³⁰²¹³

Wednesday, 10 December 2003

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

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: Yes. If you'd like to take a seat.

WITNESS: WITNESS B-1011

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: We've just been handed the clip of documents. Mr. Agha, the sittings today -- let me deal with this formally at the outset. It may well be that we will have the courtroom this afternoon, which will enable us to sit into the afternoon. I'm going to get a message. Just one moment. We'll confer.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: What we propose is this: That we will sit in the afternoon. We'll sit for the first session for an hour and a half, we will break for half an hour, we will then have another session of an hour and a half, we will break then for the lunch break for one hour and a half, and then we'll sit in the afternoon from 2 to 3.30, and that way we can accommodate the work.

Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: As I heard it was a proposal, can I just make an ³⁰²¹⁴ observation, because I have to comply with various administrative procedures within the Tribunal, and my attendance here was arranged so that I left Holland this afternoon in the afternoon, leaving this building at 2.15, which helps with the economy of the case. If any legal argument on the intercepts could be heard this morning rather than this afternoon, that would assist everyone greatly.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll accommodate that.

MR. KAY: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, we'll have the legal argument, since you might be involved in it, then in the second session, I should think.

MR. NICE: Very well.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Agha.

MR. AGHA: Yes, Your Honour. This witness is a 92 bis witness, so I kindly ask that a pseudonym sheet be placed before him. Examined by Mr. Agha:

Q. Witness, could you please confirm that is your name on that sheet and that you signed and dated it, please.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. And, Witness, you also gave a statement before the Tribunal --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Agha, we need, for the record formally, the witness's pseudonym for the record.

MR. AGHA: Your Honour, the Witness is B-1011.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you would go on.

MR. AGHA: ³⁰²¹⁵

Q. Witness, you gave a statement before the Tribunal in September of 1998, which was certified by the Registry on 18 November 2001; is that correct?

A. It is.

MR. AGHA: Can his bis package be kindly placed before the witness.

Q. Witness, can you please confirm that that is in fact your statement signed by you.

A. It is.

MR. AGHA: And may I kindly ask for that 92 bis package to be exhibited if it's not already been so already.

THE REGISTRAR: 614, Your Honour, under seal.

MR. AGHA: And could we also please have an exhibit number for the pseudonym sheet, if that's possible.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It can be included in the package.

MR. AGHA: Thank you, Your Honour. As I mentioned earlier, Your Honours, this witness is a 92 bis witness from Brcko municipality, and I shall briefly read out a summary of his evidence.

Prior to the war, the witness was neither a member of the SDS or SDA and had no political affiliation.

Between the night of the 30th of April and 1st of May, the bridges were blown up in the Brcko area, and the various Serb paramilitary groups started to carry out an offensive on Brcko.

The witness took refuge in his sister's cellar, and after Brcko ³⁰²¹⁶ was taken by the Serbian forces, they came round the various houses. The witness was taken out of the cellar with the others he was hiding with and they were separated on the basis of ethnicity.

The witness and his group were marched to the SUP building where he came across a JNA captain who ordered them to be taken to the Posavina Hotel. The man who had carried out the separation was known as Dragan, with an English-sounding accent and was in charge of the Serb forces who had taken him out of the house and taken him to the hotel. At the hotel, he saw four dead bodies out of the window, all of which had been piled on top of each other and were wearing civilian clothes. They looked as if they had been recently killed. In the hotel, a local man called Goran Jelisic then entered the room with a lady called Monika. Jelisic then started beating up a man with water bottles. There were about 25 men detained in the room, and they were soon shifted to the hotel terrace. They were made to stand up in two lines and Jelisic began to beat two of the men. An older man was then thrown amongst the group and was also being beaten. When he complained, he was taken out of the group and shot. A Croat amongst the group was released because he was in the same house as the witness, whereupon on the basis of being in the same house the witness and another Muslim was able to secure his release. He was sent to a park. Whilst he was in the park, the witness was about 50 metres away, and he turned instinctively, and he saw Jelisic standing there with a handgun, gunfire burst, and bodies falling. He was then shepherded to the SUP building where he was told not to look at anything, and he heard five ³⁰²¹⁷ or six more shots. After answering a few questions, the witness was released. A few months later, he was arrested and taken to the Batkovic camp.

Now, that is the essence of the witness's evidence, and if I may, with the Court's permission, ask the witness a few questions orally.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. AGHA:

Q. Witness, if you can please answer these questions I ask you. Prior to the attack on Brcko, can you tell the Chamber whether anyone had been arming, any group had been arming the local population?

A. As far as Serbs are concerned, yes, they were armed. That much I know. As for the rest of the population, individual people procured weapons if they could afford it.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... group or body?

A. They got weapons directly from the JNA.

Q. Now, when the Serb paramilitary forces had taken over Brcko, where did they stay?

A. Paramilitary forces in Brcko that had arrived in mid-April 1992 had their headquarters within the JNA garrison.

Q. Now, while they were staying there, were there JNA officers or soldiers there or was it empty?

A. The command staff of the JNA was together with them in the same rooms on the same premises of the garrison.

Q. Were these regular JNA soldiers or reservists?

A. Active-duty commanding officers were in the garrison in Brcko. ^{30218 BLANK PAGE 30219}

Q. And how do you know this, Witness?

A. I passed by every day. I live in the neighbourhood, and I had occasion to see it with my own eyes.

Q. Now, I want to ask you about a different person, a person you mention as Dragan in your statement. Where did he and his men come from? Were they local?

A. No. Captain Dragan, whom I recognised and he himself introduced himself as Captain Dragan, had come from the direction of Bijeljina, accompanied by all those who were with him.

Q. Now, I want to ask you about your treatment in Batkovic. Were you treated well?

A. Well, it all depended on individual people, on individual prisoners, and on those who were on duty and in charge of taking people out to be beaten. As for me personally, I have permanent scars that are visible, and I can say again that I was lucky, actually, because I was among those who were beaten the least.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... just like to place a picture on your monitor and ask if you can identify the person in the picture.

MR. AGHA: And for the Chamber, this has been previously tendered as an exhibit, which is 347, tab 7.5.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

MR. AGHA:

Q. Do you recognise who that is? Could you tell the Chamber, please. ³⁰²²⁰

A. Yes. That is Captain Dragan precisely.

Q. And is that the same Dragan you saw in Brcko?

A. Yes. Yes.

MR. AGHA: That would conclude the evidence in chief, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. 1011, in paragraph 3 of your statement, you state that the conflict in Brcko began in the night of the 30th of April; is that correct?

A. That's when the offensive began to take over the town.

Q. What was happening before that when you say the offensive began on that night to take the town?

A. I want to explain exactly how it began. In the middle of the month of April, a session of the Municipal Assembly of our town was convened, attended also by some foreign delegates. I think they were from Sweden. That session took place in the cultural hall of Brcko. An explicit demand was made then by the Serb side, headed by Dr. Beli, to divide the town. The advice of the foreign observers was to refrain from doing that and to try instead to find some common language. The session was postponed by 20 days. A new session was supposed to take place on the first workday after the May holidays. All schools in town stopped working; children were relieved of school. And in the meantime, I don't know whether it was from Serbia or from Belgrade that some military police came in order to introduce some order into the town, quote unquote, to prevent incidents, and among them ³⁰²²¹ was this captain who arrived. And indeed he started immediate action to replace all non-Serbs from their managerial and senior positions. He was accompanied by people and troops with special training and under full military gear, including camouflage uniforms, bulletproof vests. They wore automatic rifles in front, and on their backs they had one to two hand-held rocket launchers, Zoljas. And these men toured the town. That's what I can say about the beginnings. The incidents that had begun to occur in the town after that first session in the middle of April until the time when paramilitary formations entered our town officially on the 4th of May and occupied the town up to the Brka river which borders our town.

Q. All right, Witness 1011. Did any incidents happen? Was anybody injured? Until then, was that captain the same Captain Dragan you mentioned or some other captain?

A. No. I saw Captain Dragan on the 4th and 5th of May.

Q. So this one was another captain?

A. Yes. This man wore a regular military uniform, and he even spoke on the local television.

Q. What did he say on local television?

A. He said that he had been sent to our town to prevent conflicts.

Q. So he said on local television that the JNA was there to prevent incidents in view of the atmosphere reigning in Brcko?

A. Yes. Due to the atmosphere that began to prevail in town after the Serb side demanded that the town be divided.

Q. So after that session of the Assembly which you say was attended ³⁰²²² by Swedes as well, what was the situation in Brcko?

A. Normal.

Q. So there were no incidents, a session of the Assembly was held sometime in April; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that session there happened the first incident with a demand to divide the town?

A. Yes. The Serbs, and I can't mention -- I can't remember the name of the man who made the demand, I think it was Dr. Beli, who was a doctor, made the demand to divide the town.

Q. And what was his position in the Assembly?

A. He was the president of the Serb party.

Q. And who was the president of the Assembly?

A. Mr. Ramic.

Q. And who is vice-president and president of the executive council of the Assembly?

A. To tell you the truth, I'm not quite sure and I wouldn't like to say anything because I can't say it with any certainty.

Q. But do you have an explanation as to why this Dr. Beli, who is president of the party, wanted the town divided? What did he give as an explanation?

A. He didn't say anything. It was simply the position of the Serb side that the town should be divided. I cannot tell you specifically what he wanted to achieve by that.

Q. Very well. Let us not dwell on it any further then. Since you ³⁰²²³ claim that this Serb offensive ended on the 4th of May --

A. No. It officially began on the 4th of May and the town was taken over, occupied, up to the Brka River which divides the left and the right side of the town.

Q. I'm asking you because I can't really understand from your statements. You say that the war in Brcko began in the night of the 30th of April, and now you say that it began on the 4th of May. You say actually in your statement that it was on the night of the 31st of April. The 31st of April does not exist. I suppose you mean the 30th of April.

A. I will explain this as well now. The bridges were blown up during the night. It was just the first sign that the session that was supposed to take place after the May holidays would not take place.

Q. I don't understand this. What did the bridges have to do with the session?

A. To me, it was a clear sign that the session had better not take place.

Q. Who blew the bridges up?

A. It's sad, but I have to say it. It's a man who had come from Serbia some 15 years earlier, got married and lived there, and he is still there today. He's one of the ministers in Municipal Assembly of Brcko.

Q. But you mean that he was a resident of Brcko?

A. Yes.

Q. It doesn't matter where he had come from. You say that he had lived in Brcko for 15 years and he was a resident of that town.

A. Yes. ^{30224 BLANK PAGE 30225}

Q. Why did he blow up the bridges? Which bridges?

A. There are two bridges in Brcko across the Sava River linking Bosnia with Croatia. One is a railroad bridge exclusively, and the other bridge is both a freight and a passenger bridge.

Q. Did the Croatian forces make any incursions over those bridges before that?

A. Not that I know.

Q. Were there any arms deliveries using those bridges from Croatia?

A. I stated and I wrote in my statement that I was not involved with any political party, and I did not interfere with politics in any way, and that includes arms deliveries and such things.

Q. I believe, Mr. 1011, that you did not interfere with politics. I'm only asking you what you know about this. A politically uninvolved resident of Brcko can know something about it. I'm asking you, what was the reason for blowing up the bridges that connect Bosnia with Croatia? Because you even know who blew them up. You say it was a man who was still -- who is still there occupying an important position.

A. Yes, and I'm saying that it's a sad thing that this man who had done such a thing is still there in Brcko. And as for the bridges, before they were destroyed from the Bosnian side had been made useless from the Croatian side, because they are about 800 metres long.

Q. I suppose it was not this man from Brcko who made them useless. Who did that?

A. The Croats from that side.

Q. So those bridges were actually already destroyed? ³⁰²²⁶

A. Well, they were made useless in terms of transporting freight or passengers. Instead, some kind of pontoon bridge or maybe hanging bridge was made so that only pedestrians could use it.

Q. But you say that they were already destroyed by the Croatian side.

A. They were made useless.

Q. Thank you. I understand that much. Was anyone injured at the time? Did anything else happen? And third, how do you know that this man you are referring to was the one who destroyed those bridges who had -- which had already been made useless?

A. You mean from our side?

Q. Yes. How come that you know the person who allegedly demolished these bridges?

A. The person. I found out directly from his colleagues, his partners who helped him carry out this task, this assignment.

Q. When did you find that out?

A. A couple of years later.

Q. So you are testifying to something that you learned about several years after the event you are speaking to in Brcko?

A. It's sad that I have to say it, but I'm saying it with deep conviction: I believe the person who recounted it to me told the truth.

Q. I do not doubt your deep conviction, but you found that out from somebody who told you about it several years later.

A. That is correct.

Q. Very well, Mr. 1011. But tell me, since you say the war began in the night of the 31st of April - I suppose it is the 30th of April - and ³⁰²²⁷ that on the 4th Serb forces occupied a part of Brcko, does it mean that there was some fighting that lasted for four days or is it something that eludes me?

A. Let me be brief and clear. On the 4th of May in the morning, as far as I could notice and to the extent to which I moved about at that time, I managed to count 22 people in uniform or, rather, 22 different types of uniforms; active police, reservists, JNA reservists, all sorts of volunteers, and so on. There was shooting too. But people were shooting only in order to reach the area that they wanted to reach as soon as possible. That means that they came to the Brka river which divides the town into the left-hand side and the right-hand side, they tried to advance further, they were stopped there. Because their general interest was to reach the Belgrade-Banja Luka road. That's the only road that goes through Brcko.

They were stopped there by various groups that were engaged on their own. They tried to get their families out and to get them away from the gunfire.

Q. All right. What were these different groups? Were these some kind of Muslim armed forces? Is that right?

A. These were groups consisting of up to five or six people that were organised in that way, and that's how they operated.

Q. Wait a second, Mr. 1011. A few minutes ago you said that you saw 22 different types of the military. They went to take the other side, and then they were stopped by groups of five or six men?

A. Sir, please do not confuse things. I said it very nicely. ³⁰²²⁸ Twenty-two different types of the military that came to take the town. That's what I saw. And when they tried to cross the Brka river in order to take the other part of town, they were stopped there by these men who usually had hunting weapons only.

Q. I understand. So you're trying to say that these 22 different types of the military that were trying to cross the river were stopped by a group of five or six men who had hunting weapons; right? Is that what you're saying, Mr. 1011?

A. Let's make this clear. Not all 22 types of the military were crossing the river in order to take this notorious corridor between Belgrade and Banja Luka. These were individual groups with this well-known person from the area around Bijeljina who had come too. That is Goran Jelisic. He headed all the offensives that were launched across the Brka River.

Q. All right. And they did not succeed because they were stopped?

A. They did not succeed on that day.

Q. All right. However, Brcko spreads to the other side of the river too, doesn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And they did not take the area on the other side of the Brka River because they had been stopped.

A. Not on that day. I'm talking specifically about the 4th of May.

Q. If they were not stopped on that day, when did they manage to take it?

A. A few days later. ³⁰²²⁹

Q. Oh, a few days later. All right. In paragraph 5, you say that you were arrested in your sister's house together with 30 other persons.

A. No. No, not 30 persons.

Q. All right.

A. Do you need an explanation?

Q. No, no, no. There's no need for an explanation. You sought shelter there from combat, in the cellar. Isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of combat was this? Is that the combat involving these people who were on different sides of the Brka River?

A. I can explain this to you. These were groups of men who were armed. Specifically in my case, a group came consisting of, say, about 15 to 20 men. They came on a fire truck in the street where I was, and different people came out wearing different kinds of uniforms too. They were led by Captain Dragan personally, and they went from one house to the other, and they threw everyone out.

The men were separated, all men. In my case, there were about 30 of us that were taken out of all these houses, and we were taken to the police station, in front of the police station, rather. It's not even 50 metres away from the Hotel Posavina.

Q. All right. Mr. 1011, you say that Captain Dragan came to the house.

A. Yes.

Q. You say that he wore different kinds of -- different kinds of clothing, namely civilian trousers, jeans, and a military jacket and ^{30230 BLANK PAGE 30231} boots.

A. Yes.

Q. That's what he was wearing?

A. Yes.

Q. You were just shown his picture now and you said that's what he looked like, but we see that in the photograph he is wearing a uniform. He's not wearing jeans.

A. It's not according to the clothes. I recognised him by his face.

Q. Oh, by his face.

A. Yes. I can even describe what he looks like, how he talks, how he walks. I have a lasting memory of what he looks like.

Q. You wrote here -- I mean, I'm trying to save time. You say that he was around 45, that he was thin and tall, that he had short hair, and that he had an English-sounding accent. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So he was tall and thin and about 45 years old?

A. Well, approximately. I mean, I didn't look at his ID, but I think that that was his approximate age at that time.

Q. In the photograph he wore a cap. Since you established that he had short hair, he probably did not wear a cap then.

A. When he came to see us -- or, rather, when he came to see me, he had that cap that we call a jockey cap. It is sort of like a baseball cap. He also wore dark glasses. When he introduced himself, when he said what his name was, he asked us, "Do I look like an American or a gangster?" All of us who there said yes. And he swore at America and ³⁰²³² Americans, and he threw off his cap and his glasses, and that's how I could see him.

