1 Wednesday, 10 September 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

6 MR. NICE: Your Honour, two short matters before the witness

7 returns. First, there was yesterday a notification that we would be

8 seeking to change the order of the next two witnesses from C-007 -- sorry,

9 from being Van Baal followed by C-007 to being C-007 followed by Van Baal.

10 The reason for that notification was that we understood that if C-007 was

11 detained until tomorrow as opposed to being completed today, there would

12 be very substantial travel cost implications. In the event, when I

13 checked the matter further, there are no significant implications.

14 I'm sorry that that notification was given because it was

15 avoidable. I don't know if either the amicus or the accused has made

16 preparations based on the notification. We are happy to proceed with

17 either ordering of the witnesses today.

18 JUDGE MAY: I'd be grateful if these changes could be kept to a

19 minimum. I understand there may be occasional logistic difficulties, but

20 it does add very much to the strain on those involved in the case if there

21 are changes of this sort.

22 So the plan is that we hear Mr. Van Baal as originally notified

23 and then C-007.

24 MR. NICE: Indeed, unless the accused or the amicus, having

25 received our letter yesterday, would now prefer us to go into the other

1 order.

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Kay, any problems about that?

3 MR. KAY: Yes. We had changed our arrangements, but we are able

4 to go back to how we'd originally planned it. So we're happy with it

5 reverting to the original order.

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard the story. I don't know

7 whether you got the message that they were thinking of calling C-007

8 first. Are you ready if in fact we start with Mr. Van Baal?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Van Baal, according to the list

10 I received, was due to testify today. This is the first I hear of C-007.

11 But otherwise, I agree.

12 There's something else that I should like to raise, Mr. May. Last

13 night --

14 JUDGE MAY: Sorry. Let me just get that straight. So we will --

15 we will finish the witness we're hearing. We will then go on with

16 Mr. Van Baal, but there is one other matter first. I'll return to what

17 you wanted to raise.

18 But the other matter was Witness B-1610. Did you want to ask him

19 any further questions?

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is the witness for whom you

21 provided additional transcript yesterday; is that right?

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, the additional matter yesterday.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have nothing to ask in connection

24 with that additional material except to say that it is visible from that

25 material too that earlier he indicated an officer of whom he said was on

1 the spot. He said that he was a representative of the army of Republika

2 Srpska and not of the JNA. So that's what he said in that additional

3 material as well, but I have no reason to call him to ask him more about

4 that. I just wished to draw your attention to that point.

5 JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.

6 We note what you say, and you can draw our attention to it at an

7 appropriate time.

8 Mr. Nice, it would appear that witness can be released.

9 MR. NICE: Thank you very much. The other very short matter is

10 this --

11 JUDGE MAY: There was another matter from Mr. Milosevic.

12 Yes. There was something else you wanted to raise.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to say, Mr. May, that I

14 never received any response regarding my objection to an enormous amount

15 of material that is being disclosed to me. Most recently, there was

16 additional material. In fact, last night I received this pile of material

17 relating to Mr. Van Baal, and this morning, just before entering the

18 courtroom, I received some additional matter relating to Mr. Van Baal who

19 is going to testify now. The night before last, I received this large

20 pile of documents in the Detention Unit regarding Mr. Ramic, who is

21 testifying now. So I received it on the eve of his appearance, and I feel

22 that this is not permissible practice.

23 Furthermore, I should like to remind you once again that many

24 months ago and several times since, I asked you when you think I will have

25 time to review thousands of tapes and about half a million pages that I

1 have been served with, and your response has always been that you will

2 consider the matter. I never received your answer. And this additional

3 provision of piles and piles of documents during the testimony of

4 witnesses I think is totally unacceptable, as is the practice of

5 accumulation of material which it is physically impossible to read

6 through.

7 JUDGE MAY: During the course of the trial there have been many

8 breaks which has given you the opportunity to review other matter, but of

9 course if there is a specific matter, we will look at it, and in

10 particular, we will inquire of the Prosecution what is going on at the

11 moment.

12 Mr. Nice, can you help us? And it's not satisfactory if a great

13 deal of material is disclosed late. I bear in mind, of course, that you

14 will say that all this material has been disclosed before.

15 MR. NICE: Not necessarily on this occasion. I think that so far

16 as Mr. Ramic is concerned, some of the material disclosed under Rule 68

17 was disclosed late. I'll find out further why it wasn't disclosed

18 earlier. I'll check on the position in relation to General Van Baal

19 before he comes to give evidence, and I'll give you an account then, if I

20 may. But as to Mr. Ramic, there was, I think, some late disclosure as to

21 the various court records, some of which the accused may have turned to or

22 may be turning to this morning.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, what is the full extent, in

24 quantitative terms, of the late disclosure?

25 MR. NICE: In relation to Mr. Ramic, again I'd have to find out.

1 I can't give it to you immediately. But on this occasion I don't think

2 I'm in a position to say it's repeat disclosure.

3 As you will know, the Rule 68 obligations on us are very

4 extensive, which is why, of course, we had another meeting yesterday with

5 the amicus in order to ensure that everything that was being done that

6 could be done, meetings which, as you know, unfortunately the accused's

7 associates do not attend despite always being invited.

8 We endeavour through those meetings to ensure that parameters are

9 set to ensure timely production of Rule 68 material. Whether there has

10 been an oversight on this occasion or a change of parameter or some other

11 reason for the late disclosure, I don't know, but I will look into it and

12 report back to you both as to quantity and the reason.

13 JUDGE MAY: I think we must set aside some time in the next week

14 to consider these matters, but I think now we should get on with the

15 witness.

16 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, this is the amount I

18 received for Mr. Ramic, this pile for Ramic the night before last, for a

19 witness who started testifying yesterday.

20 Secondly, you gave me an additional 45 minutes for Mr. Ramic

21 yesterday, but I have too many documents and more questions, so that 45

22 minutes will not be sufficient, so I wanted to ask you for an extension of

23 time for the cross-examination of this witness.

24 JUDGE MAY: Let us begin the cross-examination. We will consider

25 the matter in due course.

1 Yes.

2 MR. NICE: One other very short matter. The Chamber will recall

3 that the witness Lilic produced some documents of Council for

4 Harmonisation meetings which contained stenographic notes of what the

5 participants, including the accused, said. They've been submitted for

6 translation. They're now back in draft translation form, about 700 pages

7 in English. The revised authorised translation will probably take several

8 more weeks. There's nothing we can do about that. The accused, of

9 course, has the originals so he will understand the documents should he

10 need to cross-examine on them.

11 I inquire whether the Chamber would like to have these documents,

12 which are potentially valuable documents and may contain exculpatory

13 material on which the accused may rely, or apparently exculpatory material

14 on which he may rely earlier or whether they'd rather wait until several

15 weeks pass and the official versions are available.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE MAY: We'll have the draft translation.

18 MR. NICE: Thank you.

19 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll have the --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just say, Mr. May, that I

21 don't have those documents of the Council for Harmonisation that Mr. Nice

22 and Mr. Lilic have provided.

23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Nice, perhaps you would check that out,

24 please.

25 MR. NICE: I will.

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's have the witness.

2 MR. NICE: While the witness is coming in, the accused may wish to

3 check Exhibit 469, tabs 39 to 46, I'm informed.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 WITNESS: MUSTAFA RAMIC [Resumed]

6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

7 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, I'm sorry you've been kept waiting. We've

8 had some administrative matters and procedural matters to deal with. When

9 we finished yesterday, I said that you should have the opportunity of

10 seeing Exhibit D184. If that could be shown to the witness.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12 JUDGE MAY: Is there any comment, Mr. Ramic, you want to make

13 about that or not?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have never seen this document

15 before. I see it for the first time now. So it is a terrorist act that

16 was mentioned yesterday with respect to the alleged mining, as

17 Mr. Milosevic said, or blowing up of a train that was heading for Serbia

18 carrying weapons from Brcko.

19 First of all, it is possible that this is an authentic document as

20 it bears the date from 1991. Secondly, what I do notice here, all the

21 signatories of this document are people who later on during the war were

22 actually tormentors and criminals in relation to detained citizens in the

23 town of Brcko. This applies to the signatories of these documents. Those

24 are the very same people. Thirdly, I repeat no weapons were ever taken

25 from Brcko towards Serbia, only in the opposite direction did weapons

1 come. So I also wish to add why would anyone who wanted to protect

2 himself destroy weapons that were being taken away from their environment?

3 They would only welcome such an event.

4 And in the final analysis, even if any such activities were

5 engaged in, I was not aware of them, and quite clearly I do not recollect

6 any response from the army either. The commander of the garrison,

7 Mr. Milinkovic or anyone else did not comment on this, because if they

8 had, I would have remembered it. So if there were any such terrorist

9 preparations, then they may have been engaged in by individuals. That's

10 my comment.

11 JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. The names of the signatories who you

12 say were criminals and tormentors, can you tell us who it was?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here the first document

14 noted by Petar Kaurinovic. He was one of the tormentors and investigators

15 during the war in the premises of the then SUP. That is

16 the police premises on the aggressor side.

17 Then there is Zoran Kondic who was also a member of that same

18 group, then Krsto Mihajlovic, also an investigator who was a member of

19 that group, then Zoran Kondic is repeated, and Krsto Mihajlovic. His name

20 appears again.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the contents of the

24 statement has nothing to do with this generalised accusations against

25 persons who signed the statement.

1 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

2 Q. [Interpretation] In those days, they were official officers in the

3 Secretariat of the Interior in Brcko. Isn't that right, Mr. Ramic?

4 A. Those are persons who were part of the police, and the

5 investigators on the part of the aggressor side after the war. They were

6 indeed policemen before the war as well, but they were operating even

7 after the aggression and the occupation of Brcko.

8 Q. Mr. Ramic, this statement is from 1991, and it relates to an act

9 of terrorism with respect to which an investigation is undertaken. And

10 this explanation of yours about certain subsequent roles of those people

11 has nothing to do with this statement. My questions relate to that

12 statement.

13 A. Mr. Milosevic, I did not see these documents, but they were signed

14 only by the persons that I have already described. Therefore, I first

15 wish to state that they may have been compiled retroactively. However,

16 even if they were compiled contemporaneously, their purpose was to provoke

17 dissent on an ethnic basis and discord on an ethnic basis. That is my

18 explanation.

