sanski Most. At the time, there was no fighting between the armies in Sanski Most. From what I heard, because I wasn't there at the time, there was Seselj's men, Arkan's men. I heard they had headquarters in the local community house of the local commune of Pobrijezje. And when Kljuc and Petrovac were liberated by the Muslim army of Bosnia and Herzegovina which arrived to Palanka, the civilians pulled out.

Q. Mr. Zulic, what crimes, if any, were Arkan's men committing in Sanski Most in 1995, who you just mentioned pulled out or fled?

A. I wasn't there, but I know that 18 people were taken away from my village by Arkan's men with the help of Pero Gavran who told them which houses were Serb and which houses were Muslim. They came into the village, picked up those people from their homes, and executed them somewhere between Sehovci and Sasina. These people were not only from ³⁰⁰⁴⁸ Pobrijezje but from surrounding villages like Sasina. They needed some people for labour tasks, and they later executed the men after releasing women and children. They later transported women and children on to Travnik.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Zulic.

MR. AGHA: No further questions. That completes the evidence in chief.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zulic, that concludes your evidence. I'm sorry, there's a question.

Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Zulic, when the accused asked the question in the first part, he asked about whether you were telling the truth when you made the two statements, one to the Bosnian police and one to the ICTY investigators. I'm looking at the transcript. I'll quote the question: "Q. Were you telling the truth in both statements?" You said:

"A. No. "Q. In which statement did you tell the truth and which didn't you?"

And your answer: "A. I didn't tell the truth in any of them."

And you state the reasons in private session, and during which you said that you didn't tell the truth to The Hague investigators. Is it a mistake or could you clarify this matter to us.

A. I think that it must be a mistake, because I told the truth to the ³⁰⁰⁴⁹ investigators of the ICTY, but I gave two other statements to our police force. But I can't say it any more in public.

JUDGE KWON: That's enough --

A. That's why it seems -- that's why it may appear that I did not tell the truth in either of the statements I gave to our police.

JUDGE KWON: And what is incorrect is corrected by your addendum to the ICTY attorneys; is that right?

A. Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: That concludes your evidence, Mr. Zulic. As I said, thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give your evidence. You are now free to leave.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. AGHA: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt but there is actually a matter that I didn't deal with and Ms. Wee has kindly brought to my attention, and that is that the handwritten diaries were all disclosed on the 1st of June, 2002, so they ought to have been in the accused's possession. I apologise for not having dealt with that earlier.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll deal with the next witness. Yes, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Good morning, Your Honours. The Prosecution will call Witness B-1021.

JUDGE MAY: Is there a matter you have to raise first or do I have the wrong witness?

MR. SAXON: There is a point of clarification, Your Honour, thank ³⁰⁰⁵⁰ you, and if possible, could we please go into private session because it deals with witness protective measures.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) ³⁰⁰⁵¹ (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The next witness will be closed session. Yes.

[Closed session] ³⁰⁰⁵² Pages 30052 to 30094 - redacted - closed session.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 4th day of

December, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.