Q. Was his hair blonde or dark?

A. Well, brownish.

Q. All right. Since he testified here, everybody could see first and foremost that he -- his hair is grey. It's not blonde, and it's not dark. Also, he's a short man. He cannot be described as a tall man by any standards, not even medium height.

A. You're wrong, sir.

Q. All right. Let's proceed. Also, you said that he had an English-sounding accent. Do you speak English?

A. No.

Q. How can you conclude then that he had probably been in Australia? On what basis do you come to that conclusion? In all fairness, people do speak English in Australia, and perhaps somebody who speaks English really well can distinguish between different accents, including an Australian accent. How did you come to the conclusion that he was from Australia?

A. I did not come to this direct conclusion. I assumed that he could have been a member of a special unit or someone who at that time was involved in all sorts of things, even that he was in the Foreign Legion. That was my assumption. And later on, it proved to be true.

Q. All right, Mr. 1011. Are you talking about things here that could have been read in the newspapers later about Captain Dragan? He talked about it here. He testified about it here, that he came from Australia, and so on and so forth. ³⁰²³³ Tell me, when you saw him, how could you have concluded that he might have been in the Foreign Legion and that he came from Australia, and most of all that he was tall? That is the last thing that you can claim.

A. Please. I know that I'm a person of medium height, and he is taller than I am, and that was my yardstick.

As far as his accent is concerned and the way he speaks and whether I noticed that he sounded English or not, I think that you can hear that until the present day. His speech is not clear, he is not very fluent.

As for whether I knew him personally, I'm not interested in him as a person at all. I felt no need to see him afterwards. I survived what I survived.

Now, what he did before and what he did later is something I don't know, but I do know what he did on that day, on the 4th and even on the 5th of May.

Q. All right; I didn't ask you about that, what you are claiming that he did. I asked you to tell me on the basis of what you concluded that he was in the Foreign Legion and that he was in Australia -- that he had been in Australia. How could you conclude that when you saw him on the 4th of May?

A. I made a statement pertaining to the 4th of May. My assumption was that he had come from somewhere. He came back. Later on, it so turned out. At that moment I did not know it myself until he introduced himself to us. I didn't know who he was and where he was.

Q. Did he introduce himself to you that way, that he had come from ³⁰²³⁴ Australia?

A. He personally said that he came from the area of Bor and Majdanpek. That is what he said.

Q. Did he say that he came from Australia?

A. No.

Q. But you concluded that he came from Australia.

A. I think that I was quite clear when I talked about this. After some time, I came to know that he had come from Australia.

Q. Oh, you learnt about it subsequently. You could have read about it in the newspapers.

A. No.

Q. Well, how much later did you find out about him coming from Australia?

A. If you want me to be very precise, in 1993.

Q. So a year later?

A. In 1993.

Q. You learned about it from the newspapers?

A. No.

Q. And you gave your statement in 1998?

A. Yes.

Q. And now, five years later, you claim that this was Captain Dragan, because here you say that this man's name was Dragan, that he came, et cetera, et cetera. You do not say "Captain Dragan" in the statement. Is that right, Mr. 1011, in your statement of 1998?

A. I stated what he said to us and what he said by way of an ³⁰²³⁵ introduction. No, it is possible that there are some mistakes involved.

Q. All right. So five years after you gave your statement, you managed to state that it was Captain Dragan.

A. I'm perfectly sure of that.

Q. How many times did you see him on television? How many times did you see his picture similar to the one shown to you a moment ago and various other photographs?

A. I told you already that I'm not interested in him as a person at all. I have absolutely no problem with him.

Q. Very well. If you have absolutely no problem with him and you are not interested in him, then why in 1998, when you were giving your statement, didn't you mention that it was Captain Dragan?

A. What do you mean I didn't say so? I said so right away.

Q. Well, find that place in your statement.

A. Maybe it was an omission made during the typing and printing, but I said word-for-word that Captain Dragan was a person I saw personally with my own eyes on the 4th and the 5th of May. He took me out of my home together with many other people when he was going from house to house.

Q. Well, in your statement, you mention only Captain Petrovic, a captain of the JNA.

A. Yes. That's the officer who came.

Q. Yes. This officer who said on television that he had come to prevent clashes, conflicts, and disturbances.

A. Yes. He made his statement on television.

Q. That's the only captain you mention in your statement of 1998. ^{30236 BLANK PAGE 30237}

A. He's an active duty officer.

Q. You mention also many other names but without mentioning the rank. You mention Dragan only as Dragan, not as a captain.

A. That's how he introduced himself.

Q. Why didn't you write that in your statement then?

A. I didn't write my statement. I didn't type it. Maybe the person who typed it omitted the word "Captain."

Q. Very well. Thank you, Mr. 1011. In paragraph 7, you say that in the course of your arrest this man was accompanied by a group of 30 men.

A. I'm saying this once again: Not 30. Dragan came with two men and rounded us up. He collected 30 people or so from the street.

Q. Please look at paragraph 7 of your statement. In the middle of the paragraph there is a sentence that says: "There was a group of 30 or so other soldiers that was in the area also going to the various houses and rounding people up."

A. Yes.

Q. "The other soldiers wore different military uniforms and they all had firearms." Tell me if there is some mistake here.

A. No, it's perfectly all right. I agree with this.

Q. So the people you were talking about were not uniformly dressed. They had different uniforms.

A. Yes. It's exactly how I said.

Q. Fine.

A. Do I need to describe how they were dressed?

Q. No thank you. You gave a detailed description already. You said ³⁰²³⁸ they wore different uniforms. Let us clear one thing up: On the basis of this description that you provided, isn't it crystal clear that those were not members of the JNA? They could have been members of a volunteer unit or some other unit, but people who were not uniformly dressed, who wore all sorts of uniforms, could not have been JNA.

A. They were indeed dressed as I described.

Q. But tell me, would you say that the reserve force was not part of the JNA?

Q. Well, even the reserve force of the JNA wore JNA uniforms. You must know that.

A. I know.

Q. Even reservists didn't wear civilian clothes mixed with military uniform. Do you know that?

A. I don't want to argue with you. All those people, 30 of them or so, wore different uniforms. Not more than two wore the same uniform, and some of them wore even reservists uniforms.

Q. You just said that no more than two wore the same uniform. Isn't that the best proof that it couldn't have been the JNA if out of 30 only two wore the same uniform?

A. That's your conclusion. My conclusion was that it was the JNA.

Q. But you are saying that out of 30 men, only two wore the same uniform.

A. That's how they were dressed.

Q. Very well. And then they took you to the SUP building in Brcko.

A. Some of them did. A group, not all of them. ³⁰²³⁹

Q. And then when you came to the SUP building, as you say in paragraph 11, Captain Petrovic, an officer of the JNA, came out and asked Dragan why he had brought you to the SUP building. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And after he went back to the building and came out again about half an hour later, he asked you with a smile whether you wanted a juice or a coffee; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he said you were going to the Posavina Hotel.

A. That's where they took us.

Q. The Posavina Hotel. Who took you there; the same men who brought you to the SUP building?

A. No; people who were some sort of security detail around the SUP building.

Q. Did they, too, wear different uniforms?

A. No. They were uniformly dressed.

Q. But they were not JNA soldiers either?

A. I don't know what they were. I know how they were dressed, I know how they introduced themselves and who their leader was.

Q. How did they introduce themselves and who was their leaders?

A. Captain Dragan, and they were his volunteers.

Q. In any case, they were not JNA. According to my information, Captain Dragan was never in Brcko.

A. That's not true.

Q. Very well, but beyond any doubt those were not JNA soldiers. ³⁰²⁴⁰

A. Well, those men were not.

Q. When you came to the Posavina Hotel you also noticed some armed men wearing dark blue overalls; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And now you claim that these dark blue overalls were actually the uniforms of those Dragan's volunteers?

A. Well, that's how they spoke of themselves.

Q. They wore these dark blue overalls as uniform?

A. Are we talking about soldiers or volunteers?

Q. Call them as you like. You say that they wore dark blue overalls, and a moment ago you said they wore all kinds of clothing and no more than two were dressed the same.

A. Well, I expected that question. I knew you were going to ask that. Captain Dragan went from house to house arresting people accompanied not by his own men but by other men from other groups and other units. He was not accompanied in my part of town by his own men.

Q. All right. You explained it now as you saw fit. But if his volunteers or members of his unit all wore those dark blue uniforms, how do you explain the fact that only their commander did not wear that uniform but wore jeans and military shirt instead? His entire unit wears the same uniform and he wears some sort of casual mixture.

A. I don't want to go into their dress code, but I don't know what exactly their objective was; to occupy the town as fast as possible, to loot as much as possible. In any case, his men secured the SUP building and he was accompanied on his rounds by other men. ³⁰²⁴¹

Q. You've told us quite enough for us to make our own conclusions. In paragraph 16, you say that when you were going to the toilet in the hotel, through a window --

A. Sorry, not a window, a door.

Q. All right, a door. You noticed four dead bodies piled up on top of each other.

A. Yes.

Q. Since they were piled up, I suppose they were brought there from somewhere else.

A. No.

Q. How was it then?

A. Let me be clear: Myself and the group I was in were the third group brought to the hotel that day. Those people must have been from the previous groups, because they were recently killed. The bodies were still bleeding, it was fresh blood. And the rest of the people were being driven towards the garrison and in other directions. Some were taken towards Loncari, which is towards the turn-off for Banja Luka, or to Brdjani, and one group was even taken towards the Rasnjevo village, which is about 30 kilometres away in the direction of Bijeljina.

Q. Very well, Mr. 1011. Please bear in mind that I'm asking questions only on the basis of your written statement because you have not testified before. And I'm asking you about these four men. How did you decide that they had been killed in that spot? Is it on the basis of the vapour emanating from the bodies?

A. I can say with a clear conscience that they were killed there. ^{30242 BLANK PAGE 30243} Groups were either taken out of that hotel as a group or perhaps if somebody offered resistance or had a quarrel with those troops, they would be killed.

Q. Tell me, it was the 4th of May. It must have been rather warm. Could that have been the cause of that steam, that vapour you noticed?

A. What are you talking about?

Q. The 4th of May, it must have been warm. There could have been no outward sign, no vapour.

A. The temperature of the body is higher than the outside temperature.

Q. That is something we can easily establish. So that's what you saw when you saw those four bodies. Why didn't you write it in your statement? Although you said yourself that you didn't write your statement.

A. Well, I can't write English if I don't speak it.

Q. The statement I'm looking at is in Serbian.

A. It's a translation.

Q. Did you speak English?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You spoke Serbian?

A. Yes.

Q. And they were writing in English?

A. I suppose they have an interpreter who does the interpreting for them.

Q. You say: "While we were detained in the hotel, we were allowed to ³⁰²⁴⁴ use the toilet of the hotel. Once when I went to the toilet, I was able to look outside through a door that leads to the yard. I saw four dead bodies piled on top of each other. They were all men wearing civilian clothing."

A. Yes.

Q. You say: "I was unable to identify a single one of them."

A. That's correct.

Q. Very well. Could they have been brought from somewhere else after all?

A. No.

Q. Do you allow for the possibility that those could have been bodies of some Serbian fighters who had been killed in combat because that hotel was under Serb control and they could have brought some of their men who were killed in combat?

A. No, by no means.

Q. Because you didn't recognise anyone. You say so yourself.

A. I could not identify them because they were piled on top of each other, on each other's stomach.

Q. I'm only saying that you did not identify anyone, and still you don't allow for the possibility that they had been brought there.

A. They were certainly not.

Q. Did you hear any shots prior to that?

A. In town, where I came from, there was only shooting for the purpose of marking individual positions.

Q. Did you hear shooting in town, in the hotel? ³⁰²⁴⁵

A. I didn't.

Q. If you didn't hear shooting in the hotel and you found those dead bodies there, they could not have been killed at the hotel without being shot, and you didn't hear any shots while there.

A. I'm telling you again, I was in the third group that was brought there. Two groups were brought there before us. So it is sufficient to know this to reject any possibility of those bodies being brought there from somewhere else. They were killed there.

Q. I suppose that when you came to the hotel you didn't go straight to the toilets. You must have been there awhile before going to the toilet.

A. Thirty or 40 minutes.

Q. So let's say it was 40 minutes. And in those 40 minutes, you didn't hear any shots. And then when you were passing by a door, you saw those four bodies. They could not have been killed in the hotel in the 40 minutes prior because you didn't hear any shots.

A. They were not killed in those 40 minutes, but they were killed before us.

Q. And they were still bleeding. That means that somebody brought them there.

A. That's not true. That's not true.

Q. Very well, Mr. 1011. Let's get one thing clear: You didn't hear shots while you were at the hotel, and you were there for at least 40 minutes before seeing those bodies.

A. Yes. Around 40 minutes, not more. ³⁰²⁴⁶

Q. Fine. And then you say in paragraph 17 that: "Goran Jelisic came at that point into the hotel accompanied by another resident of Brcko, a woman named Monika."

A. Correct.

Q. They were both local Serbs?

A. Monika was a local. She was born and lived there. Goran Jelisic was not from Brcko. He had come from Bijeljina some days prior.

Q. He was tried here. We know where he came from. So it is not in dispute. His origin is not in dispute. So both of them were from that area; isn't that right?

A. Well, they were from Bosnia. Towns 50 kilometres away, approximately.

Q. All right. So although they were armed like the three soldiers who came with them, they wore different uniforms too. They were wearing parts of different uniforms; is that right?

A. That was characteristic anyway for most of these people who were in Brcko on that day.

Q. All right. That means that Jelisic or this Monika or the other persons who were present or the persons who came with them were not members of the JNA. Isn't that right?

A. Probably not.

Q. All right. And you claim that Jelisic was very upset because some of his friends had been killed in the fighting that took place in Brcko.

A. I cannot claim that, that they were killed, but they were stopped. They were not allowed to reach the Brcko hospital, and the road from the ³⁰²⁴⁷ hospital towards Banja Luka would have been free then. That is Belgrade-Bijeljina-Banja Luka, the road that goes only through Brcko.

Q. Now you say that you cannot say whether they were or not, but here you said Jelisic was very angry. And later on, those who were with him said to you that some of their fellow combatants were killed when they were trying to push the Serb line across the bridge near the hospital. So the question I put to you was based on what you wrote here, that several of his comrades got killed; is that right?

A. I am stating what they did. I mean -- or what they said, these soldiers that came with Goran Jelisic. Then this fighting broke out, these men were beaten up, the men who were standing there.

Q. Do you allow for the following possibility, that the persons killed you referred to a short while ago were the persons who got killed?

A. No.

Q. So they were not the ones who got killed?

A. No, no.

Q. So you preclude that possibility completely?

A. Completely.

Q. How come?

A. Because he became so angry, and we had seen these people before he had come.

Q. Oh, so you did not see them before.

A. Before he came to see us and before he started beating people, we saw these men. In my opinion, they were waiting for him to come to see what they do with us. ^{30248 BLANK PAGE 30249}

Q. All right. So you preclude the possibility of these people being precisely the people who got killed.

A. I think that this is just a trick they tried to play because they did not manage to take this road.

Q. As you say in paragraph 25, when they took you to the terrace of the hotel, you noticed that Jelisic had a pistol on him in a holster.

A. Wait a minute. He had a pistol, whereas Monika had that so-called Skorpion. Let's get this clear.

Q. All right. So Jelisic was armed by a pistol, and Monika had a Skorpion.

A. Yes.

Q. And then you saw Jelisic beating two Muslims with a truncheon.

A. Yes, he did have a truncheon in his hands.

Q. And soon after that, you witnessed the killing of Sadik Ljaljic, a Muslim from Brcko.

A. Yes.

Q. Who killed Sadik Ljaljic? Did you see these people who did that?

A. The people we just talked about, the people who were guarding the SUP building in the dark blue overalls, those men.

Q. And when did that happen?

A. That happened on the 4th of May. It could have been around 1.00 in the afternoon.

Q. Where were you then?

A. On the terrace of the old hotel, in front. This terrace can be seen until the present day. ³⁰²⁵⁰

Q. And where was this Ljaljic who had been killed?

A. He was taken out of his house. His house is the second house behind the SUP building.

Q. Wait a minute. You say that these were people in dark blue overalls and that they were the ones who did it. Why do you say in paragraph 28 that this was done by people who were commanded by Dragan?

A. I can say why: Because they themselves said that they were Captain Dragan's volunteers.

Q. Those who killed this man called Ljaljic?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Since they took you away from the terrace and sent you to the park nearby --

A. Yes.

Q. -- you say that a certain Mile Gatarevic walked up to you; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Otherwise, a resident of Brcko, a man from your town?

A. Yes.

Q. With two other men.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this Gatarevic didn't wear a uniform either; he was wearing civilian clothes.

A. That is right.

Q. So he was not a member of the JNA either.

A. Yes, he was not. I assume that he wasn't even a reservist. ³⁰²⁵¹

Q. All right. Since he asked you to come with him, you did that.

A. Yes.

Q. And at the moment when you were entering the SUP building --

A. Yes.

Q. -- which is about 50 metres away from the hotel --

A. Yes.

Q. -- you heard a burst of gunfire from the hotel terrace?

A. Yes.

Q. You instinctively looked then in the direction of the place where the gunfire was heard and you noticed Jelisic standing.