19 Q. So the confiscation of explosives and the investigation conducted

20 were designed to provoke ethnic conflict.

21 A. I said yesterday that there was a lot of arms trafficking. I'm

22 not denying that. I am not also denying that some explosives may have

23 been confiscated. I'm just denying the allegation that this was intended

24 to blow up an army convoy heading towards Serbia.

25 Q. But that is what the statement says, the statement that has been

1 shown to you.

2 A. Yes, but that statement was written by these people that I have

3 described.

4 Q. The statement was given by the man caught with the explosives.

5 Are you also familiar with the fact referred to in that statement that

6 these men mentioned, Vinko Vucicevic, Zeljko Gasparevic, Marko Kovacic,

7 Antun Terzic were all members of the MUP of Croatia and of a special

8 purpose unit, and that, following orders of their commander Martin

9 Matkovic, they were about to carry out this act of sabotage, that is,

10 blowing up a convoy at the railway station in Brcko, carrying military

11 equipment. You have the statements of Ivanovic, Vucicevic, and

12 Gasparevic. Are you denying that too?

13 A. No, I'm not denying that either. That may be true. I'm just

14 repeating that I did not see this document before, and I repeat that in

15 those days I do not recollect this situation as having occurred.

16 Q. Very well, Mr. Ramic. Now, tell me, is it true that the bridges

17 across the Sava at Brcko were secured on one side of the river by members

18 of the Brcko police station, which was under your control, and on the

19 other side of the river by members of the MUP of Croatia? Is that right?

20 A. Yes, that's right.

21 Q. Why, then, are you claiming that those bridges were destroyed by

22 the Serbs on the 1st of May?

23 A. That is quite clear, and it has been proven repeatedly up to now.

24 First of all, we have living witnesses who were there on the spot.

25 Secondly, a series of indications point to the army having done it on the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Brcko side. As I repeat, we have witnesses living today who were guards,

2 policemen on the bridge and who were captured. Each and every one of them

3 claim first that a military vehicle arrived carrying members wearing

4 camouflage army uniforms, that they first captured a group under the

5 bridge and that, after that, a second group arrived which captured a

6 police patrol on the bridge, and a third group brought a vehicle in SMB

7 colour, pushed it onto the bridge, and the captives heard the people

8 talking who were using the Ekavian Serbian dialect, and it is deduced from

9 that that this was a group of elite troops that had come from Serbia.

10 Q. So though nothing has been proven, you drew your conclusion. But

11 what has been proven is this act of sabotage by these people who are named

12 in that statement, and you nevertheless conclude that the bridges were

13 destroyed by the Serbs or, rather, the JNA, according to what you are

14 saying now.

15 A. Precisely so. It was destroyed by the JNA or organised by the

16 JNA.

17 Q. And you say you have proof of that.

18 A. I'm telling you about the evidence. I didn't know you would ask

19 me about this, and I could provide evidence. There are witnesses who are

20 still alive who were policemen and guards who claim that they were taken

21 captive by men wearing camouflage army uniforms.

22 Q. Very well. You've explained that. You don't need to repeat it.

23 So you have on the one hand a statement about an act of sabotage naming

24 all the perpetrators, and on the other hand your allegation that certain

25 unidentified --

1 JUDGE MAY: No. No, Mr. Milosevic. This wastes time. This is

2 argument. You're going to try and argue with the witness. That's not

3 what he's here to do.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me go on then.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Ramic, as president of the municipality of Brcko, you

7 certainly know where the Dizdarusa local commune is. Am I right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Is it correct that it was precisely with your approval and the

10 approval of your brother that in the area of Dizdarusa, as far as back as

11 1991, an armed unit was established which was the 3rd Company of the 108th

12 Brigade?

13 A. No, that is not correct.

14 Q. I'm going to give a document to you which was seized awhile ago,

15 and it shows in the area of Dizdarusa 284 soldiers. This is the document.

16 It has a certification on the last page, like the other documents,

17 stating that it is faithful to the original. Dizdarusa, persons from 1

18 through 284. There are all kinds of troops there, including crews for

19 anti-aircraft guns and so on and so forth. So the list goes from number 1

20 to 284. And the date of arrival is the 1st of May, the 1st of May, the

21 1st of May, and so on and so forth, including all the dates of arrival.

22 The numbers are there of automatic rifles that they were issued

23 with. Please take a look. Take a look at this list.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would also like to have it

25 exhibited, because that is the 108th Brigade, the 3rd Company, Dizdarusa,

1 a list of persons, starting from number 1 all the way up to 284. Please

2 take a look.

3 MS. PACK: Your Honour, may I can make a few observations about

4 the exhibits that the accused has produced. They are not documents the

5 Prosecution has seen before, and I the opportunity overnight of trying to

6 find if we have them in our database. We don't. I understand the policy

7 has been generally in the past that such documents are tendered for

8 identification as opposed to exhibited, and I'd ask that be the position

9 in relation to these documents. Most certainly the ones which are

10 numbered 3 thus far. I think it was D179, D180, and D184 about which this

11 witness has expressed reservations as to their authenticity. Certainly he

12 said in respect of D179 and 180, which were the documents dated 1995, that

13 he thought they were fabricated.

14 JUDGE MAY: Plainly the accused is getting a great deal of

15 information, and it may be a matter of course for us to consider when we

16 are considering how much support he has. Where would such documents have

17 come from do you think, Ms. Pack?

18 MS. PACK: I would have thought they would come from the

19 authorities in Republika Srpska, because it seems to me that they are --

20 they are -- well, they're headed Republika Srpska, Brcko Public Security

21 Station. I think they have an authentication case stamp, at least on some

22 of them on the reverse. I'm afraid I don't understand it because it's in

23 Cyrillic. Perhaps the accused might be able to assist as to what that

24 says. I should imagine that that's where they're from. I only say -- I

25 don't push this but I say just generally it may be this would give the

1 opportunity to the Prosecution to examine these documents further and

2 ascertain their authenticity if they're marked for identification rather

3 than exhibited now.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The answer, Ms. Pack, is this, that we will not

6 change the position about these documents, but if it proves in due course

7 that they are not authentic and you've got evidence to challenge them, of

8 course you can bring that forward. And if it proves to be unauthentic,

9 they won't be taken any notice of. And furthermore, it will tell us

10 something about the source from which they've come. On the other hand, if

11 they're authentic, we'll have to consider what weight to give them. The

12 fact that documents are admitted does not mean to say they are accepted as

13 truthful or their content is truthful.

14 Yes, Mr. Ramic. I'm sorry. You've been looking at that document.

15 Is there anything you want to say about that one? This is the list,

16 apparently, as alleged -- just a moment. Let me get this right. Is this

17 right: It's alleged to be a list of a company formed in 1991 with 284

18 members, or a brigade. Is that what it claims to be? Could you tell us

19 that and then you can comment on it.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have quite a few

21 things to say in relation to this document. First of all, on the front

22 page of this document it says that it is the 108th Brigade, the 3rd

23 Company, in Dizdarusa.

24 I would like to clarify the fact that the 108th Brigade was

25 established on the 17th of May, 1992. And the war and the occupation of

1 Brcko took place on the 1st of May. That is to say 17 days after the

2 occupation while the aggressor side had already committed an aggression

3 vis-a-vis the territory of Brcko that had remained free. This list

4 actually constitutes a list of the entire male population of the local

5 commune of Dizdarusa. It was obviously compiled with the intention of

6 probably collecting some men on the basis of this list. But I repeat,

7 this could have taken place only after the 17th of May, 1992, because

8 until then, the name, the 108th Brigade, did not exist at all.

9 Another thing, this document is stamped by Republika Srpska. It

10 bears a seal of Republika Srpska; that is to say, that it was found and

11 authenticated probably later. This also indicates that its validity is in

12 line with such a view, and that's probably clear.

13 On the basis of that, I conclude that this is no document

14 indicating the existence of some kind of 3rd Company of some 108th Brigade

15 before the war actually started. That's my comment.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Ramic, please take a look at this starting from number 1. You

18 can see that there is a date when each and every soldier or member joined

19 in, and that was the 1st of May, and then in order. There are many of

20 them who joined up on the 1st of May because that's when the war broke out

21 over there.

22 Secondly, is it correct that when you refer to the stamp of

23 Republika Srpska, that you are actually referring to the authentication of

24 the document itself, because that's what it says on the reverse side of

25 each and every document, that this was done in order to authenticate the

1 fact that this is a photocopy which is fully identical to the original.

2 So this is practically a form, and it is accompanied by this seal, and it

3 says "Is equal to the original and consists of ten pages." So this is the

4 official authentication of documents that were found.

5 The 3rd Company --

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you know making speeches is not

7 allowed. You can ask the witness questions.

8 Now, what the accused seems to be putting, Mr. Ramic, is that this

9 is a genuine document which has been found by the Republika Srpska, and

10 that is stamped on it, and he seems to be suggesting that it's an earlier

11 date than the 17th of May, 1992, which you suggest. Can you help as to

12 that?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been trying to

14 say the following: This document is a list of men from the local commune

15 of Dizdarusa. By no means does it constitute a list of some kind of a

16 company. It is not signed by any designated official from the command of

17 the brigade or the command of the company. Absolutely there is no proper

18 list here, which means that it could have been written by anybody.

19 Secondly, Your Honours, I've been trying to say that even if we

20 were to accept that this is something authentic by way of a list, it can

21 by no means mean that this was done before the 108th Brigade was

22 established. And I repeat, the 108th Brigade, that is a well known thing,

23 was established on the 17th of May, 1992.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Ramic, please read the date when people joined up, starting

1 from number 1. Doesn't it say the 1st of May?

2 A. Mr. Milosevic, what you call this date of joining up is not what

3 is written here. It says the date of arrival. That's what's written

4 here.

5 Q. Yes, date of arrival in the unit.

6 A. No, it doesn't say the date of arrival in the unit. It says date

7 of arrival. It doesn't mean that it has to be a unit necessarily.

8 Q. Does it say the 1st of May?

9 A. It says the 1st of May, et cetera, et cetera, it's not only the

10 1st of May, so on and so forth. However, I claim that no company could

11 have been established on the 1st of May, because the 108th Brigade did not

12 exist, and I believe that this is quite clear.

13 Q. This could have been proclaimed to be part of the 108th Brigade a

14 few days later, but it could have changed names, but it's the 3rd Company

15 of Dizdarusa.