A. What are you saying? I did not say "whole," I said "group."

Q. Oh. So you claim that he actually killed them.

A. Yes.

Q. Well, did you say a short while ago that he was armed with a pistol only?

A. Yes, but he took from Monika this other pistol, this Skorpion, while we were still there, while we were standing on the hotel terrace.

Q. All right. So he took somebody else's weapon and killed these people.

A. The two of them closely cooperated, anyway.

Q. And then allegedly you saw these people fall to the ground.

A. Yes.

Q. Let me try to get this straight. As you were entering the SUP building, you heard a burst of gunfire.

A. Yes. ³⁰²⁵²

Q. And this man said to you that you shouldn't turn around, the man who was leading you.

A. Well, he warned us not to turn around so that we would not be too noticeable.

Q. All right. But when you did turn around by way of a reflex you noticed Jelisic with a weapon in his hand standing by the group of people who were also standing.

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't see him shooting.

A. That moment --

Q. I mean when you turned around. Did you see him as he was actually shooting?

A. Wait a moment. I have to explain this. The moment I heard a burst of gunfire, I turned around and I saw Goran with this automatic pistol, and I saw people falling. No one else was shooting, no one around him. Everybody received orders from him while I was still there that if anybody tried to do anything, to move an arm, leg, whatever, that they should be killed on the spot.

JUDGE MAY: You have two minutes left, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, all right, I'll try to deal with everything within those two minutes, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say that people who were standing in two lines were on the terrace of the hotel.

A. The group that I stood in consisted of two lines. ³⁰²⁵³

Q. You say that this group that was allegedly killed by Goran Jelisic were people who stood in two lines.

A. Yes.

Q. When did you see him take this weapon from this Monika?

A. While I was still standing in line, before I was separated in the park.

Q. All right. In paragraph 35, you say that at that moment Jelisic was on the terrace next to the dead men, the executed men.

A. When?

Q. When you heard the burst of gunfire.

A. He stood in front of them.

Q. In front of them? But you did not see him shoot them.

A. Well, I said this very nicely: The moment I heard the burst of gunfire, I turned around by way of a reflex, and I saw Goran standing there with an automatic pistol, and I saw people falling.

Q. But in the next sentence you say that the other soldiers were standing on the ground. This is only two steps below the place where Jelisic was. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right. And there is a footpath by the terrace. The terrace is on ground level, so it is only two steps above the ground, actually.

Q. So was he on his own or was he not on his own? According to what I heard from you and what I read here, he was not alone, there were at least ten armed men along with him. Is that right?

A. Please, I said this a short while ago and I'll say it again: ^{30254 BLANK PAGE 30255} Goran Jelisic stood on the Terrace with Monika. Below him, two steps below, on the footpath, which is not even five metres away from the park, there were people standing there who were also armed and who received orders from him that if anybody tried to do anything, they should be killed. So he was doing what he had intended to do.

Q. All right. Soon after the talks at the SUP building you were released, you were allowed to go home.

A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody beat you at the SUP?

A. No.

Q. Did you spend a month at home?

A. I spent about two and a half months at home after that.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. This must be your last question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So after that, you were allowed to go home, immediately after that interrogation?

A. Yes.

Q. You were not beaten there and you stayed at home for another two and a half months?

A. Yes.

Q. And you claim that you were then sent to the camp of Batkovic where you spent three months and then you were released from there too.

A. Well, let me tell you. Let me be quite clear. They came to me to sort of make a survey of apartments because I was staying at my parents' house -- at my sister's place, actually, which was nearby. That's where ³⁰²⁵⁶ they found me. I was not in my own apartment. Also when they came on the 4th of May and when they collected us, they said that they were collecting us in order to take us to work somewhere near Bijeljina.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic -- Mr. Kay. Questioned by Mr. Kay:

Q. Witness, just a couple of brief matters. I'm looking at paragraph 17 of your statement in English, and you describe Goran Jelisic at the hotel with Monika, and they had firearms and were wearing military clothing, and I'll read it out to you. If you'll just concentrate to the question, Witness, it will help you.

"Jelisic was angry," and you were told later by the men that he'd lost some comrades during an attempt to push the Serb line across one of the bridges in the direction of the hospital.

Can you assist the Court by telling us what exactly was happening there as it seems that there was some kind of conflict or confrontation. Do you know?

A. At that time when Goran returned, both he and his fellow combatants - let me not use another word - informed us that they'd tried to go in that direction, to take that road, and that they were actually stopped by some group of people, and they say that they even sustained casualties. I mean, if they had any dead, they would have brought them there for everyone to see, because this was a major slogan of theirs, that they were being killed, and they weren't doing anything else really. They didn't succeed in doing this, and they took out all their anger on the people who had been brought there. Quite simply, that's it. ³⁰²⁵⁷

Q. And just turning now to paragraph 19, and it's on the same issue as to killings and confrontation. At the end of that paragraph, you say they were referring to an incident where Serbian soldiers were killed. Are you able to give any assistance to the Court as to what that was about, what was being referred to where Serbian soldiers were killed?

A. In terms of everything I've been saying so far and in terms of my testimony, I've been saying that they were trying to take the road between Belgrade-Bijeljina-Banja Luka. I repeat this is the only road going through Brcko. There's not any other road, and there's no shorter road either.

So that is why they were taking this road. Or, rather, they were trying to take this road in order to link Krajina with Eastern Bosnia and Serbia.

Q. And are you able to assist as to who the fighting was between then when these people were killed?

A. That is what they were saying, that some people got killed, but specifically Goran Jelisic with his group of men tried this breakthrough, but then there were these other people, too, who know very well every street, every house, every shrub in town. So they stopped them, and they didn't allow them to take the road. That is why they came back angry. What they did, they did; they killed these people on the terrace of the old hotel, the old hotel called Posavina, that is.

MR. KAY: Thank you. No further questions. Re-examined by Mr. Agha:

Q. Witness, you have mentioned that the JNA came because they wanted ³⁰²⁵⁸ to prevent conflict. When they came, how much fighting was going on in Brcko?

A. Since I lived there before and then I'm not aware of any fighting. There were various attempts by way of provocations, but all of this was done on the part of people who had come to the military garrison of Brcko where they were put up. These were people who had special training, who were armed. They even slept there, and they went on orders to different parts of town in order to patrol these areas or to check things out. I cannot claim that there weren't any squabbles or skirmishes between them, including gunfire; but killing, no. When these special units came to town, that was it.

Q. Now, Witness, you mentioned that these Serbian paramilitaries were staying with the JNA command in their barracks. Were they still staying there after the shooting incident you saw Jelisic commit outside the hotel?

A. Yes. They had dormitories made available to them, military dormitories. That's where they slept, that's where they gathered. And from there they were sent on to various assignments, offensives, battles.

Q. Now, you mentioned that Jelisic came from Bijeljina. Can you name any other paramilitary leader who came from Bijeljina who you also saw in Brcko at that time?

A. There was this person called -- I mean, he had this nickname Mauzer. I don't know his name. I don't even know his last name. But everybody, everybody, even his own men, called him by his nickname Mauzer.

Q. And do you know -- well, you've mentioned that you knew the person ³⁰²⁵⁹ who blew up the bridges. Do you know which political party he was a member of?

A. Well, all of them opted either for the Serb Radical Party or the Serb SDS, as it was called, the Serb Democratic Party.

Q. And was anyone injured when the bridge was blown up, that you know of?

A. Oh, and how. There were people who were crossing the bridge. This was just before the May holidays, so people were coming on buses from the Croatian side to the village of Gunj. They crossed this bridge which had been made as some kind of hanging bridge, and then buses awaited them on our Bosnian side and took them to different parts of Bosnia. These people got killed. Their number can only be estimated. But the fact is that they all ended up at this very unpopular place, that is to say the dog pound.

Q. And do you know what the ethnicity was of these people who were injured? Were they largely from one ethnic group or both?

A. I didn't know, because it is a well-known fact that in the former Yugoslavia, May Day was a holiday celebrated by everyone, irrespective of ethnicity or religion. Everybody celebrated it.

MR. AGHA: That completes my re-examination, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Witness B-1011, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go. Would you just wait until the blinds are pulled down before you do.

We will now adjourn for half an hour. ^{30260 BLANK PAGE 30261}

[The witness withdrew]

--- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

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: Yes. If you'd like to take a seat.

WITNESS: MEHMED MUSIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Pack, just before we go into the witness, we need to consider the timing. There is legal argument. It had been arranged more conveniently than I arranged it to deal with that now, but I have arranged otherwise. But let us deal with it now. Mr. Kay, how long do you anticipate you might be?

MR. KAY: I'll be ten or 15 minutes.

JUDGE MAY: And Mr. Nice, depending of course on the argument.

MR. NICE: Of course. I hope not very long -- I hope not very long because it's covered in pleadings. There are also associated pleadings which would probably best be read into the record to guide you, in both Krajisnik and in Brdjanin, so I would have thought no longer than Mr. Kay.

JUDGE MAY: So if we allowed three-quarters of an hour, that should be --

MR. NICE: I hope so.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Pack. ³⁰²⁶² Examined by Ms. Pack:

Q. Mr. Music, would you give the court, please, your name.

A. My name is Mehmed Music. I was born in Donji Hadzici, near Sarajevo.

MS. PACK: Could the witness be handed the bis package, please.

Q. Witness, have you made one statement to officers from the Tribunal in June of 1997?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you make two statements to authorities in Bosnia in April 1993 and in February 1998?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you had an opportunity since being in The Hague to read those three statements through in your own language?

A. Yes.

Q. And are the contents of those statements true to the best of your knowledge, subject to a change which I shall deal with in a moment?

A. Yes.

MS. PACK: Your Honour, one of those statements was the subject of a declaration pursuant to 92 bis. They were all part of an application under that rule, so I would ask instead that they are all admitted under Rule 89(F) of the Rules.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the Prosecution Exhibit number is 615.

MS. PACK: I'll read a short summary of those statements. ³⁰²⁶³ Mehmed Music, a Muslim, lived in the village of Musici in the Hadzici municipality of Sarajevo at the outbreak of hostilities in Bosnia. He was captured after his village was attacked and shelled by Bosnian Serb forces. In his statement, he talks about the detention of large numbers of Muslim civilians, including women and children, in a series of detention facilities around Sarajevo from the 20th of May, 1992. He describes killings, interrogations, beatings and other mistreatment, including the imposition of forced labour of detainees in these facilities. He describes the presence of men he describes as Arkanovci at the sports hall in Hadzici and their beating and other mistreatment of detainees there.

On the 22nd of June, 1992, Mr. Music was taken, along with approximately 280 detainees, to Lukavica barracks. He and 47 other men from his village area were forced to run a gauntlet of armed Serbs wearing red berets. He could tell from their manner of speech that the men wearing red berets were not from Bosnia.

The witness, along with the other prisoners, was beaten as he ran the gauntlet. He came to a room where he saw the other detainees who had run the gauntlet before him lined up against the walls. There were officers at a desk in the middle of the room. One of the officers was wearing a cap which contained insignia similar to those of Serbia. Another one of the officers spoke with a Montenegrin accent. The officers sent the witness back through the gauntlet, telling him they hadn't called his name. The 47 other men, who included the witness's brother, have never been seen or heard of again. ³⁰²⁶⁴ The witness describes seeing regular JNA soldiers at the Lukavica barracks during the time of his detention there and the presence of men he describes as Arkanovci.

He also describes seeing armed men arriving from Serbia and Montenegro for the weekends, leaving on Mondays. These men, referred to as "weekend Chetniks," could be identified as being from Serbia and Montenegro by their speech.

Your Honour, I have a few additional questions I'd ask the witness.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. PACK: Can the witness be shown, please, his statement to the Tribunal at tab 1 of the bundle. In the bis package. If he could be pointed to his statement dated June 1997. It's the second statement in the bundle.

Q. Witness, please look at paragraph 8 of the B/C/S version of your statement. You talk there about an incident in March 1992 occurring in the field near your property. Would you like to take this opportunity to correct the date that you speak to in that paragraph?

A. Yes, I can correct the date. This was in the middle of September 1992. My children were going to school at the time. It was after the New Year. My father and three brothers lived next door.

Q. Pause there, please, Witness. I wanted to ask you specifically about the stranger that you saw in your field. Please can you describe what he was wearing?

A. He was wearing JNA clothing. He had binoculars. He had a ³⁰²⁶⁵ military-issue bag, he had a military map, and he was writing in some elevations, looking left and right and noting something down. Another two neighbours of mine went to one side, and I and another neighbour went to the other side. I asked him, "What are you doing?" He said, "I'm doing my regular duties." "Where are you from?" And he answered, "I am from Catina," referring to a place called Catina Bara, Cata's Marshes.

Q. Was he from, so far as you were concerned, Bosnia?

A. No. He had a different accent. Ekavian dialect. He was unshaven. He was not shaving for a month maybe. He went towards the house of my neighbour Gavro. They stayed there and sang provocative songs, and after that he left.

Q. Did he tell you what he was doing in your field?

A. He only said he was discharging his duties, following orders.

Q. Witness, please turn to your statement again and look at paragraph 46 of your statement, please. Witness, you describe there seeing men who describe themselves as Arkan's men at the sports hall in Hadzici. Did you find out where these men were from?

A. We learned they were from Serbia, judging only by their accents. And there was a Bosniak by the name of Salihic who recognised him. They used to be friends. I don't know where they had met before. He put his arm around him and said, "This is the only good man among all of you." He started to provoke us. There was also a woman named Ljilja together with him. She was the phys. ed. teacher to my daughters. I don't know whether they were drunk or something, but they were doing things that I really don't want to name. ^{30266 BLANK PAGE 30267}

Q. Thank you, Witness. If you could turn to paragraph 74 of your statement.

A. Yes.

Q. Witness, again I don't want you to describe the matters of what happened at Lukavica, that is all contained within those paragraphs in your statement.

Looking at paragraph 74, you describe men as wearing red berets. Can you tell us, please, if you subsequently found out where they were from.

A. From Serbia.

Q. And how did you know that?

A. Judging by their accents and the way they swore at me and asked me where my sons were on the front line, and I answered I had no sons, I only had daughters.

MS. PACK: Those are all the additional questions I had to ask, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Ms. Pack, if you can tell me the relevance of this evidence in relation to the indictment. What specific events is this witness referring to in terms of specific events in the indictment?

MS. PACK: He doesn't speak to specific scheduled incidents in the indictment so far as the schedules are concerned.

JUDGE KWON: Okay.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. What we're going to do is this: You can begin your cross-examination. At about quarter to the hour, we'll stop it and interpose the legal argument, and you can go on then after the ³⁰²⁶⁸ adjournment. Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Music, you gave three statements to one and the same event, as Mrs. Pack just said.

A. Yes.

Q. You gave your first statement on the 18th of April, 1993, in the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the state security service of Hadzici.

A. Yes.

Q. That was only five months after you were exchanged, and you say it was on the 5th of November, 1992.

A. Yes.

Q. So that's your first statement. And you gave your second statement to investigators on two occasions; on the 16th of June and the 26th of June, 1997; right?

A. Yes.

Q. That is less than five years after the events you're testifying to.

A. Yes.

Q. And finally, your third statement is of the 21st of February, 1998, to the Investigation and Documentation Agency in Sarajevo.

A. Yes.

Q. As to the second statement given in 1997 to investigators of the OTP, I would like to know several things. You gave this statement on two days; on the 16th and the 26th of February [as interpreted]. Which part ³⁰²⁶⁹ of the statement was given on the 16th and which on the 26th of June?

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter corrects herself: June.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot tell you which part I gave when. If you give me a specific paragraph, I will tell you on which day I gave it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I can't read the whole statement.

A. You needn't read the whole statement.

Q. You can't remember which part you gave on the 16th and which on the 26th?

A. Not really.

Q. Can you explain in which way you gave that statement? Did you provide the statement in the same way the first and the second time?

A. Yes, both times in the same way. The second time, I only emphasised that I was -- while I was in the toilets with seven or eight other people and I did all the other work that I was required to do, such as disposing of rubbish. On that occasion, I saw a man who brought me his car to wash, and he looked at me in a strange way. I don't know whether he knew that ten members of my family were killed in Lukavica. I was anxious that he could slit my throat. He was wearing a JNA uniform, he had big eyes, he wore this cap with a cockade, this Serbian cap. And when I finished the job, he gave me a pack of cigarettes. He didn't do anything to me. That's the only thing I can remember mentioning on the second day, in the second statement.

Q. When you say you saw Poplasen, you mean the former President of ³⁰²⁷⁰ Republika Srpska?

A. Yes, Professor Nikola Poplasen.

Q. You know that he was a professor. He was later elected President of Republika Srpska.

A. Well, you can recognise a man when he's well shaven, cleanly shaven and well dressed, but when he looks unkempt and has a beard or a stubble, you cannot recognise him.

Q. As far as I know, he always had a beard.

A. On that occasion he had a terrible beard. I didn't like it at all, either the beard or the way he was looking at me.

Q. It seems to be the case that you only washed his car and he gave you a pack of cigarettes.

A. Yes.

Q. How did it ever occur to you that he might slit your throat? Did he ever do that to anyone?

A. Well, he carried such a long knife, and he could have inspired even worse thoughts.

Q. Did you see him cut anyone's throat?

A. I didn't see anything of the kind. I can only speak to what I saw.

Q. Let us come back to your statement to investigators. You gave that statement to investigators how? Did they ask you questions and you replied, or did they just let you describe the events in a narrative way, as you saw fit?

A. I recounted everything as I remembered it. I couldn't remember ³⁰²⁷¹ all the dates, but if you ask me, I will tell you everything. I would like not to be sitting here, but it's your fault that I am sitting here.

Q. Well, Mr. Music, you didn't really answer my question. Did they ask you questions or did you just narrate what you saw fit to tell them?

A. They didn't ask me questions. I recounted my own experience.

Q. So they did not put any questions to you.

A. Why would they?

Q. They didn't interrupt you with any questions while they took your statement?

A. No.

Q. On the 16th and on the 26th of June, you only narrated without being asked any questions?

A. What 16th of June are you talking about?

Q. Those are the dates of your statement.

A. That's what they asked me to do. It's not my idea.

Q. But all that time they didn't ask you any questions, either on the 16th or the 26th; you only narrated?

A. I told them what I thought I should tell them.

Q. Very well. In paragraph 1 of that statement, you said that you had read your statement of the 18th of April, 1993, and stated that in essence that statement is accurate, but after rereading it you added some handwritten notes in the margins of photocopied pages which you initialed and dated; correct?

A. Yes. ^{30272 BLANK PAGE 30273}

Q. Is it also correct that such a copy of this statement, with signature and the date, was added to the statement you gave to the investigator?

A. I think so.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, could I please be given a corrected statement of the witness dated the 18th of April, the way he just described it, with these corrections, his signature, and the date?

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Pack, has the accused got the original, or the most original copy which you have?

MS. PACK: I would have thought it's been disclosed but I shall just check. It's not in the bundle that you have in front of you?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Have a look at that. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So let me just say for the record that since the witness confirmed that he added something there on the margins of the photocopied pages, that he initialed this and put the date there, I have nothing that was added in that way, including his initials and the date, so I don't have this document that he just referred to, but I shall continue now, and I hope that I will get what I asked for.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since you talk about Chetniks, tell me, who are Chetniks? What are Chetniks?

A. For me, Chetniks were all those who killed, torched, and expelled Bosniaks. My next-door neighbours and I went to see them for Christmas, and they came to see me for Bajram, and they all sided with this idea. ³⁰²⁷⁴ The JNA armed them in 1991.

Q. Tell me, are you calling all Serbs Chetniks or only some of them?

A. Heaven forbid. How could I call all of them Chetniks? I cannot call honest Serbs Chetniks.

Q. Who do you call Chetniks?

A. Those who took part in atrocities, slaughters, and all kinds of crimes.

Q. All right, Mr. Music. In the first statement, in the first paragraph you say that until the 20th of May, 1992, Chetniks did not come to your village except twice when, as you say, Boro Djukanovic, Dragan Pusara, and Gavro Todorovic, urged you, the villagers, to hand in your weapons. They promised that nothing would happen to you if you did so; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So why are you calling the three of them Chetniks?

A. Because they were the main people involved, Vojvoda Dragan Pusara, he killed two of my uncles, Music Alija and Music Fadil. And Gavro was also a Vojvoda. In 1991, Chetniks assembled at his place and sang provocative songs. We lived in that kind of environment.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. The accused is being given something. Let me see what it is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I got some statement but on its margins there are no corrections either. There is nothing written there.

JUDGE MAY: Let's have a look at that document. What is it that you've got? ³⁰²⁷⁵ Yes, Ms. Pack, what is the document, please?

MS. PACK: If I can just explain. It's the same document that you have in your binder, the statement dated 18th of April, 1993. What you'll see is it's got an added ERN which shows that it's a continuation of the 1997 statement. This is the actual document that was attached to that, with the signature at the bottom of each page, and one addition on the second page in manuscript made by the witness.

I will have to check upstairs as to whether this particular statement was disclosed. I'm afraid I don't know for that certain.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Will the legal officer come up, please.

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will hand the document to the accused. Mr. Milosevic, that's the best we can do.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. You explained that these three men, on the 20th of May, urged you, the villagers, to hand in your weapons, and they were explaining that if you did that, everything would be all right. That's what you stated.

A. Not on the 20th of May but between the 15th and 16th of May. On the 20th of May, they had already surrounded the village, broke into the village, killed my uncles, and they took me prisoner together with 13 of my relatives.

Djukanovic Boro was with us until the 15th of May, because he's the only one who remained neutral. He even slept with us. But then he was there among us. They planted him there. My father's farm and his ³⁰²⁷⁶ house are only separated by the road. We went to school together. I trusted him more than I trusted some of my relatives. But on the 5th of May -- or, rather, on the 15th or 16th of May he came with a white ribbon, and he said to me, Mujo Music, the late Mujo Music, he was executed in Lukavica, shot in Lukavica; Fadil Music, he's also dead; Adil Music. I'm the only survivor. He said to us then, "Hand in your weapons," and we just had hunting weapons. He said, "This is Serb land. You have nothing to look for here." After that, only five minutes later, Dragan used a megaphone saying the White Eagles are there, this and that. They were there with Pragas, with combat vehicles.

Q. We'll get to that.

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Music, in spite of all these calls that you refer to here, none of you handed in your weapons. You all expressed your readiness to fight.

A. Not to fight but to guard civilians, women and children, because we had heard what happened in Vogosca and Croatia, and we didn't want the same thing to happen to us.

Q. All right, Mr. Music. I'm asking you on the basis of your statements because I'm quoting this. "Nobody handed over their weapons in spite of these calls. They all expressed their readiness to fight. On several occasions, Omer Alic stopped us from doing that."

A. Because he was not a good man. Because afterwards, the Serbs got his wife and children out of Serb-held Grbavica. They even got his car. And he now lives in Canada. ³⁰²⁷⁷

Q. I quoted your statement a few minutes ago. So none of you handed over your weapons and you all expressed your readiness to fight. Isn't that right?

A. Mr. Milosevic, when NATO struck, why didn't you surrender immediately? Why did you fight?

Q. I'm asking you --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Music, I know this is very difficult and hard for you to come back and to have to recall these incidents, but at this stage, what we need to hear, please, is your evidence. It may be tempting to argue with the accused - I have no doubt it is - but could you just confine yourself, if you would, just to the answers. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I beg your pardon.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So why would you fight if nobody attacked you? Nobody had attacked you until then. You were just being asked to hand in your weapons. That's what you stated yourself.

A. Well, look, after the 9th of May, 1992, my brother-in-law lived in Hadzici right above the clinic. That was the 12th Herzegovinian. Then the White Eagles were there too. They executed 15 of them. From then onwards, my village could not even sleep. They were targeting us with all sorts of things.

My brother-in-law came on the 7th, and he got my daughters out, my daughters who had been at home. He said, "Father-in-law, let the children go, there's something wrong," and indeed the children went to Pazaric. ^{30278 BLANK PAGE 30279} So from that moment onwards after those killings, day and night we had no peace in our village. The Pragas, that ammunition, we could not sleep at all.

Q. All right. Mr. Music, together with other villagers, as you said, you wanted to fight, but Omer Alic stopped you from doing that, who is also a Muslim, also a local person. And you say then that he was in command, in charge.

A. Well, he was elected some kind of commander, whatever.

Q. All right. So you had your own command that was headquartered in Alija Music's house.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So you were some kind of a unit, weren't you, since you had your command? This command was the command of some unit.

A. Not a command, this was just people being together in order to stand guard.

Q. So what did this command command?

A. I'm telling you, it's no command. We were just standing guard. From my house to Gavro's house, there is less than 700 to 800 metres. Provocative songs were sung. "This is Serbia; Balija, we're going to slaughter you." I wonder whether you would protect your family the same way.

My father, who had been born in 1922, was sick. My uncle was sick. Actually, both of my uncles were sick. Had anybody told me anything, I would have withdrawn. I didn't want to go through any kind of torture because my wife was in camp too, and two brothers and two ³⁰²⁸⁰ children. One of the children was third grade at that time.

Q. Mr. Music, I want to clarify what you wrote here in your statement. So the fact that you had a command did not mean that you had a unit. Is that your assertion? So you simply had a command. Tell me, how many of you had were armed and what kind of weapons did you have?

A. Well, what did we have? Two or three hunting guns, or perhaps somebody had a pistol, that's all.

Q. So only hunting rifles and pistols?

A. Of course everybody was a hunter.

Q. How many of you had arms?

A. In the village there were only 20 to 25 of us altogether.

Q. All right. Also in your first statement you say that your commander, Omer Alic, guided you to break out of the village in the direction of the reservoir and Djurdjevace, but you refused that because you would fall into enemy hands; is that right?

A. Yes. As I wrote earlier on when we were doing these maps, et cetera, the reservoir is two kilometres away from my house. They had this command there and they were digging trenches on their own land and communication trenches. Gavro Todorovic said don't go up there, the reservists from Serbia are involved in all kinds of manoeuvres up. So Gavro Todorovic and the other Serbs were there.

Q. All right. When Omer Alic was telling you to break -- make a breakthrough from the village in the direction of the reservoir, what date was this? ³⁰²⁸¹

A. Date?

Q. When he told you to make this breakthrough.

A. It was the end of April.

Q. All right. Did you try to break out, or did you?

A. No. My father's arm is as high as the place where they had their cannons and all these weapons. I saw that they were getting ready up there, but we did not understand that that is what would happen. I could not imagine that my neighbour with whom I shared both good and evil would do something like that to me.

Q. All right. Mr. Music, you say that towards the end of April you were supposed to carry out this breakthrough and you say that your village was attacked on the 20th of May, 1992.

A. Yes.

Q. In your first statement, paragraph 2, you say: "On the 20th of May, 1992, around 12.00 --" I'm quoting your statement -- "the Chetniks encircled our village. I was in my house at that time. A few hours after the village had been encircled and the fighting had stopped, Tomo Elcic and Milan Elcic came to my house and brought me in front of Alija Music's house."

Is that what you wrote?

A. I didn't write "several hours." I said a few minutes only. I just wanted to have a cup of coffee, and there were two men in SMB uniforms and with helmets on their heads and with weapons on the door. They said weapons, hand in your weapons. Tomo Elcic took a hand grenade in order to throw it there. There were women and children there. ³⁰²⁸²

Q. All right. So on the 20th of May, around 12.00, Tomo Elcic and Milan Elcic brought you in front of Alija Music's house.

A. After 12.00, there was about half an hour of shooting from Pragas, whatever, and they were asking who had weapons, and since they got no answer, from there we went to in front of Alija Music's house where they lined us up against the wall.

Q. Please, Mr. Music. You say actually after the fighting that took place. Who was it that was involved in the fighting?

A. They were shooting from all sides. And they said that my uncle had killed my other uncle, things like that. They were shooting at random. One did not know where this was coming from.

Q. In paragraph 19 of your other statement -- we now clarify what you said in your first statement and I quoted what you said. In paragraph 19 from your other statement, and I'm quoting again: "Sometime around the 15th of May, they started to fire shells at the village. The first shell fell somewhere near my house. There was so much we couldn't even go out. They targeted my house ten times but they didn't hit it." Is that also your statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Now look at your first statement again, paragraph 2, where you say two Pragas that had come when the village was being encircled and that were targeting the forest above the village --

A. Yes.

Q. -- were driven by Marilovic Momo and Kusara. Is that what you stated? ³⁰²⁸³

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me now, when were you telling the truth; to the members of the MUP when you gave them a statement on the 18th of April, 1993, or the investigators on the 16th and 26th of June?

A. I don't know which statement you mean. I gave the same statement then and the other time.

Q. Please. I read the first statement to you, and you say that on the 20th of May, around 12.00, the village was encircled. "At that time I was at home, and a few hours after the village had been encircled that the fighting had stopped --" and then I mentioned these two names -- "they came and brought me in front of Alija Music's house." And the other statement, you say: "Around the 15th of May they started shelling the village. The first shell fell near my house. There were so many of them that I could not get out. They targeted the house ten times but they didn't manage to hit it."

This is a description of events that is quite different. The dates are quite different and the actual occurrences are different. Tell me, what is the truth?

A. There is either something wrong with me or you do not want to understand. Didn't I tell that you after the 8th of May, when the Kovacevics were executed in Hadzici in front of the centre there by the White Eagles and these other soldiers, we could not go to the shed any longer in my village or anywhere, any one of the buildings outside. They were targeting us all the time. And then between the 15th and the 16th, between the 15th and the 16th -- did I say April? The first shell -- ³⁰²⁸⁴

Q. No. Here you said that on the 15th of May you were shelled.

A. Yes. Yes. And then on the 15th of May, the first shell that fell fell below my house, and the second one fell too, and it hasn't even been taken out yet. If there are any experts here, they will realise that it went so deep into the soil that it never managed to come out.

Q. All right. But in paragraph 2, you explain that two Pragas that were brought there during the encircling fired in the direction of the woods above the village.

So here you're talking about the shelling of your house, and then you talk about Pragas that fired at the woods above the village. Is that what you stated?

A. Look, we created this diversion and our guard to hold there without being seen by anyone. If you pass by, you can find cover there, and if you look you don't see anyone. They shot there at random, thinking somebody was there. They also shot up there where my neighbours, the Marilovics lived.

Q. Don't tell me anything about the neighbours. Tell me, why didn't you mention in any statement any heavy shelling of your village? You talk exclusively about encirclement and the fighting you had with local Serbs that you referred to as Chetniks. Why do you fail to mention any kind of heavy shelling and speak only of fighting between you and your local Serbs, your neighbours whom you called Chetniks?

A. What can I say? I told you that it was in the month of April when every day and every night we were targeted from Otinohovo [phoen], from Mount Igman, from everywhere. ³⁰²⁸⁵

JUDGE MAY: We must stop now. I must say, Mr. Milosevic, that I can see no inconsistency on the dates. Both refer to the 20th of May. One refers to the Chetniks coming from all sides; the other one refers to the Chetniks encircling the village. I can see no inconsistency at all. We can return to this after the adjournment.

Just a moment. We'll just deal with this. Mr. Music, we're going to adjourn now on the -- because we have to deal, I'm afraid, with an administrative matter, a legal matter. We've got to have some argument on it, so we've got to adjourn your evidence until after lunch to conclude it. If you wouldn't mind coming back then, at 2.00, we'll go on with your evidence. The accused has got half an hour more for cross-examination.

Yes. Mr. Milosevic, you can deal with the statements after the adjournment.

Yes. If you'd like to go now and be back, please, at 2.00, and if you'd remember not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over.

[Witness stood down]

JUDGE MAY: We turn next to deal with the matter of the intercept evidence and legal argument, that having been adjourned, having heard the evidence last week of the relevant witness as we did. I would also remind everybody that we've already had written submissions on this matter. Furthermore, we've had legal argument before, so anybody can be concise. ³⁰²⁸⁶ Mr. Kay, it might be convenient if you started off and give the accused some time to gather his thoughts, and then we'll have Mr. Nice at the end.

Mr. Kay, just to go through matters, I don't think you were present last week, but I may be wrong, when we heard the witness who gave evidence, but --

MR. KAY: I've read the transcript. I've got a copy of it on disk.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well. As I say, we've had the argument, and we've also got your written submissions. You raised the question in one of your arguments of relevance. That is a matter which is being addressed by the -- by the Chamber in this way: That we've ordered the Prosecution to produce a schedule stating the relevance of each shortly, and that is not a matter we're dealing with at the moment. What we propose to do is this: To deal with the other matters of admissibility first and then we'll return to relevance after the adjournment, the longer break. But if you'd like to address us on any other matters concerning admissibility, as briefly as possible, please.

MR. KAY: I will be brief, Your Honours. I'll do one minute on really the context of the argument as that perhaps is helpful when one looks back at it. We're dealing here with Rule 89 and the power of the Court to exclude evidence if probative value is outweighed substantially by the need to ensure a fair trial. We also have, at Rule 95, evidence shouldn't be admissible if obtained by methods which would cast doubt on its reliability or its admission is antithetical and would seriously ³⁰²⁸⁷ damage the integrity of the proceedings.

The basis of the applications in relation to this particular aspect of the evidence concern the right to privacy laws, the controls that there are on illegal wiretapping by state authorities on citizens. The reason for this is to ensure that the powers of the state are controlled as well as to ensure the authenticity of the evidence, the various institutions throughout the world being aware of the steps that can be taken to falsify such evidence.

If I can go back, though, to the Tribunal's Rules and mention another one, Rule 89(E): "A Chamber may request verification of the authenticity of evidence obtained out of court." And in many respects, we will probably end up at that position at the end of the day, because the issue here is the reliability of the evidence.

Again, if I can just put matters into context very briefly before I get really to the conclusion of it, in my submission to the Court, the evidence that was heard, and in my view properly heard in advance of the legal argument, was not clear at all on the legality of the process that was undertaken. It was not, from the witness's evidence, an issue here that the Court was being pointed to the appropriate authorisations that would establish through the constitutional laws the legality of the wiretaps, intercepts that were imposed.