16 A. Mr. Milosevic, the occupation of Brcko took place on the 1st of

17 May. Even if I were to accept what you are claiming now, this could have

18 happened only after the moment of occupation.

19 Q. All right. All right, Mr. Ramic. I'm going to show something

20 else to you now.

21 JUDGE MAY: No you're not. We're going to look at that document

22 first of all.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please give it to the amici. One

24 speaks Serbian, and he can read it and he can tell you what kind of a

25 document this is.

1 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we will do the following: We will --

2 we will look at it ourselves, so we'll ask the usher to go and get the

3 document and hand it to the Bench. We'll then decide what to do with it

4 next.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll mark this one for identification since

7 there is a dispute about its nature.

8 THE REGISTRAR: 1 --

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

10 JUDGE MAY: Just -- go on.

11 THE REGISTRAR: 185.

12 JUDGE MAY: D. We'll give it now to the Prosecution to look at

13 briefly and then hand it to the amicus. In due course, if need be, the

14 Prosecution can have it back.

15 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Ramic --

18 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry. Mr. Ramic, I'm sorry. You were going to

19 say something. Yes. What do you want to say?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to say that

21 this is a list of men from the local commune, and somebody wrote this date

22 in hand, the 1st of May, and it just meant that these men lived in the

23 territory of that local commune on that date, nothing more than that.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. All right. So the fact that it is written that this is the 3rd

1 Company from Dizdarusa, that doesn't mean that it's a military formation?

2 That it's a list of civilians who lived at that locality; is that what

3 you're saying?

4 A. Yes. I mean that that is what it means.

5 Q. All right. If that's what it means, then here's another document

6 that has to do with this same company. It is also handwritten. It is

7 also an original. It also has a certification coming from the appropriate

8 authority that it is identical to the original, and then there is the

9 company number and then the 1st Platoon, and then its entire composition,

10 and then the 2nd Platoon, and then various squads, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd

11 Platoons, then it can be seen who is anti-armour, who is a guide, who is

12 in reconnaissance. So it is all there. And as you can see, this is a

13 formation of the Muslim army.

14 Please take a look at this document as well. It can be seen that

15 you have platoons, that you have a squad for recoilless guns, a squad for

16 anti-aircraft guns, and a squad for mortars. So this is the Dizdarusa,

17 the 3rd Company. Please take a look at this document and you will realise

18 that this is a military formation, if the first document was not

19 sufficient because it only said the 3rd Company. You will see all the

20 platoons and squads here as well.

21 Mr. Ramic, while you're looking at this, is it correct that

22 Dedovic Ramiz was commander of the 1st Platoon?

23 JUDGE MAY: Just one moment. Let the witness first of all have a

24 look and then you can ask him some questions about it when he's had the

25 opportunity to comment.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been looking

2 through this document, and for me it constitutes a list that includes the

3 commands of platoons, et cetera, et cetera, and it is entitled, "The 108th

4 Brigade, Dizdarusa, the 3rd Company." There is no original date here

5 which could show when this was compiled. So this may be a list of some

6 kind of composition but by no means could it have been compiled prior to

7 the 17th of May.

8 Another thing: Mr. Milosevic, this was not a Muslim army. If

9 that's the army we're talking about, it was the army of

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And as proof of the fact that it was a multi-ethnic

11 army, please take a look at this list that you're giving me. The 5th

12 Platoon, the commander of the 5th Platoon is Dragan Hajduk. A person with

13 that kind of name certainly was not a Muslim.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. But look at the names. 95 per cent of them are Muslim.

16 A. Correct. The local commune of Dizdarusa had a population which

17 was 95 per cent Muslim.

18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, is the list handwritten or typed?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a handwritten

20 list. It is not typed, and I repeat, I do not see any reliable or

21 competent person as a signatory of the list or anybody who had any command

22 function in the 108th Brigade. There is no signature. So it is a list

23 written by hand which, again, could have been written by anyone.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Ramic, are you claiming that those were not the people who

1 constituted a military unit that was known as the 3rd Company and their

2 division into platoons? The 1st commander Ramiz Dedovic, the 2nd Amir

3 Serifovic, Ramiz Halilovic of the 3rd Platoon, Hazim Hasanovic of the 4th

4 Platoon, and Dragan Hajduk of the 5th Platoon that you mentioned a moment

5 ago. Isn't all that written on this list? Is that right or not?

6 A. Mr. Milosevic, I'm not denying this. Maybe you didn't understand

7 what I was saying. I am saying that this list, we can't tell when it was

8 compiled. That is not clear.

9 Secondly, if it was compiled and if it is original, it could only

10 have been compiled after the 17th of May.

11 Thirdly, I am not denying that there was a Dizdarusa company in

12 the 108th Brigade, but it came into being after the 17th of May, 1992.

13 JUDGE MAY: We'll have a look at this document.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could assist, Mr. Ramic. This is a

16 handwritten document. We can't read, of course, the writing on it, but it

17 appears to be a list, as I understand your evidence, of the 3rd Company,

18 108th Brigade. It's handwritten. It's in -- appears to be in some sort

19 of formation. But it's your evidence that there was such a company of

20 such a brigade but that it was formed after the occupation; is that right?

21 So really, there's no --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely so.

23 JUDGE MAY: So there is a dispute that there was such an

24 organisation. The only issue which is apparently in dispute is when it

25 was formed. Would that be right?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, sir.

2 JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. We'll admit this. Give it the

3 next number, please.

4 THE REGISTRAR: D186.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. If I could hand it in. Thank you. Yes. Let

6 everybody see it, please.

7 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Ramic, the first document I showed you about the 3rd Company

10 Dizdarusa contains the date of the 1st of May that you yourself have read

11 out?

12 JUDGE MAY: We have been over that. We're not going back to it.

13 Again, it's a case of your arguing with the witness. You've heard his

14 evidence. There is no point going over it again. We will have to make a

15 decision about this in due course.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Is it clear that on that list next to the names of persons there's

19 an indication of the type and serial number of the weapon issued to that

20 person? Have you managed to look at that when you looked at the document?

21 I'm talking about the first list. From Dizdarusa.

22 A. Yes. There are certain numbers and indications, markings.

23 Q. Doesn't AP mean an automatic rifle and next to it the serial

24 number consisting of several digits?

25 A. I don't know what it means. I'm not denying that it could not be

1 interpreted that way. It could be something else also. But I am

2 repeating once again the company could have existed only after the 17th of

3 May and, therefore, also the armaments of that weapon -- of that company.

4 I'm sorry.

5 Q. Very well. I think that we will now have a clearer indication

6 regarding the time.

7 I'm asking you, Mr. Ramic, is it true that as early as 1991, as in

8 Dizdarusa, you formed a similar unit in a local commune called Stari

9 Rasadnik and that there was a so-called spatial unit and a manoeuvering

10 unit consisting of companies and platoons? Is that right?

11 A. No, it is not.

12 Q. It's not right. Very well, then. I'll give you now a document.

13 Local commune it says up there, Stari Rasadnik, manoeuvre unit,

14 manoeuvreing unit which means a mobile unit. This is a typed document

15 this time, and it is signed by the Staff Commander of the Territorial

16 Defence of the local commune Meksud Imamovic. You know Meksud Imamovic, I

17 assume?

18 A. I can't quite remember, but I'm not denying that.

19 Q. Well, he signed this document, and in handwriting he wrote on each

20 page: "Place of mobilisation will be secret, but in the case of an

21 emergency, the -- where the unit will rally will be indicated on the

22 call-up paper." Which means that the unit was formed before, because if

23 it was formed after the war broke out, why would the place of reporting be

24 secret? And on each page it is indicated that the place -- rallying place

25 will be secret, but in case of urgency, the place will be indicated on the

1 call-up paper. And at the end, it says the commander of the TO staff,

2 Meksud Imamovic.

3 You have here mortar crews of 82-millimetre mortars, trucks. The

4 specialties are indicated of individual members of the unit. As far as I

5 can see, again all of them are Muslims. So we're talking about the Stari

6 Rasadnik local commune, a manoeuvre, a mobile unit, and an indication that

7 the place of mobilisation will be kept secret but should an urgent need

8 arise, it will be indicated on the call-up paper. And you have the

9 signature of Meksud Imamovic whom you don't see to remember; is that

10 right?

11 A. I may know him.

12 Q. Oh, I see. You may know him. Fine.

13 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see the document.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Here, I've opened it on the page with his signature, and then you

16 can look at it from the very beginning, from page 1.

17 A. Your Honours, I would like to comment on this document as follows:

18 Again, this is a list of men from a local commune who formed squads of

19 Territorial Defence, but it is not clear when this document was compiled.

20 That is the first point.

21 Secondly, Mr. Milosevic, mention is made here of the Territorial

22 Defence of the local commune.

23 Your Honours, I wish to state that after the events of the 1st of

24 May and after the already-mentioned appearance on local television and

25 disclosure by television that the war had started, that is the attack by

1 the aggressor JNA of the local commune of Dizdarusa - in fact, this was in

2 the afternoon, about 4.00 p.m. - after that I only just managed to get out

3 of that area. And that same day, in the evening after this, being the

4 president of the municipality, I gave instructions for the Territorial

5 Defence to be formed on the free part of the territory.

6 So if that is the list of that Territorial Defence, I am not

7 denying it, but I repeat that the date is lacking on this document, and we

8 can discuss that.

9 Q. But look, on page 1, 2, and 3, in the right-hand margin there is

10 this note written every time by Meksud Imamovic, saying that the place of

11 mobilisation will be kept secret, but in the case of an urgent need or an

12 emergency, it will be indicated on the call-up paper.

13 A. Mr. Milosevic, reference is made of the place of mobilisation. I

14 wish to remind you that the word "mobilisation" means rallying and

15 gathering for the purpose of forming a military unit, which means that it

16 had still not been formed.

17 Q. Surely the existing military unit that had been formed, this note

18 relates to that unit, that it is then that it will be mobilised, so that a

19 unit is ready. And you can see from the companies and squads that the

20 unit is ready. And it says that the place of mobilisation shall be kept

21 secret, but in the case of an emergency, it will be indicated on the

22 call-up paper.