And if one looks particularly at that aspect of the witness's evidence where he deals with the issue of the Presidency and whether it had been informed of the issue, and we're aware here that the Presidency is a collective of the senior ministers, some of whom were being subject ³⁰²⁸⁸ to the intercept, the witness's justification of the particular circumstances prevalent at the time in Bosnia-Herzegovina did not establish that the alternative procedures that should have been open to him were in fact followed as a matter of evidence. The Court will be aware of his evidence of the informing of the president, Mr. Izetbegovic, but there was no evidence that that had actually occurred. He had been told by someone that that was what had happened, but in our submission, that's highly unsatisfactory in relation to this particular issue, and there is no corroboration or indeed any detailed evidence that supports the lawfulness of that particular procedure.

And it may be noted that the Prosecution do not particularly lead the issue of the legality within their own evidence, and it may be because of the jurisprudence of the Tribunal which is a matter where we will inevitably end up in dealing with this issue.

The relevant decisions being that of Kordic in which members of this Trial Chamber were concerned, quote by His Honour Judge Robinson: "Inadmissibility under Bosnian law doesn't make it inadmissible under Tribunal law." From His Honour Judge May: "Eavesdropping on an enemy in a war, although illegal, may not be antithetical to the Tribunal and not seriously damage the proceedings as well as it's not the purpose of this Tribunal to enforce state regulations."

What we get round to at the end of the day is the reliability of this evidence which underwrites the whole issue under the Tribunal's Rules for the admission of such evidence.

And if I may just refer the Court to the passages within the ³⁰²⁸⁹ Brdjanin decision, which can be taken very, very briefly at paragraph 55. "The manner and surrounding circumstances in which evidence is obtained as well as its reliability and effect on the integrity of the proceedings will determine its admissibility. Illegally obtained evidence may, therefore, be admitted under Rule 95 as there is no exclusionary rule as a matter of principle."

And if we just look at paragraph 66 of the same judgement. "In addition to relevance, the Trial Chamber must also determine whether the material has probative value, which requires an assessment of the reliability of the material. The Trial Chamber has no doubt at all that intercepts, the authenticity of which cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, should be excluded."

JUDGE MAY: And then went on to admit the intercepts.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. KAY: It is that issue there, the authenticity which cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, is really, in my submission, where we're at in relation to this particular issue.

At this stage in the trial of Brdjanin, that Trial Chamber on a prima facie basis --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. That might be a way forward --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

JUDGE MAY: Sorry. That might be a way forward, of course, to see whether there's any challenge of any sort to the -- that can be mounted to these tapes. And if there is, it may be necessary to look at them again. ³⁰²⁹⁰ But prima facie, you've read these tapes, they're rambling conversations, they don't have the sign of, do they, of unauthentic or in any way tampered-with tapes? Would you say they do?

MR. KAY: I'd be very loath to give a judgement about that because the sophistication in relation to these particular techniques are well known, and many --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course. But you've read the conversations.

MR. KAY: We've all had experience where that which was believed to be that which was said, and was done in a particularly convincing way in relation to government information in relation to court proceedings, has subsequently turned out to have been falsified. So I would be loath that any decision was made at this stage in relation to being convinced about the material.

JUDGE MAY: What ground have we got to say that it's not authentic? Not simply an assertion that, oh, we all know this can happen. This is, if I may say, to employ the conspiracy theory, there is a conspiracy, but what we need is some basis on which to act, surely. You as amicus, as opposed to Defence counsel, would surely at least consider that position.

MR. KAY: We have, and the position we've got to is this: It's the absence of the evidence that's so worrying. All we have had from the witness was that he recognised the voice of the accused. Now, these tapes have been under substantial challenge for a considerable period of time; over a year. It was in the year October 2002 when we first entered into this evidence that the accused mentioned that ³⁰²⁹¹ he did not accept the authenticity of --

JUDGE MAY: Well, of course he challenges everything, but we have to act more realistically than simply a blanket challenge to all the evidence. Surely you as amicus cannot adopt that position even if he does. Just because he says, "I challenge everything," we as a Court must act in a rather more responsible fashion, I would suggest.

MR. KAY: With respect, I think Your Honour has misunderstood me. There has been an issue about this, not only in this case but other cases, as the jurisprudence shows, and there has been no document from an expert that has ever been to look at these tapes to establish their authenticity, which is exactly the sort of thing that would happen under any other criminal legal proceedings.

JUDGE MAY: We found in Kordic, and I recollect that we had a lengthy debate about a tape, and it was found conclusively that it was a genuine tape.

MR. KAY: In this case there has been no report, which is why I referred the Tribunal to Rule 89(E) which requires verification of evidence which would deal with this matter, and the consideration that we put forward, which is reasonably open to the accused to submit this - forgetting my position as an amicus - it is reasonably open to the accused to submit this, is why hasn't there been any authentication by an expert of the tape through mechanical -- through expert means, technological means? Why are we just dealing with the issue of the nature of the conversations and the recognition of voices when this has been an issue that has been around for a long time? ³⁰²⁹²

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, are you saying that once a reasonable argument has been made as to authenticity, the burden is on the Prosecution to establish authenticity?

MR. KAY: Absolutely. Because we get to this position, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is reliable evidence. The only way to do that is through authentication of it. Or they could leave it to supposition and the basis of voice recognition and the nature of the conversations, it's a matter for them. But at the end of the day, this court in dealing with the judgement must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the reliability of the evidence. At this stage, as I said, it's merely a prima facie test.

JUDGE MAY: What is the reasonable argument? "I assert that these are false." That's the reasonable argument, is it?

MR. KAY: It doesn't have to be an argument in the sense of a logical beginning and an end. It's not accepted. It's challenged by the accused, as we have heard, that he was making those conversations. And that's -- that's the matter that's been put into issue in this trial. Now, when we first had the production of the intercepts, there was an issue as to whether they were accepted or not. They weren't accepted, it was clear, from the representations that he made, and we're now at the stage of still this matter being unresolved as to authenticity. And that is why, as I say at this stage, taking Brdjanin and it's a perfectly and obvious and logical route, that it's an issue of reliability on a prima facie basis that the court has to be satisfied with. The reason for this is because there is concern about the nature of this kind of evidence. ³⁰²⁹³ That is why we have these controls within many states that support this Tribunal, and international covenants and domestic legislation covering this kind of evidence. It's because of the experience of the state as to what can happen. And bearing that in mind, one of the issues being controls of the state, it is also an issue of authenticity, and in our submission, the only way to resolve this, to establish reliability beyond a reasonable doubt is that the -- an expert consider the originals of these tapes, not copies. The evidence this Court has heard has been about copies, and there has not been evidence that has satisfactorily got to grips with the whole issue; it has merely been left open as to whether they are or are not genuine.

JUDGE MAY: So you invite us to follow the Brdjanin decision, do you?

MR. KAY: Absolutely. It makes sense as far as me as an amicus can see, reviewing the law, and the issue, although, is untidy because it's not resolved at this stage, that's just been a matter as to how the evidence has unfolded. There has been sufficient notice about this.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We've got 245 to deal with, assuming that for the moment there will be a substantial number, certainly, of which relevance may be established, assuming that for the moment. Are we going to send them all off to be tested? Is that your real suggestion?

MR. KAY: Well, my suggestion was that we should be pointed out as to the relevant ones so that we could cut this down to a more manageable issue.

JUDGE MAY: That we're going to do. ³⁰²⁹⁴

MR. KAY: Yes, and I suspect that if we -- having been through these tapes, it is difficult often to judge what is in the hand of the other side, but having been through them, there's a lot there that it doesn't immediately appear to me is relevant to this particular trial, and I'm sure that a selection of the top 20 could be made and, A, the evidence gets more manageable; and B, that's sufficient for anyone to -- with expertise to consider the particular exhibits.

JUDGE MAY: I must say as a possible comment, purely a possible comment, it's the rambling nature of these conversations which suggests that they're authentic, let alone anything else.

MR. KAY: I know Your Honour has made that remark, but in many respects that may not be a significant tape. For my own part, I haven't yet been able to merge what I can see as an issue and put it into an overall context. There's simply too much to get to grips with. But if we had a bit of honing down of this evidence it may be we could see whether those with inconsequential conversation are in fact the meaty tapes, and the top 20, so to speak, or it's the other ones that are of greater concern. We haven't had that kind of analysis.

Unless I can assist the Court any further.

JUDGE MAY: No, thank you. Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I assume that my position is quite clear to you. But in relation to what Mr. Kay said only a few moments ago, my associates and I did not have access in any way to the alleged originals of these so-called conversations. It is transcripts and copies that are invariably referred to. To tell you the truth, I'm not ³⁰²⁹⁵ interested in that at all.

Secondly, I'm absolutely convinced that these conversations have been tampered with, manipulated. They come from a secret service that was involved precisely in such manipulations.

A few minutes ago, you mentioned, Mr. May, as some kind of absurd idea that then someone may come to some kind of a conspiracy theory. But this is a conspiracy, because absolutely everything, everything that was available was used to fabricate explanations or justifications for secession or for shifting the blame to the other side. So that is precisely what I'm claiming, that this is a conspiracy, and that is why I assert that this is manipulation of various intercepted conversations. Certainly there were telephone conversations. They were certainly intercepted. However, in which context they were placed, how they were rigged, what was included into them or what was taken out of them in order to make them relevant is something that is impossible to ascertain. So it is not a question of whether the conversations exist or whether they are authentic. There is indeed a very high degree of probability that this is malicious manipulation of different intercepts. And if this kind of malicious manipulation is carried out in a professional manner, then of course the intercepts will be rambling, indeed, and they will seem authentic, therefore, because these professional services do this so professionally that it seems authentic. Mr. Kay said that various institutions throughout the world know full well that there are ways of editing this kind of material, especially in this situation nowadays when there are various electronic means ³⁰²⁹⁶ available that you can even put the image of someone into live pictures. We can see that even in the most ordinary commercials where we see various actors among politicians after 1945 and 1946. So no one can say that this is not a live image and that those people were not actually there, and everybody realises that they weren't there at the time. So what I'm saying is that it is absolutely clear that there was a high degree of manipulation. I am talking about conspiracy, I am talking about malice, I am talking about a secret service that is carrying out this manipulation precisely in the interest of justifying the actions of their own government and their own ideas that were, inter alia, based on a conspiracy. In order to carry out not only secession but crimes as well; to portray one side as the victims and the other side as the guilty party. So I don't want to go into all of the details any further. I believe that such evidence coming from such a service which is allegedly providing them cannot be admitted into evidence, not in any way. Let me just add one more thing. You were quoted by Mr. Kay, Mr. May, that you said eavesdropping on the enemy during the war is a natural thing and it is not illegal. I assume that it can be put that way, but most of these conversations, and I say that they were manipulated, rigged, they were done in peacetime, not in wartime. So yet again this proves that this is a conspiracy that involved a series of actions in order to prepare the outbreak of the conflict.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, several points but I'll take them rapidly. ³⁰²⁹⁷ On the procedure, you will be, I hope, both pleased and interested to know that the summary of the intercepts will be available, courtesy of the hard work by Ms. Rembe, very much more quickly than you'd ordered, possibly by the end of the week, and I think almost certainly by Monday. And if I can give you some samples of what you'll get, it may help you to plan ahead because you'll see that the material, in four lines -- it's not a one-liner as I think I mentioned last week, it's usually about a three- or four-liner, sometimes more, sometimes less -- will probably rapidly show the obvious significance of all of these intercepts and reduction to Mr. Kay's hoped-for top 20 may be unrealistic. I mention that for this reason: These intercepts are likely to show by categories, say, the following four things: At least association amongst members of the joint criminal enterprise, political planning, military planning, and execution. And although the Chamber excluded in its most recent ruling on witnesses, and quite understandably in light of the way we couched the application, it excluded an expert to analyse material of this type or other documents. It may be when the Chamber considers, for example, the sample or the final document, which will be ever so much larger, that it will conclude that there may be advantage in having an expert group the material in a report before it goes to the process of trying to exclude some as relevant and some as irrelevant.

JUDGE MAY: By an expert?

MR. NICE: An expert, a witness who can prepare a report. You may remember in the last application for witnesses we prepared an in-house analyst available to look at certain categories of documents, one of which ³⁰²⁹⁸ was intercepts and one of which was Supreme Defence Council documents, and we explained that of course the problem with such a witness is that cross-examination of the witness would be difficult to contain. Nevertheless -- and indeed the Chamber rejected the application for such a witness. But it may be when you look at, either in this sample form or in the final form, the clear prima facie value of this material in giving context and depth of understanding to the relationship between these parties, that the Chamber might take the view that a report that scheduled the material in some way before the conclusion of the Prosecution case coming from a witness who could be cross-examined might be helpful. But I'll return to that if necessary later, but in any event, this guides you as to what you're likely to receive.

On the topic of authenticity in light of the observations made by Mr. Kay and by the accused, first of all, the witness gave an account of the history of the intercepts right from the day or the date when their reference number was first generated right up until production, and alert to the possibility that this type of point might be taken at this stage, in re-examination I asked of him: "Just yes or no, have you ensured that the copies provided to the OTP are true copies of the original," or the originals, to which he said, "Yes." So that the evidence is complete that these are documents traced for their history from their creation through to the moment when true copies were provided to the OTP. So that aspect of authenticity is really established on the evidence. And I turn to the other aspect of authenticity, which is the suggestion of falsification by creation. In the course of the accused's ³⁰²⁹⁹ cross-examination, the Chamber may recall that I invited him through the Chamber to identify any that he was asserting was so falsified. This was at a time in his cross-examination when he was actually adopting some of the intercepted transcripts, or the transcripts of intercepts, and looking at matters of context. He declined to identify any, save one to which I'll turn in a minute, and therefore, there is nothing from the questioning that suggests any reason to doubt any of the intercepts at this stage. Eventually, as I think nearly a last question, the accused identified one for which the date was incorrect, but of course the error in the date was something that the witness had picked up and had already noticed in the schedule himself.

That position, therefore, is to be contrasted with the following potential position: If you had transcripts of intercepts which had some manifest internal inconsistencies or incompatibilities, that might be enough to raise the sort of doubt at this stage which would justify involving the scientists and all that that involves, but that hasn't been sought or achieved by either the accused or the amici, and accordingly the evidence is at this stage unbroken. It simply is: This is what I found, this is the records of it, this is what I did with it, and true copies have come in full to the Chamber.

As I think Your Honour suggested, things may change if and when witnesses say, "Well, that is me. Part of that is true, but part of that has been deliberately falsified." And that may then bring us to the position we found ourselves in in the case of Kordic. But it's premature in the extreme to think of asking an expert to look into all these ³⁰³⁰⁰ intercepts at this stage.

I venture to ask, and I'm grateful to Mr. Ruxton for the analogy for so asking this rhetorical question: If the accused were to put in issue by a single question each and every document, should we take all of them to document examiners to search for falsification? The answer is, of course, no.

Finally on the subject of authentication, it ought to be borne in mind that not only have some of these intercepts been adopted by witnesses in court at the earlier stage of their being dealt with when they were produced for identification in certain cases, but some of these intercepts, as we know, were made public and leaked at the time. Your Honours, can I then just deal with, in a couple of minutes that are available to me, the other points that have been raised. 89(E) is simply, in our respectful submission, wholly premature. The proposition that documents can be created is one that is easily made and I don't say never, but rarely actually evidenced. In this trial, apart from what may have been heard about the well-known Spegelj tapes and the dispute that exists about them, the dispute of a rather different kind, there has been simply no evidence.

The possibility of creation is, of course, extremely remote when you consider how difficult it would be and how improbable it would be on the evidence to create things in advance of there being found without any plan for their being found, without there being any intended use at the moment of their being found that they should be used, because that is the evidence that the Chamber has, and I realise that we are in open session ³⁰³⁰¹ and therefore am being cautious.

The other issues apart from authentication I think is the legality of the taking of the intercepts. This is covered in our pleading. It is covered also in Brdjanin, and it's covered as well in a response before this Chamber from the Krajisnik Prosecution, dated September 2002. I've currently mislaid my version of it, but that's the date. Yes, sorry, 27th of September, 2002.

From the Brdjanin judgement, which is helpfully full and to which I can therefore refer very briefly, paragraph 58 makes this observation in its last sentence, apart from an observation it's made before, it says: "The Trial Chamber wishes to make it clear that it is beyond its mandate to adjudicate foreign constitutional questions and address issues which arise as a result of the succession of states. Such an exercise will not be undertaken in this decision."

That observation, of course, being made in respect of the conflict or the difference asserted by the accused between the position of the witness - I'm just reviewing whether I can still deal with this in open session; I think I can - that the matter was entirely covered and satisfactorily by federal law contrary to the assertion that the matter was to be regulated and thus outlawed by republican law. And I hope that's an adequate identifying summary of the position unless the Chamber wants me to go further.