23 A. What is in dispute, Mr. Milosevic? I'm not denying that

24 Territorial Defence units were formed in local communities defending

25 themselves from the aggression after the aggression took place about 4.00

1 p.m. on the 1st of May. I'm not denying that. After that, Territorial

2 Defence units were formed. So after the aggression, a Territorial Defence

3 was being formed in free territorial -- free local communes, yes.

4 Q. And then the place of mobilisation was kept secret, and the

5 Territorial Defence did not operate; is that what you're saying?

6 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. I'm going to stop this.

7 You've had your opportunity to cross-examine about this document, and

8 you're now arguing with the witness again. Give it the next number,

9 please.

10 THE REGISTRAR: [Inaudible]

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, if we can have it back, please, the document.

12 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Ramic, I assume you're familiar with the local commune Brod.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. I have complete data about the Brod local commune, the special

17 unit commanded by Pasic Ismet, and then the manoeuvre unit, or the mobile

18 unit, divided up into squads, companies, the couriers. This is quite a

19 voluminous document speaking of a very numerically large military

20 formation for this local commune alone, that is, the Brod local commune.

21 They even have a part of the military police. And at the end, it says

22 that the place of mobilisation will be Johak, across the river. That is

23 what is indicated at the end of this document consisting of several

24 pages. And again there is a certification indicating that it is true to

25 the original, the certification being made by the authorities of Republika

1 Srpska as these documents are that they confiscated during the war. So

2 please look at this document. It is typewritten, and it relates to the

3 local commune of Brod.

4 JUDGE MAY: Would you like to look at it, Mr. Ramic. It doesn't

5 seem to have got a date, as far as I can see. If it has one, please tell

6 us. If your comments are the same, perhaps you can just say that and we

7 could get on more quickly, if we're going to have a number of these

8 documents.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is a similar

10 document that Mr. Milosevic is producing here, a list of men from the

11 local commune formed into platoons and similar units of the Territorial

12 Defence of that local commune. It does not have a date. What I am

13 claiming is that this is a list -- if it is original, because there is no

14 proof that it is original. It is typewritten and certified with a stamp

15 of Republika Srpska, which means retroactively. There's no signature nor

16 any name of a person who could be considered responsible, a commander.

17 But if it is original, I repeat it could only have come into being after

18 my instructions to form Territorial Defence units in free local communes.

19 And this occurred after the occupation of the town of Brcko.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Ramic, you were president of the municipality. I assume you

22 know well that there is a secretariat for administration in the

23 municipality where documents are certified and stamped to indicate that a

24 document or a photocopy of the document is true to the original. So that

25 is what you will see on the back of each page, a stamp of the competent

1 body in the municipality, indicating that the photocopy is identical with

2 the original. Is that so?

3 A. Mr. Milosevic, I am not denying the method of certification of

4 documents that you have told us about, but I am saying that this is a

5 stamp of Republika Srpska dated 1994. So that is absolutely retroactive,

6 many years later.

7 Q. Surely when the documents were confiscated, after the confiscation

8 who knows how much later they made copies and certified that the copies

9 were true to the original.

10 A. Mr. Milosevic, are you denying the following: That in 1994

11 Republika Srpska could have, over a period of several years, learnt all

12 the names of the combatants of the 108th Brigade? Furthermore, all the

13 documents of citizens stayed behind in the archives, so can you deny that

14 this was not a document construed in 1994 by the authorities of Republika

15 Srpska?

16 JUDGE MAY: We will make a decision about this document. It's no

17 point arguing about it. We'll give it the next number, please.

18 MS. PACK: Your Honour, might I again make the observation that

19 this document be admitted marked for ID on the basis of the --

20 JUDGE MAY: Let us see it. It's not disputed that there was a

21 territorial unit. It's not disputed that this may have been a list,

22 although it's not plain, when it came into being. The document is

23 stamped, as is accepted. It is a list for what it's worth. The crucial

24 issue is when it came into existence, and as to that there is no evidence

25 on the document.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 So we will admit it. If you, in due course, can cause doubt on

2 its authenticity, then that will mean it's not taken any notice of, but

3 for these purposes we'll admit it.

4 MS. PACK: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 THE REGISTRAR: D188.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Ramic, tell me, please, these local communes - Brod,

8 Dizdarusa, Stari Rasadnik - in the territory that you held during the war

9 or was this territory held by the Serb forces? Is this the territory that

10 was held by you throughout the war; Dizdarusa, Brod, Stari Rasadnik?

11 A. At the moment of occupation, that is to say the 1st of May, 1992,

12 this was territory that was free territory, territory where we were.

13 Q. And for how long did this territory remain free, as you had put

14 it, in your opinion? When did this territory stop being free territory

15 according to your information?

16 A. During the war, there were war operations, and the aggressor side

17 pushed us out of these territories. I cannot say anything for sure now,

18 but we did keep parts of the city of Brcko free.

19 Q. I'm asking you about these three local communes that I referred to

20 just now. How long were they in the hands of your forces? Just tell me

21 that.

22 A. They were free during -- well, local commune of Dizdarusa and the

23 local commune of Rasadnik and the local commune of Brod were free for a

24 few months, perhaps even for a year from when the war broke out, that is

25 to say, from the 1st of May, 1992.

1 Q. So these formations were held -- so these units held this

2 territory?

3 A. These territories were protected and held by the units of the

4 108th Brigade, and I'm not denying that within these units there weren't

5 any platoons or squads from these units -- from these local communes.

6 They were integral parts of the 108th Brigade.

7 Q. Let us just wait for them to put their headphones on again.

8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we will give you until the end of this

9 session, which means you will have had rather more than 20 minutes more

10 than you've already told, i.e., a 50 per cent extension, which will be

11 more than enough. Yes.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I will just try to include

13 these documents, please.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Do you know who Sakovic Semso is?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Was he president of the local commune of Brodusa and director of

18 the Sava company?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Was he involved in activities related to the procurement of

21 weapons for Muslims?

22 A. I'm not aware of that.

23 Q. All right. And is it correct that in the local commune of Stari

24 Rasadnik, Meksud Imamovic, Becirevic Nedzad, Nejdelko Esad, Asic Ahmed

25 [phoen], Sukalac Mujo [phoen], Mustafa Halilovic, and Ismail Semsudin were

1 in charge of receiving these weapons in this local commune? Is that

2 correct or is that not correct?

3 A. Mr. Milosevic, in order to be able to answer your question, I have

4 no idea what kind of weapons you're talking about.

5 Q. All right. Since you have no idea what kind of weapons I'm

6 talking about -- there weren't any weapons there, is that what you're

7 trying to say? So all the weapons listed in these documents were

8 invented?

9 A. There were no weapons in an organised and systematic fashion until

10 the aggression took place on the 1st of May.

11 Q. All right. What I have here is information similar to the kind I

12 showed yesterday, and it says here: "In Brcko, Brka, Maoca, the road and

13 settlements there were only secured by armed Muslims. Later on it became

14 obvious that they wanted to have such persons on patrols so that weapons

15 could be transported. The director of KRO Sava was Semso."

16 THE INTERPRETER: This is too fast for the interpreters. The

17 interpreters note it is being read too fast and the interpreters don't

18 have these documents.

19 JUDGE MAY: Don't read too quickly, Mr. Milosevic. Just remember

20 the interpreters.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May, but my time is

22 short. Of course I'll bear that in mind too.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. And then it says: "The arming of members of the SDS was done

25 through the Ramic brothers, the top people -" that's you and your brother

1 - "Semso Isakovic; and the director of the work organisation Laser,

2 Vejzovic Ibrahim; director of the customs zone, Didais Ismet [phoen]; the

3 director of the work organisation Zitopromet, Drpljanin Saban. And

4 weapons for the most part came from Croatia through the old bridge on the

5 Sava River. Operations related to arms deliveries were carried out by

6 Pezerovic Zekerija and Hasim. He held a weapons shop legally, and then

7 with the assistance of a policeman on the bridge --"

8 JUDGE MAY: Now, look. You're taking up your time reading this

9 entire document out. Just try and summarise it and put it to the witness.

10 What is the point of this? What is the point of all this?

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Is what I read out correct, Mr. Ramic?

13 A. No, it's not.

14 Q. And is it correct that people of Serb ethnicity, for example, Ilic

15 Zivko who had a shop with mixed goods in Gornji Rahic, and a year before

16 the war he had to leave his shop and also the house that he had in Stari

17 Rasadnik, he did not sleep there for five or six months before the war

18 broke out, precisely because of such developments. Was this

19 characteristic?

20 A. Your Honours, may I just make a brief comment? Mr. Milosevic, you

21 yourself collide with what you've been saying. Yesterday you were trying

22 to prove to me that the police, and this police were all ethnic Bosniaks,

23 stopped the smuggling of weapons. Now you're telling me today that this

24 same police made it possible to carry out armament, and you say that I was

25 one of the persons who organised this. That's the first thing I wish to

1 say.

2 Please do not interrupt me, because I have not finished,

3 Mr. Milosevic.

4 Yesterday you said to me that there was some kind of a meeting in

5 Rasadnik concerning the organisation of Stragar [phoen] or whatever.

6 Q. We haven't got time.

7 A. We have got time. I have to answer you. And you mention the name

8 of a person who is an ethnic Serb and now you're telling me that these

9 persons of Serb ethnicity had to flee from Stari Rasadnik. Are you not

10 contradicting yourself?

11 Q. I am quoting an Official Note to you, Mr. Ramic, and this was

12 written in Brcko and it describes all your activities before the war and I

13 would just like to have it exhibited here.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness see the document so he can

15 comment on it.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. I've highlighted what I believe are the most important parts in

18 order to save time. Do you know these persons? Did they do what is

19 written there or not?

20 A. I know -- well, this is a long list of people. I know quite a few

21 of them. Semso Isakovic, you mentioned him and I know him well. And also

22 these other people you mentioned, I know them well too. I deny that they

23 organised and carried out any type of armament before the 1st of May,

24 1992. So that's what I'm denying.

25 Secondly, this document that you call a document also bears the

1 date of the 18th of October, 1995.

2 Q. Yes, like the previous ones that contain documents about what was

3 going on there then.

4 A. Yes. So this means that this document was compiled at the very

5 end of the war, and I think that the war was almost over or over at the

6 time.

7 Q. All right. Tell me, then, is it correct that some weapons were

8 used, and I claim that you procured them in this way, were used to open

9 fire against the JNA in the JNA garrison?