But also in the Brdjanin judgement, at paragraph 60, and as the Chamber knows this was on a very similar if not identical evidential base, their conclusion -- I note that the judgement -- the decision was public. ³⁰³⁰² "The Trial Chamber considers the submissions of the Prosecution in favour of legality is strong enough to be accepted --" deals with the first authorisation, the amendment of the law, not yet abrogating 39 of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Law on Internal Affairs, deals with the second authorisation saying that the position is not exactly clear, seeming that efforts to --

THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down? Could counsel be asked to slow down?

JUDGE KWON: You are asked to be slower in reading.

MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. I pick it up. It would appear that they had not been concluded because of the situation in the country at the time which was already rapidly approaching that of armed conflict. There is, in addition to this, the existing constitution of the federal SFRY which, as submitted by the Prosecution, would have provided such authorisation with legality. For these reasons, the Trial Chamber finds no basis for declaring that the intercepts in question were illegally obtained, and then goes on to explain how it is of the opinion that the matter of legality doesn't arise as determinative. So in this case, with the evidence clearly before you, there is an understanding of legality by those operating the procedures under -- the legality being under the federal law and fully articulated in the statement, that covers indeed the period up and until April, May of 1992 in any event, for even if there was a required change of law, there was a year's period for harmonisation. And after April 1992, as I think the Prosecution submission in Krajisnik reveals and as is well known, the ³⁰³⁰³ position had changed so that the crisis of actual war occurred, justifying a different approach without such close regard to any restrictive law. And, Your Honour, that's probably how best we can end it. I adopt in fact the summary from Krajisnik pleading, although it matches very closely the summary in our own, but because it may not have been before you before coming in today, I will draw it from Krajisnik. And on legality, all pre-war intercepts were in accordance with the statutory framework. The statutory framework itself was in accordance with the republican constitution, the intercepts should not be excluded under Rule 95 because the requirements for Rule 95 have simply not been established or even necessarily alleged. Admissibility under domestic law does not determine whether evidence should be excluded under Rule 95, and admitting evidence doesn't constitute approval by the Trial Chamber of the manner in which that evidence was obtained. That, I think, coming from something said by His Honour Judge May. ECHR jurisprudence doesn't support the contention that illegally intercepted evidence should be suppressed. And I adopt gratefully the citation of His Honour Judge May, spoken of by Mr. Kay earlier, evidence obtained by eavesdropping on an enemy's telephone calls during the course of war is certainly not within the conduct which is referred to in Rule 95. It is not antithetical to and would not seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings. So in summary: Authentic, genuine on the evidence, appropriate for admission now, prima facie lawful; even if unlawful in any degree, by no means to be excluded.

[Trial Chamber confers] ³⁰³⁰⁴

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am sorry for taking the floor after Mr. Kay, but I will only take two minutes with additional argument.

Of course I would refrain from adding anything new after what Mr. Kay said, but I think, Your Honours, that we need to read very carefully the statement of a witness who appeared before us a few days ago stating that the complete documentation regarding intercepts was compiled only two years ago. Some intercepts that were made available to the Prosecution in 2000 were shortened, abbreviated, and it was only two years ago that complete documentation was established by that witness in relation to intercepts.

I think you should carefully weigh his evidence regarding this documentation, because he started working with it in 1996 and completed it only in 1990 -- only two years ago. And he said that material had been handled by various groups, which does cast a doubt on the authenticity of the material. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. NICE: One other matter: The witness next Monday is a witness for whom you were seeking a statement. I have, I think, the final version but may be subject to minor amendment but in any event will be an unsigned draft because the witness and his written material don't come together very often. It's all dealt with in a rather complicated way. I know you're anxious to have it so that you can deal with it. I understand you may be. Would it be helpful to have it before the lunch break so -- ³⁰³⁰⁵ rather than later, or is the end of the day satisfactory?

MR. NICE: Yes, now I think would be helpful.

MR. NICE: I'll ensure it does.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. We will adjourn now for an hour and a half, so it will be just after 2.00 we'll sit again.

--- Luncheon recess taken at 12.40 p.m.

--- On resuming at 2.15 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: MEHMED MUSIC [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] You interrupted me, Mr. Nice. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Music, since in paragraph 2 of the first statement you said that it was the 20th May that they entered your house after the fighting, and in paragraph 19 of the second statement you said there was shelling on the 15th of May, your house was targeted ten times but not hit. And then in paragraph 2 of your first statement you speak about the two Pragas that targeted the woods above the village. These are discrepancies between the statements regarding the attack you are testifying about. How do you explain that?

A. Well, I'll explain it by saying that they first tested us, whether we would respond to this provocation, and we did dig out that trench just to trick them so that they wouldn't target houses. And we sent a man to go up there and just walk about, to make them believe that there was somebody out there. And we were sharing this road with Serbs who used to ³⁰³⁰⁶ be our neighbours but never will be again because they can't. We trusted them, but we were afraid from reservists in Blazuj because we watched them going out towards the horse stables where the prison used to be.

Q. Leave that alone. That's a civilian prison. You say that your village was shelled and you were shelled so hard that you couldn't leave your home.

A. Yes, of course they did.

Q. Did they shell the village or the woods?

A. Between the 15th and the 16th, first they shelled houses, and then when they wanted to surround us, they shelled everything, buildings and everything to intimidate us. And later when they captured us, they wouldn't let us leave the house. And that was this Milan Elcic who worked with me for 15 years.

And then later when the shooting began, to avoid them shooting each other, we were shepherded to Alija Music's house.

Q. Very well. You explained that already. So all the three are correct. All the three statements you made are correct?

A. Of course.

Q. Why, then, in the first statement you never mentioned a heavy shelling of your village? You talk only about encirclement and the fighting you had with the local Serbs you referred to as Chetniks.

A. Well, listen, how can we fight with rifles against tanks? That's nonsense, rubbish.

Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking why there is no heavy shelling in your first statement? ³⁰³⁰⁷

A. What do you mean?

JUDGE MAY: He doesn't follow your point, and I'm by no means certain it's clear or correct. His first statement begins: "Immediately after the outbreak of hostilities in the region of the village the village was occasionally shelled," and he goes on to deal with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. But in the first statement there is no reference to heavy shelling that would prevent him from ever leaving his home. He didn't say that his house was targeted.

JUDGE MAY: Well, if it's a point of any significance, we have it. Shall we move on to something else.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Already in paragraphs 23 and 24 of your second statement you say shelling lasted for three days. That's the second statement. In the first statement, it sounds something like occasion, occasionally or occasional shelling. And then you say in the second statement that after that, the Chetniks entered Musici.

A. I answered this already.

Q. Since you say in the second statement that the shelling lasted three days, how many villagers were killed?

A. Nobody was killed because they didn't dare to move around.

Q. All right. So nobody was killed.

A. Only my two uncles and a relative were killed on the 20th of May.

Q. But not during the shelling.

A. No.

Q. Although the whole village was shelled, including your house. ³⁰³⁰⁸

A. They were not able to hit my house because they were tricked by the orchard. They hit on the left and right but not the house. And the experts may come and see the second shell that fell. It was never extracted. It's soft ground filled by water.

Q. In paragraph 14 of your second statement you say that before that alleged attack on the village, you Muslims from Musici village went out to dig trenches in the woods around the village -- above the village.

A. Of course we did.

Q. And that's when the occasional shelling took place but not on the village but on the trenches.

A. On the 15th there was shelling of the trenches. That's how it began. In order to prevent them from shelling the villages where some elderly people, children, and about 20, 25 of us remained, we dug those trenches.

Q. Why did you dig the trenches in the first place if you wanted to break out of the village?

A. Well, they did not make it possible for us to break out because we didn't stand a chance. Thirty civilians had already been killed with their throat cuts near Mount Igman, trying to escape.

Q. In the second statement, paragraph 13, you state that you were not doing anything, you were just exercising great caution. There were about 35 of you who had organised yourselves into a patrol, and you stood guard over the houses. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now look at what you stated in the second paragraph of your first ³⁰³⁰⁹ statement. It is ERN number, in the English version, 02918212. You say that these men, and you named them, occasionally came to your house. They wanted to find out how we were armed, how deliveries were made, if we were visited by Vahid Alilovic, and in addition to your interviews, you mentioned the name of the interviewers, Gacic and others, and they wanted in particular to find out about the Browning which had remained hidden in the village. Is that correct?

A. When they brought us in, all the Muslims, they would ask us if we had a Browning or a light machine-gun or a radio transmitter. I suppose it's just tactics. If I had any of these things I would have never been captured.

Q. Tell me, did you have those Brownings or did you have these arms deliveries or not? You say they questioned you about light machine-guns or heavy weaponry and now you state that you didn't have any of these things. You didn't?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Very well. Now, you say in the second statement -- all of a sudden you remembered something that you failed to mention in the first statement, and that Arkan's men. You don't mention Arkan's men in the first statement. JNA soldiers, soldiers with red berets. How come you didn't remember them in the first statement?

A. How could I remember? If I didn't see something, I can't talk about it.

Q. Well, how come in the second statement you refer to Arkan's men, to JNA soldiers, Red Berets, et cetera? ³⁰³¹⁰

A. Red Berets -- sorry, Arkan's men came when we were down in the garages. I had to go on the 22nd to do some loading in a town nearby. Another 14 of our -- of us were taken to storage houses made of concrete to do the loading. When we came back, I saw people beaten up. I saw a man named Hasanovic in tears. I thought that he was just afraid because he was brought in --

Q. I didn't ask you that, Mr. Music. I asked you about your first statement where you make no reference to JNA soldiers, Arkan's men, or Red Berets. In the second statement, you mentioned all the three. How come there is no reference to them in the first statement and then several years later all of a sudden you remember them all when you give the second statement?

A. That was earlier in that garage in Lukavica.

Q. After the exchange was when you gave the first statement. In the first statement you didn't mention them, and in the second statement you gave to the investigators, you miraculously remembered them.

A. It must be the fault of the interpreter. They didn't interpret it correctly.

Q. Ah, well. The question -- the interpreter was to blame.

Q. You say that Adil Music and another Music were killed in fighting with local Serbs when somebody threw a bomb into the garage after brief fighting.

A. Yes. They hit us with Osa and Zolja hand-held rocket launchers. I didn't see them dying. They had planted misinformation that these brothers had killed each other, and that was not correct. ³⁰³¹¹

Q. They fought with local Serbs and that's how they lost their lives.

A. No. They were killed in their house.

Q. So there was no fighting.

A. They had only simple, personal firearms. How could they fight Pragas and rocket launchers? We were encircled.

Q. Very well. Mr. Music, you claim so in both statements. You were arrested by Tomo Elcic and Milan Elcic?

A. Correct.

Q. In the first statement you say that when you were arrested, they also arrested Adil Music, Zaim Music, and Miralem Music in a house next door.

A. Adil Music was forced to go inside, and another Music was forced to call out for his brother. They had gone to Hadzici to buy cigarettes because we were not allowed to move around. There were checkpoints and they would have been killed as the others were.

Q. Very well. In the second statement you say that in addition to you another person was arrested in your house; Miro Isic. Where is it in that statement?

A. It's Mirsad Isic, my brother-in-law who had come to look for his brother. His brother and another seven people.

Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking why you didn't mention him in the first statement.

A. I probably omitted it. But you have it in my statement that he had come to look for his brother because he was arrested in the barracks together with another seven Bosniaks who were trying to pull out. ³⁰³¹²

Q. So you simply forgot to mention him in the first statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. Tell me now, after you were arrested, you were taken to Alija Music's house where you personally saw -- and then you enumerate these people, a whole list. I don't have to read it out to you.

A. You don't have to.

Q. Were they all your neighbours?

A. Not all of them.

Q. But you named them all here.

A. Yes, because I know them. Those who are first on the list are my neighbours who my grandfather saved in the war before, and they were grateful to us, and in this war they were all killed, in Lukavica and elsewhere.

Q. What about the rest?

A. They are from Drazdovi [phoen], where my mother comes from, and we have a piece of land there, so I know all these people.

Q. So all of them are local people whom you knew?

A. Yes. That's who was there when I was arrested.

Q. You say you were first held in Hadzici and then in that car mechanic shop.

A. They forced us inside with the intention of executing us. Milosevic brothers, they are twin brothers, and there was also Duka who used to work in a book shop.

Q. First you were in the school building detained and then they took you to this car mechanic's shop. ³⁰³¹³

A. Yes. When we arrived, there was already a Croat person there.

Q. You also mention a certain Momo Stanimirovic and another person named Milos. Are they also from your area?

A. Momo Stanimirovic is from Serbia. He is also from Serbia. And I know when Kasim Dermisevic and Sehic, he has two last names, he told us that it was this Stanimirovic who beat him up. We had to feed him through a straw. They just threw him on the ground. He lay there on the pallets. He was not able to move. He was beaten by those two men.

Q. You know their full names, this Milos Cerovina, is he also from your area?

A. Milos Cerovina?

Q. Yes.

A. He was from Cerovik. And when they took us to the toilets to beat us up --

Q. I'm only asking if he's a local resident.

A. Yes. His sister worked with me in the Coca Cola company.

Q. From that garage they took you to a sports hall.

A. Yes.

Q. And in the first statement, paragraph 3, you say that the warden was a certain Momo Vujovic, and then you gave the names of Ignjatovic, Mihajlovic, Kuzman --

A. Yes.

Q. -- Djokic, Krajisnik. They were the guards. All of them without any exceptions are from your area; isn't that right?

A. Momo Vujovic worked with me for 15 years in Coca Cola. ³⁰³¹⁴

Q. I'm not asking about any one of them individually. All these people I mentioned are from your area; is that right?

A. This Djokic is not from our area.

Q. Where is he from?

A. I can't say.

Q. All right. When you're talking about what happened at the sports hall in Hadzici, you say that among the persons present you recognised a certain Fific and a certain Ljilja, a music teacher; is that right?

A. I didn't recognise him. He was recognised by a Bosniak called Salihic. I don't know his first name. He was in camp with us later. And he was in a privileged position. He's the only one who they didn't beat. He kept him and he said all the others should be killed, all this scum except for you.

Q. So this Fific and Ljilja, you call them Chetniks on this page.

A. There were others who came with them who had cream on their faces, gloves, what have you, not --

Q. But in paragraph 46 you call them Arkan's people, don't you?

A. That's what Momo Vujovic said to us. We said, Why did you let them beat us? We know each other. There was Sohic Ibro, a colleague who was also there with me. He said, How do we dare stand up to them, or how do we dare stand up to Seselj's men? They're going to kill us all.

Q. However in your second statement you say that you did not know Fific from earlier on and that he told you that these were Arkan's men.

A. How could I know him?

Q. So finally, who are these people; Arkan's men, Chetniks? What are ³⁰³¹⁵ they?

A. For me, they were hoodlums. That's what they were. They did the most terrible things. You just read up about all of that.

Q. In your first statement you did not mention Arkan's men. Did somebody suggest to you that these may have been Arkan's men?

A. I've already told you. The first time, on the 22nd of May when I come back, they beat up Adem Nuhanovic [phoen] and his son. Adem died and his son is a sick person now because of all -- everything that he suffered. This young boy was 16.

Q. I'm just asking you, Mr. Music, who made the suggestion to you that these were Arkan's men?

A. The guards said so.

Q. Oh, the guards?

A. Yes, because of course they didn't say, "We are from so-and-so."

Q. How long were you detained and where were you in Lukavica?

A. At the Slavisa Vajner Cica barracks in Lukavica from 1.00 onwards. We spent the night there.

Q. Tell me, why do you not mention in the first statement this military barracks Slavisa Vajner Cica?

A. What do you mean I didn't mention it?

Q. Well, I didn't see it in your statement. Maybe I made a mistake, but nowhere in your first statement did I manage to find any military barracks called Slavisa Vajner Cica.

A. I was not the only person there. 280 people were there.

Q. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you why you did not mention ³⁰³¹⁶ the military barracks or the soldiers in your first statement. What was the date when you were detained there in the military barracks?

A. The 22nd of June, 1992.

Q. Well were these members of the army of Republika Srpska or the JNA on the 22nd of June?

A. The 22nd of June?

Q. Yes.

A. The members of the JNA. And the berets were there, those guys from Serbia.

Q. All right. In paragraph 75 of your second statement you say that on -- or, rather, you said that on the 22nd of June, JNA soldiers were in Lukavica in the military barracks near Sarajevo. And in paragraph 75 of your second statement, you describe the mistreatment that you were subjected to you, you and your brother Miralem.

A. That was on the 23rd of June in the morning.

Q. All right. You do not mention that at all in your first statement?

A. What do you mean I don't mention it in my first statement? I can't forget that.

Q. Can you show me where you mention it in your first statement?

A. I don't know where the first statement is. You find it.

Q. Since I cannot find it, I'm asking you. I have the first statement, but you do not refer to the mistreatment.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe I can be of assistance. This is in this version dated the 18th of April, paragraph 5 ³⁰³¹⁷ of the English version; and the Serb version, Mr. Music, page 3, the last paragraph.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That's in the second statement.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what did you say it was?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The place that you referred to where your brother was mentioned, the third page, the last paragraph, where these persons were separated when you were singled out too. That is where it should be found.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But it's not there. I talk about Ilidza.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's not waste any time. It can be seen from the text.