10 A. No, that's not correct. I don't know about that.

11 Q. All right. You say on page 8 of your statement that as for the

12 rest of the war, in Brcko, May 1992, that you spent that in the free part

13 of Brcko. That is your very own expression.

14 A. It is possible that is what I wrote. It means the free part of

15 the municipality of Brcko.

16 Q. So these local communes that you've described and that we've been

17 discussing did not belong to that part?

18 A. They did. They did too.

19 Q. Until when?

20 A. Well, we just mentioned that awhile ago. Rasadnik and Dizdarusa

21 were free for a few months. I cannot tell you exactly for how long.

22 Q. All right. Tell me -- but since they were free, tell me, what did

23 you use to defend those areas that you called free areas if you did not

24 have any weapons?

25 A. Mr. Milosevic, that is quite clear. In the Yugoslavia that

1 disappeared, a certain number of people had their very own weapons,

2 hunting weapons or something similar to that.

3 Q. All right. But --

4 A. Mr. Milosevic, let me answer. A number of people were members of

5 the legal pre-war organisation of the Territorial Defence, so they had

6 weapons. A number of people were professionals in the police force or in

7 the reserve police force. They also had weapons. So those are the

8 weapons concerned.

9 Q. All right, Mr. Ramic. I really haven't got the time to go into

10 that any further now, but it is quite clear that you had to have weapons

11 if you managed, as you had put it, to hold a certain part of Brcko so that

12 it would not be taken. Do you know that as far as you are concerned and

13 your brother and another person and other persons in Republika Srpska, on

14 the 9th of November, 1995, criminal charges were brought against you

15 indicting you of the crime of armed rebellion? Do you know about that?

16 A. No, I don't know about that. I had heard about this only

17 accidentally after the war was over, and I think that it was towards the

18 end of 1995 or beginning of 1996 that we were accused of some kind of a

19 war crime. It is only then that I heard about this.

20 Q. All right. Do you know -- I am going to let the witness have a

21 look at these documents all together, because these are court documents,

22 that the public prosecutor's office on the 9th of June, 1994, indicted you

23 for the crime of a war crime against the civilian population. Are you

24 aware of that? And you're the first indictee listed in that indictment.

25 So this is the 9th of June, 1994.

1 A. That's the document that you refer to. That is something that I

2 heard about only after the war.

3 Q. And are you denying that you issued an order for the attack

4 against the Serb village of Bukovac that was carried out in September

5 1992?

6 A. Of course I deny that.

7 Q. Oh, you deny it. And that then you killed a great many Serbs and

8 you took the rest to concentration camps where they were tortured, abused

9 and some were even physically liquidated. All of this is written in this

10 indictment.

11 A. Mr. Milosevic, that is what is written in a document which, as you

12 said yourself, was compiled in 1994 concerning events from 1992.

13 Your Honours, may I just make a comment? Your Honours, I wish to

14 make a comment. The mentioned indictment against me and against some

15 other persons at the end of the war is something that was construed. It

16 is a construction that was characteristic of the aggressor side; after

17 having committed crimes, they accuse the victim of such things. That is

18 the first point I wish to make.

19 Secondly, Mr. Milosevic, not even theoretically let alone

20 practically I could not have issued an order for an attack against this

21 village that you have just referred to for a simple reason; because

22 already at that time the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was already in

23 existence, it had its own chain of command, and I as a representative of

24 the civilian authorities was outside that chain of command, so this was

25 not possible even theoretically.

1 Q. So you did not order an attack against the civilian population and

2 these civilians that are --

3 JUDGE MAY: He said that. The witness has dealt with that.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. And these civilians that are mentioned in this indictment, were

6 they killed or not? Were they taken to concentration camps or not? Were

7 they tortured or not? Just answer that.

8 A. Mr. Milosevic, that is a farce, what you've just referred to, and

9 you know that.

10 Your Honours, please bear in mind that this is a matter of

11 accusing the victim, not the criminal, and that was characteristic of the

12 Serb side and --

13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, we have these matters in mind. We've heard

14 this sort of allegation against witnesses before, and you must understand

15 that if we admit these documents, we do so merely as documents and it

16 doesn't mean that we put any weight on them at all. We will have to

17 consider them in the light of all the evidence. We know that allegations

18 were made against victims because we've heard that they've been made. So

19 it's a matter that we have in mind.

20 Yes. Let us tidy up the documents. The document of the 18th of

21 October -- just a moment -- the 18th of October will be admitted for --

22 marked for identification. I have it here. I'll hand it in. We'll get

23 the next number.

24 THE REGISTRAR: D189, marked for identification.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. Do you want to --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Further on --

3 JUDGE MAY: Do you want to exhibit this indictment,

4 Mr. Milosevic?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I've already quoted three

6 documents, Mr. May, because I'm saving time. And I have because I'm

7 saving time.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you know that there was an indictment issued against you for

10 the attacks on Vujicici, Gajevi, and Bukovac Serb villages, and this has

11 to do with several persons, in September 1992?

12 A. Your Honours, I would like to make a comment in this regard as

13 well. Mr. Milosevic, you're talking about the same thing.

14 Q. That's not correct.

15 A. You are talking about the Bukvik case. Mr. Milosevic, I know this

16 better than you know. I know that next to Bukvik is the village of

17 Bukovac, the village of Vitanovici, and the hamlets that you mentioned.

18 All of this is within the area within this territory.

19 Your Honours, in September 1992, the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina -

20 rather the 108th Brigade - had a clash with the aggressor side at those

21 positions, and the result of these -- this conflict are probably some

22 casualties that Mr. Milosevic referred to.

23 Q. And those people who were taken to concentration camps and where

24 their skulls were broken and where they were beaten -- cut up and beaten

25 up, is that --

1 JUDGE MAY: No. Absolutely not. You've already put these kind of

2 allegations. The witness has denied them. They're not improved by

3 repeating them. Now, let's get on. You've got two minutes left.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, these are different

5 indictments pertaining to different villages, although Mr. Ramic says that

6 it is all one and the same thing. So please bear that in mind.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Do you know that the court in Brcko issued on the 5th of July,

9 1995, a sentence in which you were convicted of various crimes, and you

10 and your brother Ibrahim, and it was a 15-year prison sentence?

11 A. You are talking about the document that I mentioned I had heard

12 about in 1995. That is what I heard about, that it was some kind of a

13 court that had convicted me of some kind of war crimes. This is a pure

14 farce. And this means playing games with the crimes of one side, and they

15 want to ascribe it to another side.

16 Q. Please. This is a judgement of a court --

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, he's dealt with it.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. -- in Brcko.

20 JUDGE MAY: He's dealt with it. He says it was a farce. Now,

21 let's move on.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this is a farce, Mr.

23 May. And all of these are facts. These are court documents, and this is

24 a judgement. This is no longer an indictment. This is --

25 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Your time is now up. You've made the

1 point. We will consider what to do with all the court documents together,

2 and after the -- after the adjournment we will hear from the amicus, if he

3 has any questions, and then the Prosecution.

4 We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked for these court documents to

8 be admitted into evidence. I assume that Mr. Ramic is not going to

9 challenge their authenticity.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you seeking my answer for this?

11 JUDGE MAY: No. No. We know what your answer to this is. We'll

12 consider what to do about them and then we will adjourn.

13 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

14 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

15 JUDGE MAY: We will admit the court documents. We do so without,

16 of course, passing any judgement upon them or also indicating whether they

17 have any weight at all. We do so merely to record the fact that such

18 documents are in existence. We will begin with the indictments.

19 Have you got those documents, Mr. Milosevic? Perhaps you could

20 hand the two indictments in, and we'll deal with the judgement separately.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here they are, Mr. May. I have the

22 indictment dated the 9th of November, 1995, or, rather, criminal charges,

23 then the indictment of the 9th of June, 1994. I have quoted from all of

24 them. Then the indictment of the 14th of July, 1994; the indictment of

25 the 16th of July, 1994; the indictment of the 26th of July, 1994; and

1 judgement -- the judgement --

2 JUDGE MAY: Let's -- just a moment. Let's have the indictments

3 first, all together, and we'll just give them one number.

4 THE REGISTRAR: D190.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That's the indictments. And the judgement we

6 will give the next number to. If you would hand that in, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: D191.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will get the number for the judgement,

9 please. 191. Thank you.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ramic, were you aware of these indictments

11 and the charges?

12 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know about them. I learnt quite by

13 coincidence after this date when those alleged indictments were issued.

14 So I think this was -- I'm not quite sure whether it was November or

15 December, 1995, or January, February, 1996.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: So I take it then you were never arrested

17 pursuant to these indictments.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course not. That's

19 out of the question. And I consider this to be an absolute farce. I

20 could say a lot of things about it.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: The judgement then would have been done in

22 absentia?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably. Probably. I had no idea

24 about it.

25 JUDGE MAY: Sorry. Mr. Tapuskovic.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, several days ago -

2 or to be precise, on the 8th of September, 2003 - as amici we received

3 quite a large number of documents under Rule 68, containing exculpatory

4 elements, and among them - I don't want to fatigue you with all of them -

5 and in view of what Mr. Slobodan Milosevic has already raised, I have

6 selected only a few documents from 1993. That is prior to the

7 establishment of this Tribunal. Two documents are dated January 1993 and

8 two are from February of the same year.

9 In all four cases, that is, all four documents relate to criminal

10 charges for the crime -- for war crimes against civilian population

11 pursuant to Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY; and pursuant to

12 all those criminal charges, the event, the place, the date, the victims

13 are indicated. And in all those criminal charges, the first accused is

14 Mustafa Ramic. I have four others, but I don't want to tire you with

15 them. I think that this could be something that you should take into

16 consideration as it comes from the OTP.

17 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

18 Q. I would just like to ask the witness whether he is aware of the

19 events covered by these charges, where it is stated that the locals of the

20 village of Bukovac recognised you as having participated in certain acts

21 that you are charged with in these indictments.

22 A. If I may explain. You're asking me to respond regarding events.

23 Q. Well, for example, let us take this event of the 11th of February

24 [as interpreted], 1992 at 1730 hours. The names of victims are mentioned.

25 Eight persons were killed, and it says here that certain number of

1 inhabitants of the village of Bukovac recognised you as the perpetrator of

2 those acts. Do you know anything about that?