A. Yes.

Q. And then, as you stated, they swore at you, they beat you. You say you were beaten by officers. One of them wore a cap from the Lika area because you recognised the coat of arms of Lika on it. Is that what you stated?

A. He was from Serbia because I did my military service in Serbia at Pantelej Bubanj, so I know that.

Q. Do you know where Lika is, though?

A. Listen, I know Serbo-Croat, and I know how people speak in Serbia. He was swearing, everything he could think of.

Q. Wait a minute. You say that he was from Lika and that he wore a cap from Lika. Does he talk the way people from Serbia talk or the way ³⁰³¹⁸ people from Lika talk?

A. He was from Serbia. I'm 100 per cent sure. One was a Montenegrin officer.

Q. But he was not from Lika.

A. He did not tell me where he was from. I didn't dare look at him.

Q. What does this coat of arms of Lika look like, the one you say you recognised?

A. Well, look, you're really going into details now.

Q. But you say that you saw the coat of arms of Lika. What does it look like?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, he said it. Now, let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, this man who wore this cap from Lika and the coat of arms of Lika, which army did he belong to; can you tell me that?

A. I know he was commander of the Red Berets, nothing else, because he kicked me later on. He kicked me in the rear, and he cursed my balija mother. He used the kind of words that people use in Serbia. He spoke Ekavian. I mean, come on. They worked with me in Germany for five years, people from Serbia and all of that. I mean, I have no reason to lie. Why would I say that they killed someone if I did not see that?

Q. Now look at paragraph 79, 80, and 82. You mention JNA officers, don't you?

A. JNA soldiers came in and they said, "Who beat you?" And they were the ones who were in front of the doors, and they were not supposed to let anyone in. And when we were all beaten up and covered with blood, they ³⁰³¹⁹ said, "Who beat you?" And then they were using expletives. I don't want to say that here.

And then in Lukavica I spent three nights actually.

Q. These soldiers you mentioned here, they did not beat you, right?

A. Soldiers did not beat us; it's the Red Berets who beat us.

Q. Wait a minute. They were with the soldiers. The soldiers did not beat you and then these men who were with the soldiers did beat you. Is that what you're trying to say?

A. Yes. They beat up my brother. He was half dead. I carried him in my own arms.

Q. All right. Tell me something else, please: Were these JNA soldiers and they did not beat you? That's what you said. Or were they soldiers of the army of Republika Srpska?

A. JNA soldiers. They were in the hallway there and they were supervising us. However, they allowed these people who wore berets to get in and beat us, as well as Arkan's men. And they were supposed to protect us, guard us, but this was some kind of a trick. You know what that's like, it was a kind of a game.

Q. Oh, so it was a game; one group was beating you and others were trying to rescue you.

A. Yes, like you and Kosovo.

Q. Mr. Music, in paragraph 117, you say that you were a member of the Commission for the Exchange of War Prisoners for the municipality of Hadzici from November 20, 1992 until June 30, 1996.

A. Yes. ³⁰³²⁰

Q. I imagine that while you worked for this commission you gathered a great deal of information about missing persons; isn't that right?

A. I wouldn't like to talk about this information.

Q. But do you have this information?

A. It is not for me to give it to you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, five minutes left.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No need, Mr. May. I don't even need those five minutes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm just asking you, Mr. Music, how can we trust the information of that commission when you said so many contradictory things while you were making these statements here?

JUDGE MAY: That's a pure matter -- that's a pure matter of comment. The witness doesn't have to answer. Is there anything else you want to ask?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. No, nothing. Thank you, Mr. May.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Music?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give another explanation in relation to your statement dated the 18th of April. If I understood you correctly a few minutes ago, you said that in this statement there was no mention of Arkan's men or of the Red Berets because that was mistranslated; is that right? ³⁰³²¹

A. On the 18th of April?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't know what you're talking about the 18th of April. Why are you talking about that?

Q. On the 8th of April, 1993, you gave your first statement. That is very close to the events that you describe.

A. Yes.

Q. And on the 18th of April, 1993, nowhere in this statement absolutely do you make any reference to Arkan's men or the Red Berets, and it is even more interesting to note that nowhere did you mention members of the Yugoslav People's Army. You only talked about Chetniks. Look at page 3, for example. I did the counting; you mentioned Chetniks 12 times, and you never mentioned the soldiers of the JNA or Arkan's men or the Red Berets. How can you explain that to the Judges that on the 18th of April, 1993, you absolutely did not mention them?

A. I didn't mention the 12th of April to you either of 1992 when 52 trucks came from Serbia, and in front of them were two tanks and two armoured vehicles and two combat vehicles. They drove through Hadzici and they went through the factory there, and then they went towards Crnovica [phoen] --

Q. Mr. Music, that's not what I asked you.

A. Well, just a minute, but I haven't told you about that either. And that's the main thing. And nobody dared stop them because they said, "We are doing whatever we want to do and whichever way we want to do it."

Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Music, but we haven't got much time. You gave this ³⁰³²² statement to the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is the statement that you gave to the security services of Bosnia-Herzegovina. You explained all these things to them, everything that you experienced, everything that you went through, and you never mentioned Arkan's men or the Red Berets or the members of the JNA anywhere.

A. It cannot be.

Q. All right. Look at the statement you gave on the 16th in the month of June to the OTP. Now, what year was this? We don't know. Never mind.

Look at paragraphs 16 and 17. You said here that on the 8th of May you saw -- some people, rather, said to you that they saw tanks and then there was serious shooting against you and also that tracers were used. Whose tanks were they, the ones that you mention in your statement to the OTP?

A. Well, of the JNA. If I had a tank, I wouldn't be sitting here now.

Q. Would you explain this to the Judges, please? How come you never mentioned those tanks in the statement that you gave in April, 1993 and all of a sudden, five years later, you refer to JNA tanks that you never mentioned before?

A. Listen, I'm just going to tell you one thing: I don't even like to be reminded of all of this. There are people who have forgotten, even when they were detained or when they got out, and there were people who were asked in prison what their wives names were but they were so starved and so mistreated that they had lost their memory and couldn't even answer ³⁰³²³ that.

Q. Thank you. Now please look at paragraph 75. You described in detail to the OTP everything that had to do with your brother. Miralem is your very own brother; right?

A. Yes.

Q. What you said here was: "As I was passing through this hallway, I saw a man who was lying on the ground. They told me to lift him. I saw that it was my brother Miralem. I brought him to a room and we ran the gauntlet in order to get to that room."

Q. Is that what you said and is that the way it was?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, please look at your statement of the 18th of April.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is paragraph 5 of that statement in English.

Q. You say in that paragraph you did not mention your very own brother anywhere. Nowhere whatsoever. And you did not talk officers, you talked about a Chetnik whose nickname was Crni Mrak, "pitch dark," and he beat you. How do you explain that? How come you never mentioned your very own brother in that statement? Because, after all, one's very own brother is something one cannot forget, especially if he lost his life there.

A. My very own brother was dead by then when Crni Mrak beat me. They lined us up. There was so much blood that you could step on. I had to keep my hands up here on my head, like this. And he was taller than me, he weighed a hundred kilos. He was taller than me by a head and I never ³⁰³²⁴ heard of him again. They took them away. They probably took them to Pale and they burned them down.

Q. Well, you don't have to explain this to me. Of course this is your brother, but then on the 18th of April when you were questioned by the security services, you did not talk about this most tragic thing that happened, that your brother lost his life then and there. How do you explain that?

A. Well, look, I didn't say that he was dead there. Later on when we talked in camp, we heard about this, I didn't see it.

Q. But that's not in your statement either.

A. Well, I cannot know where they took him. On the 23rd in the morning, they beat us up and they took 47 people and I was the 48th person.

Q. All right. Just one more thing because I haven't got much time. I would like the Honourable Judges to assess this: You talk about Ljilja too who used to teach your daughters at the technical school. She used to teach a particular subject.

A. Music.

Q. All right. When you mention Ljilja here - that is paragraph 3 of the English version, and you will find it in the first paragraph on page 3 - when you talked about Ljilja there, the music teacher who worked in Hadzici, you say Ljilja figured prominently because when any of the detainees would collapse on the floor from the beatings, she would jump on them. Do you remember having stated that?

A. It happened right in front of my feet. She was jumping up and ³⁰³²⁵ down on a man who was 70 years old, and the man cried. It was a terrible thing. Were they drugged? Were they drunk? I don't know what was wrong with them. They brought rifles, knives. What they did to people. I mean, they molested everybody. They made a man walk around the hall and to curse our Turkish mothers.

Q. I understand, but look, when you made a statement five years later, you didn't say that any more. You said: "I recognised her because she used to teach my daughters at the technical school in Ilidza. I saw her taking off a man's trousers and telling another man to --" well, do something, something that has to do with sexual intercourse. I don't want to read this now in the interest of public morality. They had to do that.

A. Yes.

Q. So why did you not state it the first time and why was this heard much later, and other witnesses refer to it here? How come you didn't mention it then?

A. Well, look, how can you say that when this neighbour of mine is still alive? And what would it look like if I were to speak about that? Do you understand that?

Q. How did she force him to do this? How did --

A. She wanted to slit his throat.

Q. But you did not talk about this earlier. Then she took off this man's trousers, and of course I'm not going to read this out because the Judges can read it.

A. Yes. ³⁰³²⁶

Q. You did not talk about this earlier, so why are you talking about it now? Could you please explain that?

A. What have I got to explain to you? I mentioned everything in my statement and it's for the Judges to decide. It's not for me.

Q. That's right. Thank you.

MS. PACK: Very quick question in re-examination Re-examined by Ms. Pack:

Q. Mr. Music, it's been -- it may be that it's been suggested to you in your questioning by Mr. Tapuskovic and the accused that you have in your June 1997 statement made up what you said about Arkan's men, about the Red Berets, and the JNA tanks, and even the death of your own brother. Is that the case, that you made up this evidence in your June 1997 statement?

A. Your Honours, Your Honours, I did not make up anything.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... matter. That was the question. Yes.

You were asked if you made anything up in your evidence to us, Mr. Music. Can you deal with that, please?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

MS. PACK: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Music, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are now free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

[The witness withdrew] ³⁰³²⁷

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Agha, time is rather short, but we'll see what we can do in terms of getting through as much as we can of this witness's evidence. Obviously the quicker you are, the better.

MR. AGHA: Yes, Your Honour. I'll try to be.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

MR. AGHA: So the Prosecution would call Witness B-1770, please. Your Honours, I believe he is a protected witness, so if I may ask for the blinds, please. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Agha, we can go to 3.40 with this witness. We can't sit beyond that, which may present difficulties in terms of timing.

MR. AGHA: I can certainly be through my part very shortly, and if need be, the witness may have to come back, but hopefully we can see what we can do.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. 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.

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

WITNESS: WITNESS B-1770

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Mr. Agha:

Q. Witness B-1770, did you gave a statement to the Office of the Prosecution on the 13th of March, 2002, which is now before you and signed by you?

A. Yes. Yes, I did. ³⁰³²⁸

Q. And is that your name on the front of the statement?

A. Yes.

MR. AGHA: May I please request the Chamber that this statement be admitted under 89(F) and be assigned an exhibit number.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Exhibit number, please.

THE REGISTRAR: 616, Your Honour, under seal.

MR. AGHA: Thank you, Your Honours. There is a proofing summary for this witness, but I intend just to very briefly skip over that so we can move along.

In essence, this witness was a Bosniak who went to Srebrenica in 1993, where he experienced shelling from the Serbian side of the Drina. He then moved along to the Zepa enclave, and after the Srebrenica and Zepa enclaves were taken in July 1995 by the Bosnian Serb forces, he swam over the River Drina and entered into Serbia. On reaching Serbia he was arrested by soldiers of the VJ, Yugoslav Army. He was then taken to two detention facilities but spent a period of about six months in the latter one. Whilst he was in such facility in Serbia, he was given insufficient food, water, he was beaten and was generally maltreated. Now, that, very briefly, is the essence of the witness's evidence, and that is the end of examination-in-chief, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If we could get through the witness, Mr. Milosevic, so much the better. If we can. If we can't, of course, then we will have to adjourn, but let's see how we get on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will try to make my cross-examination very efficient. ³⁰³²⁹ Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. B-1770, in the first paragraph of your statement you say that you decided to testify here because you were very angry when you heard that I stated here that we had saved 8 to 900 Muslims. I suppose you mean that brigade that swam across the Drina River and were admitted by our authorities who took care of them. Is that why you came here? Is that what made you angry?

A. I was not angry, I was indignant because I know how we were admitted and treated in that camp in Mitrovica.

Q. The fact that you -- our authorities did admit that brigade of yours, which I think counted 840 people, if I remember correctly, is something different. You gave your statement on the 11th, 12th, and 13th of March, 2002 and less than a month before that proceedings started here concerning Kosovo not Bosnia-Herzegovina. How come that you heard this piece of evidence or my statement at that time?

A. I read somewhere this statement where you said that you saved 8 to 900 people from the Zepa enclave and you talked about some sort of admission centre, and I know exactly how it was.

Q. That is easy to establish, because the entire international press corps visited the men from that brigade and all that was stated was stated in the presence of international media representatives. I'm asking you how is it possible that you were indignant on the 11th of March when the proceedings here were only about Kosovo? There was no mention of Zepa, Bosnia, or anything of the kind.

A. I heard your statement on television in which you said that you ³⁰³³⁰ had rescued 8 to 900 men, including me, but I know exactly what kind of rescue that was.

Q. That's precisely what I'm asking you. How were you able to know that before the 11th of March when the proceedings here concerned only Kosovo?

A. There was talk about Srebrenica as well.

Q. Never mind. That's easy to establish. Can you remember, perhaps, when I made that statement? How long was it between that statement and your indignation?

(redacted) (redacted)

then. And they told me you can only go there and say so on the spot. They gave me the telephone number of Tribunal, and I called and applied to testify.

Q. That could not have been your motive because there was no talk about Bosnia then. That was, however, the first reason you gave.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let's not waste too much time arguing about this kind of point. He's given his reason and given his explanation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I hope it is not in dispute that this explanation cannot be truthful.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm interested in the second motivation you allege here for your decision to testify and that is that you had no freedom of movement because you are not allowed to go back to the place where you used to ³⁰³³¹ live.

A. That's correct.

Q. Mr. 1770, where are you residing now? Where did you live when you gave that statement to the investigators in March 2002? (redacted)

(redacted) tell me, who is it who restricted your freedom of movement and did not allow you to go back to where you used to live?

A. Your co-combatants, the people who live there, the people who expelled me.

Q. So after the war, you were not able to go back to your hometown?

A. I did not. I did not dare to. And even now I don't dare to.

Q. Why?

A. Because I have been through all kinds of things during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The consequences are still there, and some people have come to positions they should not have occupied.

Q. I'm trying to understand your motivation. Your real motivation does not seem to be to coincide with the reason you state here. Is it true that you came back to Bosnia in August 1996? (redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) ³⁰³³² (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted)

Q. Is my impression correct that you were in fact forced to do that job? You did not do it of your own free will? You were designated, assigned to that job?

A. I was not assigned. I was hard up for money, I had no job, and I had to earn money somehow to keep my family alive.

Q. Were you perhaps designated to do this job because you were treated by the BH army as a deserter precisely because in July 1995 you deserted and found refuge in Serbia?

A. I did not desert. We were expelled. All of us from the enclave ³⁰³³³ of Zepa and the enclave of Srebrenica were driven out. We were not deserters and were not treated as such.

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted)

A. Yes, it was in 1999.

Q. And you say that you got an eviction order to leave the house which you occupied.

A. Yes. I received this eviction order. I had to live in this abandoned house. I had no other way, except to Republika Srpska where I did not dare go.

Q. But that was in the area controlled by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it was the Muslims who expelled you.

A. No, it was not the Muslims, it was the rules.

Q. Okay. The rules. Then in the year 2000 you asked for asylum and you left Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A. Correct.

Q. So you and your family did not leave Bosnia and Herzegovina because of Serbs but because of the attitude of your own authorities towards you.

A. Sir, in view of the fact that I am from a town called Bijela, which is now within the Serb entity of the former Bosnia-Herzegovina and I was expelled as a non-Serb after all the things I had gone through there under that government and during the war, I shudder at the mere thought of going back. My own child was killed, I don't even know where he is ³⁰³³⁴ buried.

Q. I'm very sorry to hear that, sir. But you were not really expelled from that house in the territory of Republika Srpska, which is what you call a Serb entity. It was in the territory of the Federation, wasn't it?

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted)

A. There is another reason. Another reason is that I cannot return to my own property, to the place where I used to live and work.

Q. But in Bosnia and Herzegovina you are allowed to reside.

A. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, yes.

Q. And in paragraph 73, you say that you cannot go back to Luka, which is the municipality of Zepa.

A. It was in the municipality of Srebrenica, but it belonged to the ³⁰³³⁵ Zepa enclave.

Q. And the reason is fear.

A. Great fear.

Q. All right. Tell me. Why didn't you go back to some other town in the territory of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina outside of Republika Srpska?

A. Sir, the Dayton Accords set such rules to prevent ethnic cleansing. I was a former camp inmate with all the bad experience of living there that I had. I had lived for four years under siege, and even now there are the same troops that had driven us out, and the people who treated us like cattle. I shudder at the mere thought of going back. It's impossible.

Q. All right. You claim that you are an expelled person, that you spent time in some sort of camps in Serbia, that you are a person who got injured on a very high-responsibility job that you were doing for the benefit of your own state, and you say you are not allowed to go back to your own country. Why?

A. I gave you my reasons.

Q. In some of the first paragraphs of your statement where you describe the general situation in the area of Srebrenica, Bratunac, and Luka, where you lived until July 1995, you describe in various ways your fears and misgivings in relation to the Serbs.

A. That's true. Radovan Karadzic is still at large.

Q. All right. All right. Tell me this: You who were so afraid of Serbs in Bosnia, you say the terrible things happened there, and of course ³⁰³³⁶ war is a terrible thing. How come that you decided to go to Serbia and seek cover and refuge there?

A. Sir, I made that decision together with a man who worked for an enterprise in Serbia. We made our plans together, and we planned to pass unnoticed via Macedonia.

Q. Does that mean that you were not together with that brigade that swam across the Drina River and who were admitted by our authorities?

A. It was not a brigade. It was men, women, and children.

Q. So you were not a part of that brigade that was admitted by our authorities after swimming across the Drina River.

A. If I had, I would be in the Sljivovica camp in Mitrovo Polje.

Q. Never mind. We'll establish that easily. In paragraphs 23 and 24, you described the reasons why you decided to leave the Zepa enclave and to go straight to Serbia, where, as you say, you were threatened the most.

Tell me, how large were the forces of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina that were present in Zepa when you decided to leave?

A. I don't know. I wasn't there.

Q. Tell me, why did you decide to run away from Serbs to Serbia, leaving behind your family, wife and three children, if there were no Serbs in Zepa at that time?

A. They arrived. They torched the surrounding villages, came in, transported women and children, and we were left at their mercy. Since it was a UN protected area and the people were disarmed, even the people who used to have weapons, I came across people who had survived the tragedy of ³⁰³³⁷ Srebrenica, who were going back from the free territory in Tuzla. They told me about the terrible things they had survived, and I had no thought of going to the free territory.

Q. Tell me, were you running away from the Serbs or were you running away from the possibility of being mobilised into the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. I was running away from -- from criminals and villains but Serb villains.

Q. There were many directions in which you could have run away, but you chose one which was controlled by Serbs, unlike many others. Was it possible to go elsewhere?

A. No, not at the time. It wasn't.

Q. In paragraph 24, you say that, "I decided to go my own way so as to give at least one of us a chance of surviving."

A. I was together with my three brothers, and I heard stories from the survivors of Srebrenica about all the dangers that were awaiting us, and I decided that we should split so that at least some of us should survive, because I was almost certain, 99 per cent certain, that we would all get killed.

Q. You wanted to survive, at least some of you, but you had a wife and three children.

A. I think that it was on the 25th. They were transported to the free territory.

Q. So this happened before you decided to escape to Serbia.

A. Yes, that's correct. ³⁰³³⁸

Q. Do you know that this large group of combatants from the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 840 of them who found refuge in Serbia, were motivated by their desire to avoid fighting in the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina any longer?

A. Our objective was to stay alive; to find peace somewhere and to stay alive.

Q. Very well. In many places in your statement, you refer to torture that you were exposed to in Serbia.

A. That's correct.

Q. I absolutely assert that it cannot be true. Tell me, when conflicts began in your region, you said that you weighed 85 to 90 kilos. That's in paragraph 5 of your statement. And in the same paragraph, you say that on the 2nd August, 1995, when you were allegedly arrested in Serbia, you weighed 96 kilos.

A. Close to that. Close to my arrest.

Q. So that's in paragraph 35, not 5. You say that you lost 30 to 35 kilos during your detention in Serbia.

A. That's correct.

Q. Mr. 1770, you were given a permit to travel issued by the High Commissioner of -- High Representative for Refugees in Srebrenica, and your photograph is under tab 2. I won't put it on the ELMO because you're a protected witness, but I would like to draw the attention of all those who can look up tab 2.

You gentlemen obviously don't have it.

A. I have it. ³⁰³³⁹

Q. Is that you in the photo?

A. I had my passport in my pocket.

Q. What it says here, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Provisional Travel Certificate. Is that so?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Your name is stated here, and then it says, "Office of the Chief of the Mission in Yugoslavia," all your details are indicated and your photograph is here.

A. Correct.

Q. And you have that document in your pocket?

A. I do.

Q. Please be so kind to look at it, then. That photograph was taken in early December 1995?

A. Correct. In fact, I don't know exactly when it was taken.

Q. Well, I suppose it was taken when this paper was issued, around the 8th of December, 1995.

A. Yes. Based on this photo, and the details of your height - all this is written in the travel permit - one can calculate very precisely your weight at the time when this photograph was taken. I don't see the face of an emaciated man who had been starved. I see a relatively well-nourished person. Do you have anything to say to this?

A. When the people from the Red Cross weighed us, I told them that I had lost a lot of weight. I weighed 50 something kilos. And one of the people who were there told me, "Don't worry, we'll fatten you up." And that's what really happened. Humanitarian aid arrived. They increased ³⁰³⁴⁰ our rations, they gave us some ten biscuits of some military-type rations per day, and when it was all over, I was surprised to see how much weight I really gained.

Q. So the case as you describe it is that you were first starved, lost a lot of weight, and then gained back some weight before you got this travel permit. Is that what you're saying?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that your now late President Izetbegovic said, when all of you, the entire brigade, fled to Serbia - and obviously you were not there because you said you went with some other man to Skopje - he said that we should hand you all over to the authorities.

A. I did not know that the then-President Alija Izetbegovic asked for us to be returned, because we did not have any communications, any information, no newspapers, radio, nothing. We didn't even dare look around the facilities where we were staying let alone listen to something like that.

Q. Well, it's not going to be a problem, these 840 persons.

A. No. There was about 950 of them, because there were about 800 in Sljivovica, and others were at the other camp.

Q. You mean you were staying at Mount Tara?

A. We passed that way.

Q. Do you know about this unit that swam across the Drina River? The entire diplomatic corps went to see it on the very next day, after they swam over the Drina River.

A. What do you mean diplomatic corps? What is this corps? ³⁰³⁴¹

Q. Diplomats accredited in Belgrade from dozens of embassies.

A. That's right, we were visited by them, yes. They came with truncheons. Oh, didn't we have a good time when they came.

Q. So Izetbegovic and his government were informed about the fact that you swam across. And I publicly stated that you were free to leave Serbia and go wherever you wished to go, to any country.

A. Sir, I don't know what you stated. I don't know whether anybody was looking for us, I mean the government in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I just know what happened to us there, that we were not informed about anything or, rather, that we were not entitled to receive any information. I didn't have the right to see my nephew who was underage and he was at the next-door facility.

Q. Do you know that all of these men, and I don't have a list here, this list was made at that time by the international organisations, but all of those who were in the territory of Serbia then who had crossed to the territory of Serbia on that occasion were always under the supervision of the International Red Cross? And there is not a single official complaint in respect of your treatment or the treatment of other Muslims who were part of this large group. As far as I can remember, it was 840 men that swam across the Drina River.

A. I find this ridiculous. It was terrible. A young boy underage, 15. I think he died in this camp where I was.

Q. You yourself say in paragraph 41 that the Serb authorities brought representatives of the International Red Cross to your room.

A. That's right. ³⁰³⁴²

Q. To show them how they took good care of you.

A. Yes, precise. It was an equipped room, a room equipped with beds in order to be shown to the Red Cross and the UNHCR.

Q. So they moved about freely in other rooms?

A. Well, later, about three months later.

Q. No. No. They were there from the very first day. That can even be seen from the newspaper. So what was it that was concealed from the members of the International Red Cross; bruises, malnourishment? This was never established by members of the International Red Cross. How could this have been concealed from them?

A. That's right. They were not given proper access to Sljivovica I think for about three months.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, if I may make this observation: You mentioned this incident that you saved the 840 people during the opening statement in February 18th of last year. So when you asked about the witness's motive, so the witness may have referred to this, your statements of last year. So you said that you couldn't have mentioned this because the trial was on the Kosovo phase.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Kwon. What matters here is that what I'm saying is the truth, that is rescuing these 840 men and taking care of them in Serbia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So are you able to give me the name and surname or rank or affiliation with some unit or the MUP or the army of Yugoslavia, the MUP of Serbia or the army of Yugoslavia of any person who you claim mistreated ³⁰³⁴³ you or who behaved towards you in some way which was not in line with human dignity?

A. Sir, they never introduced themselves to us. When we went out for breakfast, we had to run the gauntlet, and they would beat us with rifles butts. At any rate, they would beat us that way in the morning and in the evening. And also during the night they called out our names or they'd come to the door, and quite simply if they'd see anyone who was physically a bit more capable, they'd take them out into the hall and beat them, two or three men. And then also when they were taken downstairs by your men -- I remember Vlado Karadza, for instance, and Slavenko. Slavenko was a military man. During the first month, he was there around us all the time.

Q. Are you trying to say that this is someone who beat you?

A. Yes, yes, precisely.

Q. Very well. Now, you mentioned a name and it can be corroborated easily. Everything that has to do with this Muslim brigade is rather transparent anyway.

Tell me, after leaving Serbia, did you undergo any kind of medical examination or any kind of check-up to see whether there were any traces of these alleged beatings that you had sustained in Serbia?

A. The International Red Cross people talked to us, sort of. We weren't examined.

Q. Is this when they came to see you when you were staying in Serbia?

A. In camp in Serbia.

Q. Yes. You were under constant supervision of the International Red ³⁰³⁴⁴ Cross?

A. No. They came to see us twice a month.

Q. And you saw them every time and they saw you every time?

A. They brought us messages. They used to take us out. Sometimes then used to take us out of the room into the hall. They would give us messages and also tobacco.

Q. Oh, they brought you cigarettes and letters.

A. Yes, letters that had all sorts of things crossed out, things that somebody did not like, somebody who censored the letters.

Q. Did anybody from the International Red Cross establish some kind of malnourishment or mistreatment during your stay in Serbia?

A. Believe me, I didn't ask them. I believe that if they worked properly, that they did note this.

Q. Do you have a shred of evidence for all this that you have been saying?

A. For what?

Q. For what you're saying, that you were mistreated.

A. I have a lot of evidence.

Q. What kind of evidence?

A. Well, that a man suffocated when travelling towards the camp of Sljivovica on a truck because there wasn't enough air. There were too many of us under the tarpaulin.

Q. Do you know, Mr. 1770, that with regard to this event that you are talking about here, there is a great deal of video footage, and also the direct observations of members of the diplomatic corps in Belgrade and ³⁰³⁴⁵ many reports of international humanitarian organisations, and there is not a bit of what you've been saying here in any of that?

A. Well, there is evidence of that. I think it was your television, Television Serbia, that made a programme. A man had to read a thank you letter addressed to you - that was pitiful - saying that you were so noble.

Q. Oh, so you were not met there, saved, rescued. You were not taken care of, fed, but you were beaten. That's what you're trying to say?

A. Exactly. It was a camp. It was a real camp, a torture camp.

Q. All right. It is very good that you say that because there are so many documents about this. Just tell me one more thing: Who is the author of this report on refugees who fled to Serbia after Zepa fell? This is a report about refugees who fled to Serbia after Zepa fell. That is the Sandzak Helsinki Committee.

A. I don't know that paper, I don't know where it came from.

Q. Oh, you don't know. All right, I'm not going to ask you anything about that.

Q. On the 9th of December, 2001, you gave a statement to a certain Bjorn Johnson in Sweden; is that right?

A. Yes, yes, correct.

Q. Or Johnsson. I'm not very familiar with Swedish last names.

A. A very nice man, a fine gentleman Mr. Bjorn Johnsson.

Q. Look at what it says here: "During the interview at the immigration office in Gothenburg -" I'm not going to give your name which is here - "he did not speak about the above-mentioned events. He only ³⁰³⁴⁶ said that he had been in camps and then in the United States." So that is what it written here in what you say is a report of this fine gentleman. You did not write about the events that you spoke of here. It was just established that you had been in a camp there and then in the United States of America.

A. Yes, correct, because I have an ID from a camp and also a Red Cross ID. So they didn't ask for any explanations. This was sufficient proof for them, the ID and the certificate from the UNHCR and the Red Cross.

Q. All right. Just one more thing.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I shall remain within the time frame that you asked for.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On this page that has a particular ERN number and that was given to Mr. Johnsson: "Since he did not manage to transfer his family to the United States, he returned to Bosnia and sustained a wound due to a shrapnel. The family fled to --" and that was now redacted -- "in September 2000." So it can be seen here that you were fleeing from something in the Federation. Can you explain what that was?

A. Well, you see, it's quite correct. It can be seen that I left the Federation for the following reason: I cannot think of going back to the Serb Republic where I had lived before the war. I don't dare go there. However, the rules that exist now in Bosnia-Herzegovina say that people who lived in the Serb Republic before the war, if they lost their status or if they were not registered in the Federation have to return to the ³⁰³⁴⁷ Serb Republic. Since I do not dare go there, I have no choice, so I had to move on.

Q. All right. You weren't fleeing from anything in particular from the Federation?

A. Nothing.

Q. Thank you very much, Mr. 1770.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will really try to finish within a few minutes.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Witness, in paragraph 26 you gave an explanation, but if I understood you correctly, you said that you were expelled from Bosnia and that you left Bosnia against your own will.

A. The Serb Republic.

Q. All right. In paragraph 26, take a look. You said here: Six of us men decided to cross the driver. They were Alija Beganovic, his nephew Jasmin, who was 16 years old at the time. There were three other guys but I can't remember their names. So the six of you decided to cross the Drina, to swim across the Drina, and that's what you did.

A. Exactly.

Q. Now please look at paragraph 67: The ICRC started talking to us in December and they asked me where I wanted to go.

A. Yes.

Q. I said as far away as possible and as soon as opinion. The ICRC representative never said anything to me because I don't think they really checked those papers at all. The first group of detainees, about 200, ³⁰³⁴⁸ went to Australia. The second, of which I was a part, there were 112 or 120 of us, left for the United States. The third or last group - I don't know for sure - went to France. So whoever wanted to go could go wherever they wanted to go. Nobody prevented them from doing is that; is that right?

A. They could go with the assistance of the UNHCR and the Red Cross. They could go to third countries. There were people who wanted to return to Bosnia-Herzegovina, however, that was not possible for them. That is what the bosses at the camp said: Don't you dare think about that, no one can go there.

Q. But you did go where you wanted to go.

A. Now, why did I say as far away as possible and as soon as possible?

A. I wanted to leave this torture and this terrible life as soon as possible.

Q. But from Serbia, you were allowed to go wherever you wanted to go.

A. Who allowed me to do that?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No further questions.

MR. AGHA: Yes, Your Honour. If I might, very briefly, ask the witness just one question in re-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Certainly ask him one question. Yes. Re-examined by Mr. Agha:

Q. Now, Witness, it's been mentioned by the accused and amici that actually people were taken into Serbia who had swam across the Drina and they were actually treated quite well and you were free to go and you were ³⁰³⁴⁹ looked after. Now, if I could just kindly -- I mean, before I come to this, and actually there's nobody who can sort of confirm or back up what you're contending, so if I could just refer you to your actual statement and tab number 3 of your package, if you'd kindly be provided with that. It's tab 4, actually.

MR. AGHA: If Your Honours are able to find this.

Q. And this is actually an extract from the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, which was annexed to the witness's statement. Now, could you just please very briefly read the three points which are mentioned, 1, 2, 3 --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: He said he didn't know this.

MR. AGHA: Well, it's actually in his statement.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, but during the cross-examination he said he didn't know this, but you can re-examine on it.

MR. AGHA:

Q. Could you just kindly read out that extract of the report?

JUDGE MAY: I'm not sure about this. Do you know about this, Mr. 1770 or not? Do you know about this report?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The lawyer put this in front of me and asked me whether I knew the people from this list. He said to me how I should mark the persons I knew, that I should mark the names of those who I knew, and that's what I did. I also marked those who were my family members, relatives. I know quite a few of these people. All of ³⁰³⁵⁰ these people are alive. They can talk just like I'm talking now.

MR. AGHA:

Q. And what does the report say, record about them, where they were?

A. This report pertains to a list of men who were in Sljivovica and Mitrovo Polje, the two camps, in 1995. It says that they were not in Sljivovica for a long time, or, rather, that they were not reported to the Red Cross on time, and also with the Helsinki Committee. Somebody made this list. I really have no idea who made this list. The only thing I was asked to do was to underline the names of the persons I knew from this list, the persons I knew personally. And I know quite a few of them because we were together, quite a few.

MR. AGHA: Thank you. That's all, Your Honours. The list speaks for itself. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Witness B-1770, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go. If you would just wait while the blinds are drawn. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Is there no chance of two minutes in private session? Is it too late?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. A very short two minutes.

JUDGE MAY: So, Witness, if you wouldn't mind waiting and we'll just go into private session for this.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) ³⁰³⁵¹ Page 30351 - redacted - private session.

³⁰³⁵² (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.49 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day of

December, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.