3 A. A moment ago you said the 11th of February, 1992.

4 Q. No, the act was committed on the 11th of September, 1992, by units

5 within the 108th Brigade, and then you are mentioned as the first, having

6 been identified by some inhabitants of the village of Bukovac. Do you

7 know anything about this?

8 A. Your Honours, allow me to expand on this to be able to answer the

9 question. Within the free territory of Brcko where I was amongst others

10 and which was defended by the 108th Brigade, there was an area with the

11 village of Bukvik including the other mentioned villages far behind the

12 frontline about 7 or 10 kilometres behind. And this area is an area of

13 ethnically pure Serb villages, and we knew there was an organised armed

14 group there. However, the BH army did not go into that area, and there

15 were no incidents for all of four months. So the aggression or, rather,

16 the occupation of Brcko occurred on the 1st of May, 1992. Then we have

17 May, June, July, August, and events started happening at the beginning of

18 September.

19 Throughout this period of time, the brigade endeavoured on several

20 occasions to talked to these armed men, members of some sort of military

21 structure in those villages, for them to be peacefully disarmed so that

22 this area too could join in the defence. These talks went on for a long

23 time, and there were no conflicts.

24 However, I wish to point out on several occasions during that

25 period, what happened was that the occupiers broke into areas that it

1 wanted to annex and committed a number of crimes. Prompted by this and

2 also on the basis of reports received after the line of communication was

3 cut between the other side and this group, that is the occupiers' side and

4 these villages, this line of communications went through our free

5 territory, and when it was cut it was established that the occupying side

6 was preparing to enter into that area.

7 I learnt about this all subsequently from the command of the 108th

8 Brigade, because I personally was not involved in this as I was the

9 civilian representative of the authorities. What happened was that a

10 representative of the brigade tried once again with a white flag to enter

11 this village and to talk to the people, and he was killed. After that a

12 conflict broke out and got out of control. I don't know exactly what

13 happened there, but anyway, the 108th Brigade did take control of the

14 area, and I must say that they found large quantities of weapons, four

15 heavy machine-guns, several grenade launchers, about 100 to 200 automatic

16 rifles, lots of explosives, bombs, et cetera, et cetera.

17 Q. Were there any victims on the Serb side?

18 A. I believe there were. But what I'm trying to say is all those

19 victims were armed.

20 Q. Could you just say something in connection with the second

21 criminal charges pressed against you. Reference is made to an attack on

22 the village of Bijela in Brcko municipality committed on the 11th of June

23 within 1130 on 1400 hours, and in this attack, according to these criminal

24 charges, you are the first suspect. Again there were a number of victims.

25 Do you know anything about this event?

1 A. The village of Bijela is deep within the free territory behind the

2 frontline some 15 or 20 kilometres behind it. You should bear that in

3 mind first of all.

4 Secondly, that village had a mixed population with about 70 per

5 cent of the locals being of Croat ethnicity and 30 of Serb ethnicity. And

6 from the very beginning of the armed conflict, the moment of occupation,

7 the 1st of May, this village joined in the defence together with the other

8 structures. I am not denying that there was an attack on that village,

9 and I cannot deny that something happened that I was not aware of.

10 And a further comment on my part, Your Honours, which I would like

11 you to bear in mind, I'm probably mentioned there as the person who headed

12 the civilian authority at the time. And the mention of my name within the

13 context of the war, conflicts, and battles is absolutely absurd.

14 Q. Your Honours, I wouldn't like to dwell on those documents any

15 further, but I think that the Court should have them to look at them as

16 these are documents disclosed by the OTP. They are four criminal reports,

17 and I'd like to have them exhibited, I think?

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, give them the next C number, court number.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. This first page

20 bears my signature, but that is how I received it.

21 JUDGE MAY: That can have a number in a moment. Yes,

22 Mr. Tapuskovic.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Your Honours, I would just like to ask the witness a few things

25 about what the Yugoslav People's Army did when all this started on the 1st

1 of May and it has to do with the events on the bridges.

2 You were questioned in great detail about this event, Witness, on

3 the 10th and 12th of December by the Prosecution. So could the

4 Prosecution give the witness his statement which he gave in December 1998.

5 Mr. Ramic, would you look at page 7, please, fourth paragraph.

6 Here is what you said at the time regarding the events in connection with

7 the blowing up of the bridges. In the fourth paragraph you said: "Three

8 days before the bridges were blown up, I was so concerned about the

9 possibility of conflict that I sent my family to Zagreb." Is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In the next paragraph you say: "By this time I noticed I was

12 being followed." Who was following you?

13 A. The answer to that question also requires some explanation.

14 Q. It's not essential, Your Honours. My question really is that you

15 said that, "The night when the bridges were blown up, I spent that night

16 at my sister's." Is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So you had no direct knowledge as to what exactly was going on at

19 the bridges?

20 A. I didn't quite understand the question. What do you mean I didn't

21 have any knowledge. About what?

22 Q. You said that you were staying at your sister's. Throughout your

23 statement, which you have in front of you, you did not mention anywhere

24 that the JNA had anything to do with the blowing up of the bridges.

25 Nowhere did you say that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Look at page 8, paragraph 3. When you were making a statement and

2 when you were interviewed by the OTP, and on the day it happened, you

3 said: "Somebody tried to provoke a conflict by blowing up the bridges."

4 Nowhere did you say that the JNA had anything to do with the blowing up of

5 the bridges in your statement of December 1998. Why? Can you explain

6 that?

7 A. Mr. Tapuskovic, I explained a moment ago that the blowing up of

8 the bridges was done by the Yugoslav army, its representatives, and it was

9 organised by it.

10 Q. I understand that, but I'm asking you why you didn't say this in

11 your statement.

12 A. You are misinterpreting this paragraph. What I am saying, that in

13 the conversations on that day, that is the 30th of May in the morning, the

14 day before the occupation, in the negotiations with the army, it was clear

15 to me and to us who did it and why. I tried to prevent the outbreak of

16 the conflict, and of course the main thing I had to do was to talk to the

17 army, the potential opposite party. And in those negotiations, to achieve

18 what I wanted, that is to calm the situation down rather than provoke the

19 conflict, I couldn't start the talks by accusing them.

20 Q. I understand that, but why didn't you tell the investigators what

21 you said today, that is that the Yugoslav People's Army had blown up the

22 bridges? Why didn't you say that in 1998? I can understand that you

23 didn't say that two days after the event, but why didn't you say it in

24 1998? Why didn't you tell the OTP that straight away? What is your

25 explanation?

1 A. Probably the conversation did not take that course. Maybe they

2 didn't ask me. Maybe at that point in time I didn't say that. But I

3 didn't say that anyone else had done it or that I didn't know who had done

4 it.

5 Q. Could you explain what was the interest of the Yugoslav People's

6 Army which had heavy weapons, tanks that were coming to and from Serbia,

7 bringing them there or taking them away from there, what interest would

8 the JNA have to be deprived of bridges? Because a serious army such as

9 the JNA was at the time simply couldn't function without bridges. So how

10 would it be in the interests of the JNA to destroy the bridges when their

11 conflicts had not even started?

12 A. That is where the answer lies, Mr. Tapuskovic. The interest was

13 because that bridge was the umbilical cord linking Brcko and Croatia,

14 which by then was already winning the war against that army. So that on

15 the other side there was a free territory which could have assisted free

16 Brcko, and the army wanted to cut that off, to cut off our rear.

17 That was -- the second reason was that by destroying the bridges,

18 and it used an excessive amount of explosives intentionally, which caused

19 absolute panic in town so that it was impossible to organise any defence

20 properly.

21 Q. Yesterday you mentioned that at the time there were about 150

22 civilians on the bridge when it was blown up. Is that right?

23 A. Yes. These were civilians that were crossing the bridge coming

24 from Croatia, citizens returning home who were working somewhere, as

25 gastarbeiters who were returning home for the May Day holidays, women and

1 children.

2 Q. So when the bridge was blown up they were all on the bridge?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Does that mean that there were very many casualties? You never

5 mention that anywhere in your earlier statements. You didn't even mention

6 knowing of any single victim.

7 A. Mr. Tapuskovic, maybe that is not stated in this written document,

8 but there are plenty of -- there's plenty of evidence, witness statements.

9 There were more than 100 casualties.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Pack.

12 MS. PACK: Can the witness be handed Defence Exhibits D190 and

13 D191.

14 JUDGE MAY: While that's happening we'll get the C number, the

15 court number for the last bundle.

16 THE REGISTRAR: C13.

17 Re-examined by Ms. Pack:

18 Q. Mr. Ramic, look at the first pages of those two documents you've

19 been handed. Just the front page.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Before today, have you seen either of those documents that you've

22 been handed before?

23 A. I saw it only yesterday when you showed them to me, madam, but

24 never before that.

25 Q. Have you seen an indictment before, or a judgement issued by the

1 Republika Srpska authorities?

2 A. I haven't ever.

3 Q. You live now in Sarajevo. Have you returned to Brcko since you

4 left?

5 A. Yes. I go to Brcko very often.

6 Q. Do you have family in Brcko?

7 A. Yes. I do have family there. Two of my brothers live there and

8 my sister lives there and some other members of my family.

9 Q. Have you or they received ever any documentation about criminal

10 proceedings against you or details of specific charges against you?

11 A. As regards what you've been saying to me now and what you've shown

12 me, no, never. Nobody ever received any such thing. I haven't been

13 informed of any such thing.

14 JUDGE KWON: But, Ms. Pack, I couldn't understand him when he said

15 that he had seen the document yesterday.

16 MS. PACK: Perhaps I can ask the witness just to look at each

17 document in turn.

18 Q. The first document, D190, look at the first page and look, please,

19 at what it's headed. Is it an indictment?

20 A. It says, "Criminal report," dated the 9th of November, 1995, by

21 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.

22 Q. Did you see this specific document yesterday or when you arrived

23 in The Hague?

24 A. No, not yesterday. Your Honours, I made a mistake. When I

25 arrived in The Hague, at one point in time you showed it to me, but it

1 wasn't yesterday.

2 MS. PACK: Perhaps the witness can be handed the amicus exhibit,

3 the C number, C13.

4 Q. Mr. Ramic, I don't want to confuse you, but this is a third

5 document, and again you can see that that document has a different

6 heading. Perhaps you could identify the date of that document and

7 identify the heading of that document.

8 A. This is a criminal report submitted by the military prosecutor's

9 office in Bijeljina, and it's dated the 18th of January, 1993.

10 Q. And is it in fact that document and documents of a similar nature

11 to that which were shown to you on your arrival at The Hague?

12 A. Yes, that's right.

13 MS. PACK: I don't want to confuse the witness, Your Honour, but

14 the documents produced by the accused today aren't documents held by the

15 OTP.

16 Q. Just a couple of further questions, Mr. Ramic. Have steps ever

17 been taken to bring you or any of the other individuals named on that

18 document to trial?

19 A. I'm not aware of that. I was not informed, anyway.

20 Q. Tell the Court, please, the circumstances in which you first heard

21 of any criminal proceedings against you.

22 A. Well, I've already said a short while ago, during our previous

23 discussion, that regarding the judgement pertaining to alleged war crimes

24 in which I'm mentioned too, I heard about that quite accidentally. I

25 cannot say when and where exactly. Somebody told me about this or

1 somebody showed me an excerpt from a newspaper article at the time, and it

2 came from the side of occupied Brcko. But this was already 1995 or 1996.

3 And the headline said, "Accused of war crimes," and then my name is

4 mentioned in the text. It's the first time I ever heard of this.

5 Q. Tell the Court, please, have you heard since that time of any

6 further matters relating to those charges?

7 A. Yes. Yes. This was a year and a half ago. I read in the

8 newspapers that the court in Brcko, in the district of Brcko, that's what

9 it is nowadays, so the court in Brcko pardoned the persons accused for war

10 crimes. My name is mentioned too, and I was surprised by this. May I

11 make a further comment? May I speak about this?

12 JUDGE MAY: Briefly, yes.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I was surprised, and I addressed

14 the court in writing. I managed to find their telephone number too, and I

15 phoned this judge and I asked what kind of war crime was involved, and I

16 wrote a letter of protest, asking them to stop all proceedings and not to

17 mention me as a war criminal at all and that I would not accept any kind

18 of pardon or amnesty for something I had never done.

19 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Pack, I think we need to get to the bottom of this

20 story, these allegations having been made. If it's right that the Court

21 has issued an amnesty, then it's obviously something this Court should

22 know about because it might have an effect on our understanding of the

23 situation. So perhaps the Prosecution would look into that and come up

24 with an answer.

25 MS. PACK: Yes, we'll look into that. The only documentation we

1 held were the documents released on Monday which the amicus questioned the

2 witness about. So I will make sure that's looked into.

3 Q. Mr. Ramic, one or two further questions. The list that you have

4 seen on which you are identified with other persons in those indictments

5 and charge sheets, generally, who are the people named in those

6 indictments? Don't name them, just say generally what type of person is

7 named.

8 A. In respect of all these charge sheets and criminal reports in all

9 these cases, more or less the same persons are involved. These are

10 primarily the top people of the civilian authorities of the free territory

11 of Brcko. Then there is the entire command of the 108th Brigade, then

12 people from the state security service, and perhaps I can put it this way

13 too, an occasional individual or two that I do not know. But more or less

14 it involves the same people; the top people of civilian and military

15 authorities of the free territory of Brcko.

16 Q. Ethnicity?

17 A. These persons are of Bosniak and Croat ethnicity.

18 Q. Finally, Mr. Ramic, your reaction when you heard that you had been

19 given a pardon was what?

20 A. I've just said. I was very upset. I phoned this judge and I

21 asked quite simply to stop all of this, and I asked where all of this came

22 from, and he told me that he had no other legal possibility other than

23 doing what he had already done, namely amnesty. However, I did address an

24 official request in writing to this court, stating that I refuse this

25 amnesty and that I wanted this invented process to be terminated

1 altogether and annulled.

2 MS. PACK: No further questions, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Pack, perhaps you could find out too whether

4 the amnesty or the pardon, was that in relation to the same charges for

5 which there was a conviction and a judgement. I'm a little confused.

6 MS. PACK: I will find that out. It seems to me I have not seen

7 the -- well, I've seen them very briefly, the documents that the accused

8 produced. It looks like they all date in chronological order from the

9 charge sheets to the indictment to the judgement. And it looks like the

10 amnesty was dated sometime after that, but I will certainly check that.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: And Mr. Tapuskovic. Mr. Tapuskovic, could you

12 help me with this: In relation to the document produced by the accused

13 which was a judgement and which obviously it seemed to me would have

14 resulted from a trial and a judgement in absentia, firstly, I take it that

15 there is provision in Republika Srpska for a trial in absentia, but what I

16 wanted to ask you was whether one can proceed to a trial in absentia

17 without attempting to enforce the indictment. Can you just proceed

18 straight to a trial in absentia without attempting to serve the indictment

19 on the accused?

20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] According to the laws that were

21 in force throughout this territory at that time, and at that time they

22 were practically applied in the entire territory in spite of the

23 situation, first of all, the court of law would have to do everything

24 possible in order to make sure that the accused person is present,

25 primarily to have the indictment served upon the person involved. And if

1 that does not succeed, then this person is summoned to trial. And if that

2 does not succeed, then a trial can be held in absentia. Then a judgement

3 is reached. If the accused person ever appears before the court of law

4 afterwards, then there has to be retrial. And if we see that there is a

5 judgement that was passed, and we do see that there was a judgement that

6 was passed, then the trial would have to take place all over again. That

7 is in accordance with SFRY regulations.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Tapuskovic.

9 MS. PACK: Your Honour may be assisted by asking the witness a few

10 questions about the jurisdiction of the court in Brcko.

11 JUDGE MAY: Briefly.

12 MS. PACK:

13 Q. Just so far as you're aware, Mr. Ramic, the court in Brcko, the

14 present court, the Brcko District Court, did that inherit all proceedings

15 that had been issued under the jurisdiction of the Serb court in Brcko

16 during the war?

17 A. Yes. Precisely during this conversation that I've already

18 referred to with this judge from that court, the question was raised of

19 how they could amnesty persons involved in proceedings that were conducted

20 by this - how should I put it? - war court of Republika Srpska. The

21 answer I got was that the administration of the district of Brcko legally

22 inherited all previous legal enactments and processes.

23 MS. PACK: No further questions.

24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you

25 for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps the legal officer would come up.

3 Mr. Nice, you can help us about Brcko. I don't want to prolong

4 this, but at some stage we need bringing up-to-date as the present state

5 there.

6 MR. NICE: I think it is under separate administration, but we

7 will ensure the position is before you with dates of relevant decisions

8 about it. I've seen the material recently. I'll look into it over the

9 break. You presumably would like it in evidential form rather than just

10 from the counsel's role.

11 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think if counsel would tell us and then if

12 there is any argument about it, we can get it in evidential form.

13 MR. NICE: I'll get a swift chronology prepared and make it

14 available to you by the next break.

15 JUDGE MAY: It can't be a matter of reasonable debate. Yes.

16 MR. NICE: Staying with Brcko and the last witness there was the

17 question of the late disclosure or later than usual disclosure of Rule 68

18 material. As the Chamber knows, the duty of disclosing under Rule 68

19 imposed by the Rules involves a great deal of material that we have to

20 produce to the accused and we do so. We then produce material that is

21 witness specific shortly before the witness comes because it's much more

22 helpful for him and it also means that we don't produce Rule 68 material

23 for witnesses who in any event don't come which would simply burden him

24 more.

25 In this case it happened that the material to be disclosed to him

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 fell for review a little later than usual. Whether this was a hangover

2 from the holiday period or not, I'm not sure, and he got that bundle of

3 material he revealed to you on the day before, which was later than usual.

4 His cross-examination reveals that the material we provided to him was

5 similar to but in a sense weaker than the material that he had himself

6 because although we haven't been able to compare them, it looks as though

7 the indictments and so on that he produced, which are not available to us,

8 are simply the successor documents to the charge sheets that we were able

9 to produce. So in reality he was not inconvenienced or prejudiced in any

10 way but of course we will do all we can to ensure that the flow of 68

11 material to the accused goes a sufficient number of days before the

12 witnesses come to give evidence to help him in his preparation.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, at present your practice, the practice

14 of the Prosecutor is to search all documents that it has to see whether it

15 has any Rule 68 material.

16 MR. NICE: Yes. If you remember, the overall 68 regime has been

17 described in our several reports, and what we have done is identify a

18 series of search criteria that we apply, and as the Chamber will recall,

19 we regularly remind the Chamber and the amicus and the accused of what the

20 search criteria are so that if they think there's variation that's

21 required, we can consider it and apply it.

22 In addition to that, when any witness comes to give evidence, his

23 name is searched generally within the system. That produces, depending on

24 the witness, a small to enormous amount of material which was then

25 retrieved, printed in hard copy form normally, reviewed by lawyers to see

1 which items within that material qualify for Rule 68 disclosure.

2 Now, there may well be, and I think probably frequently is, an

3 overlap between what is 68 for a specific witness and what will already

4 have been disclosed as part of the general exercise of looking for

5 exculpatory material. But regardless of that, when a witness is coming to

6 give evidence, we search the material, produce what has to be produced for

7 us to review and hand over shortly before the witness --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I asked the question because I have been

9 developing a view that Rule 68 does not necessarily achieve fairness for

10 all the parties. I believe it is impracticable and unduly onerous. My

11 own view is that it needs to be looked at, to be reviewed and revised so

12 that it is more practicable without doing an injustice to the accused.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm interested to hear those views, and I

14 know that the matter is under general consideration, consideration to

15 which the Office of the Prosecutor is making its contribution. But until

16 there is any change in the Rule, we have to comply with the Rule as it

17 operates on us.

18 Can I turn then to the position with respect to General Van Baal,

19 because the accused drew to your attention that he was provided with some

20 material later again than I would have preferred.

21 In his position, several binders worth of material were identified

22 as needing review, or at least a binder or so, some 130 documents. For

23 internal reasons that I needn't trouble you with, they fell for review

24 later than one would normally have desired. Some 15 documents were

25 identified as needing to be disclosed and one additional one was

1 identified last night, making 16 documents in all, and I hold up the

2 quantity of material in my hand that was disclosed to the accused. It's a

3 combination of press reports, Sitreps of the kind with which the Chamber

4 will be familiar and other documentation. It is not a particularly dense

5 or slow read although, of course, it is documentation that I would have

6 preferred the accused to have had earlier than yesterday.

7 JUDGE MAY: Let us hear the witness in chief, then begin the

8 cross-examination, and we will see if any issues arise. We will have the

9 witness, please.

10 MR. NICE: Your Honours, while the witness is coming in, two

11 things. You will see that I am joined today by --

12 JUDGE MAY: Does the Registry have a point?

13 We are told the witness, Mr. Nice, will be giving evidence with

14 interpreters.

15 MR. NICE: I should have mentioned that, yes. He speaks what to

16 an English man would be regarded as perfect English, but coming from

17 Holland with a finer tradition of speaking foreign languages he considers

18 there are imperfections and would rather express himself accurately

19 through a Dutch interpreter.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 MR. NICE: Your Honours will see that I am joined by Mr. Ierace

22 who has particular experience in the area of Sarajevo and who indeed will

23 be taking some Sarajevo witnesses.

24 JUDGE MAY: If the witness would take the declaration, please.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

1 the truth and nothing but the truth.

2 WITNESS: ADRIANUS VAN BAAL

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 MR. NICE: Your Honours, before I forget, although I shan't be

5 referring to it myself, the large map of Sarajevo is available at short

6 notice, providing an easel can be found, should the accused wish to

7 examine, or cross-examine, on any matters of detail.

8 Q. Your full name, please, sir.

9 A. Van Baal.

10 Q. You're a general in the Dutch army.

11 MR. NICE: And Your Honour, the witness's testimony in the earlier

12 Galic trial has been admitted subject to the provisions of Rule 92 bis (D)

13 and with cross-examination. In those circumstances, I will read from a

14 summary of the evidence he gave on an earlier occasion, asking him a

15 couple of matters in viva voce evidence and producing one composite

16 exhibit.

17 Q. General Van Baal, I'm about to read a summary of the evidence you

18 gave. I shall attempt to do so at a speed that is suitable and will

19 respond to corrections if I go too fast.

20 This witness was a member of the Dutch army since 1966, chief of

21 UNPROFOR from the 24th of February 1994, and on arrival in Sarajevo in the

22 aftermath of the Markale market incident, sensing that the atmosphere was

23 one of horror where there was an explicit appeal for help.

24 In his judgement there was a centralised and effective command

25 system operating within the VRS which was conducting the battle around

1 Sarajevo through the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the SRK, whose commander was

2 General Galic, a commander popular with his troops and over whom he had

3 great authority.

4 Galic was subordinate to General Mladic, however, General

5 Milovanovic, chief of the Main Staff of the VRS, also exercised

6 considerable influence over General Galic in day-to-day affairs.

7 The witness was able to confirm contents of a 12th of April, 1994,

8 document which noted that nothing occurs in that region under BSA control

9 without headquarters' knowledge as a result of excellent military

10 discipline.

11 One of the witness's main tasks was to gather or organise the

12 gathering of heavy weapons from the warring factions as part of the total

13 exclusion zone proclamation which was a unilateral decision of NATO to

14 which the warring parties agreed to comply.

15 The total exclusion zone, a circle with a radius of about 20

16 kilometres centred on Sarajevo, was established by the NATO council and

17 within it heavy weaponry could not be deployed so that it had either to be

18 removed or placed under UNPROFOR control at weapon collection points.

19 Generally the zone was respected and the witness's estimate was that 99

20 per cent of heavy weapons on the Serb side were placed under the control

21 of Serb forces. However, several weapon systems were removed by the Serb

22 side without permission, were deployed and fired.

23 Further, in the summer of 1994, Serb units made several attempts

24 to remove weapons from a collection point and occasionally or infrequently

25 following application of the agreement, the Serb side did fire heavy

1 weaponry, there being an increase in this use of heavy weaponry after the

2 5th of August.

3 During the time of his presence in Sarajevo, the witness observed

4 because of the relative success of the total exclusion zone, most

5 destruction occurred in local skirmishes at some points along the

6 confrontation line.

7 As to sniping and following the total exclusion zone agreement,

8 there was initially a sharp reduction in the use of small arms as well as

9 of heavy weaponry by the warring parties. There were sniping incidents

10 which were investigated by the commander of the Sarajevo sector, General

11 Soubirou, carried out under the auspices of the chief UNMO. By March

12 1994, however, UNPROFOR reports indicated that snipers were being used

13 more actively in Sarajevo, and the witness raised the issue with General

14 Milovanovic at his first meeting with him on the 16th of March in Pale.

15 Milovanovic stated that the trams in Sarajevo should not run until

16 the Serbian bus system was functioning as well and that if UNPROFOR

17 allowed the trams to run, he would see to it that the trams and passengers

18 on them would be targeted.

19 Following that meeting, trams did run, and passengers while on the

20 trams or waiting for them were targeted by snipers so that the witness

21 formed the view that Milovanovic was able to influence sniper activity

22 against trams.

23 In his earlier testimony, the witness was able to read from an

24 UNPROFOR Sitrep of the 3rd of August, 1994, which recorded that on that

25 date at about 1:00 p.m., a sniper operating from a Serbian building shot

1 against a tramway, lightly wounding three Bosnian civilians --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Nice, please read slower. Thank you.

3 MR. NICE: My apologies.

4 -- also recording the anti-sniper sniping team operating from the

5 Holiday Inn alongside what was known as Sniper Alley returned fire to the

6 sniper.

7 The witness is able to confirm that there were several such

8 incidents in July and August of 1994. He did not know if UNPROFOR

9 anti-sniping teams ever targeted snipers on the Bosnia side as well, but

10 he confirms that there were sniping incidents on both sides.

11 He thought it unlikely that trams would be hit accidently by an

12 exchange of fire along the confrontation line and rejects entirely the

13 suggestion that they were hit by crossfire or ricocheting bullets.

14 In his judgement, the fact that the trams from time to time

15 carried soldiers travelling, other than on active service I suppose,

16 doesn't make it a legitimate military target. One way or another, his

17 opinion is that that doesn't make a legitimate military target of the

18 trams.

19 UNPROFOR started negotiations with the warring parties for an

20 anti-sniping agreement in May of 1994, the agreement being signed in

21 August following an incident on the 14th of August when an 11-year-old

22 child was shot dead on the tram. Both sides claimed they had no control

23 over snipers operating from their respective territories.

24 The sniping from the areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb army was

25 intended and planned to cause terror. The objective was apparent to the

1 witness by their sniping of defenseless citizens, women, children, who

2 were unable to defend or protect themselves at unexpected places and

3 unexpected times. His judgement was that women and children appeared to

4 predominate among civilian casualties.

5 Generals Rose and de la Presle, along with Viktor Andreev,

6 repeatedly and vehemently protested to the VRS leadership about the

7 sniping of civilians in Sarajevo. General Soubirou attempted to protest

8 to General Galic and his liaison officers but following the Gorazde crisis

9 of April 1994, General Mladic forbad contact with UNPROFOR at any level

10 below that of General Van Baal and General Milovanovic, and in particular

11 he wanted no further contact with General Rose, requiring to speak at the

12 level of the four star General de la Presle. Occasionally this witness,

13 General Van Baal, was able to protest orally to the SRK liaison officer,

14 Major Indjic, about the deliberate and indiscriminate shelling and sniping

15 of civilians in Sarajevo from the VRS side of confrontation lines. The

16 responses from both Indjic and Milovanovic varied from a denial that they

17 could control snipers to blaming the enemy for targeting their own

18 civilians.

19 In his prior testimony, the witness read from a document generated

20 by the UNMO, the military observer mission of the United Nations, for the

21 13th of July of 1994 which noted that on the 12th of July, the commander

22 of the 1st Battalion of the Bosnian Serb army Ilidza Brigade had admitted

23 sniping by that army from a location known as "the house for the blind

24 people."

25 On the topic of proportionality, the witness expressed the view

1 that the use of Serb artillery to neutralise one sniper operating from a

2 room or indeed a sniper's nest in an apartment block where there may have

3 been civilians was disproportionate as use of force. The way to deal with

4 snipers was by snipers.

5 Further, after proclamation of the total exclusion zone, the

6 conflict was minimised so that, for example and in respect of

7 proportionality, an attack on Bosnian positions in Marsal Tito barracks in

8 Sarajevo could no longer be justified.

9 Further, the heavy weapons of the Bosnian army were controlled by

10 UNPROFOR with the exception of possibly a very sporadically used

11 120-millimetre mortar operating from the vicinity of the airport and

12 possibly in respect of tank fire from near the Kosevo hospital at Serb

13 positions. He had serious doubts that a factory making uniforms could be

14 a legitimate target, but I think he'll probably express his opinion more

15 strongly than that if pressed on it.

16 A command centre in the city on a lower or ground floor in the

17 judgement of the witness could be targeted legitimately with artillery or

18 mortars if no civilians were present in the building. As to the airport,

19 on several occasions Bosnian forces at Butimir used small-arms fire on

20 approaching and departing planes, consequently closing the airport for

21 periods of time. The witness's evidence included that at the end of March

22 1994, General Mladic urged repeatedly that a cease-fire be imposed

23 throughout Herzegovina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, on condition that the safe

24 areas including Sarajevo be demilitarised. Turning to what that would

25 involve, what military presence there was that would need to be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 demilitarised, the witness observed in the evidence that there were a

2 large number of military installations in Sarajevo including mobile

3 targets such as military trucks, and he had heard of rumours of a weapons

4 workshop in Marsal Tito barracks but I think nothing more than a rumour.

5 Your Honours, can I turn to the production of the one exhibit

6 through the witness which I trust Your Honours have. The transcript of

7 his evidence, I think, should perhaps be the first tab in his exhibit and

8 then the composite three-part document the second tab.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number 534.

10 MR. NICE: In error I read that the witness was the chief of

11 UNPROFOR. He was the Chief of Staff of the UNPROFOR. I am grateful to

12 Mr. Ierace for seeing that I misread that. And in the Exhibit 524 [sic],

13 we look, please, at tab 2 as I think it is then. You see a three-part

14 composite document, the first being an outgoing table dated the 8th of

15 August, part of the total exclusion zone agreement and dealing with how

16 Serbs were to have access to their impounded weapons particular purposes.

17 Q. Is that correct, General?

18 A. Yes, that's right.

19 Q. The second page sets out the points of agreem