¹¹⁵²⁷

Friday, 31 January 2003

(Open session)

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. A very good afternoon to everybody. May we please hear the case.

THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. This is case number IT-97-24-T, the Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances on this 111th day of this case for the Prosecution.

MR. KOUMJIAN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian, Ann Sutherland, and Ruth Karper for the Prosecution.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And for the Defence.

MR. LUKIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Branko Lukic, John Ostojic, and Danilo Cirkovic for the Defence.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Before we start, may I please hear, do you have already a, not proffers, but a list of the witnesses to appear during next week, including Monday the following week?

MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Yes, we do. The witnesses, pursuant to our 65 ter submission, are as follows: 053, 066, 070, and 079. Witness number 070, at least via telephone through our investigator, has agreed to reschedule things so that he could appear before the Court on Friday and Monday of the following week.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Witness 70. So we take it as granted that these witnesses will appear. In ¹¹⁵²⁸ case there would be any obstacle or impediment, please let us know immediately that we can do the necessary. And we are also prepared to order the necessary related to those two witnesses you wanted us to order their appearance. They will appear hopefully as Chamber witnesses, and we didn't see any reason to order a subpoena because we don't have any indicia that they wouldn't come without this subpoena. We believe -- admittedly, I don't know the estimate of time related to the four witnesses you just mentioned. You believe that those four witnesses would cover the following six days.

MR. OSTOJIC: We do, Your Honour. And based on prior history with respect to our witnesses, most recently this week, we may even anticipate that the one witness will go beyond the Monday and into the Wednesday, which was previously a holiday and now is not. But it all depends on the questions by the OTP and by the Court. Specifically, with respect to Witness 053, we believe that he will be lengthy and may take two to three days for his completion in its entirety, including questions emanating from the Defence, the anticipated cross-examination by the OTP, and the Court's potential questions. So we believe we can fulfil the entire six-plus days that the Court has requested us to bring witnesses.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It should only be quite clear from the outset that there won't be any hearing on Wednesday, because as I already stated yesterday, we all have our obligations and commitments, and therefore we should if possible in any event stick to the schedule, and this was not to have a hearing on Wednesday. And therefore, I think we appreciate very much that you undertook the necessary steps that we have these four ¹¹⁵²⁹ witnesses, and let us please try that in both directions we can hear the witnesses on Friday and Monday, but on the other hand, not to go beyond this Monday.

Anything else to be discussed before we start with -- or restart with our witness?

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. We would just like to formally advise the Court that we did file a motion, as we suggested we would yesterday, in connection with the five witnesses that have experienced some personal dilemmas and problems, and we're not sure if the Court has received that motion, and I'm merely just providing you notice that we did file a written application and we believe we have sufficiently set forth pursuant to the Rules the basis upon which the videolink conference with the Court's discretion may proceed. We very specifically set forth their names. We filed it confidentially their 65 ter number and a brief summary of the basis as to why these witnesses cannot testify live here at The Hague but are willing nonetheless to testify via videolink. And we've also set forth the basis as required by the Rules as to the necessity of those the witnesses from the Defence perspective. And just to remind the Court respectfully, we believe the Court has previously agreed that these witnesses can be called. So they were on our initial list. And we continue to maintain that they're necessary and vital for the Defence case.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And may I, therefore, invite the Prosecution to respond to this as soon as possible. Hopefully it's possible in oral form only, that we don't need the answer in writing, and that we can take the ¹¹⁵³⁰ necessary measures if we can come to the conclusion that a videolink is the appropriate way to hear these witnesses as soon as possible.

MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, Your Honour. We have not yet received the motion, but we will review it as soon as we receive it.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Anything else?

MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From the Prosecution?

MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I then ask the usher to escort the witness into the courtroom. Thank you.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon, Mr. Vuleta. Please take your seat.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I do hope that in the late afternoon or even evening of yesterday we did not confuse you with all these pictures of models. Unfortunately, we had no chance at all to be there ourselves and to visit these buildings on the spot, which no doubt would facilitate our work. But please continue as you did yesterday with your testimony. And it's for me under the Rules just to remind you that you are still under solemn declaration as it was yesterday.

So may I ask the Defence to continue.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS: CEDO VULETA [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] ¹¹⁵³¹ Examined by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Vuleta.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Once again, I'd like to first apologise for yesterday evening and the difficulty I seem to have had in terms of expressing myself in connection with some of the exhibits that were put forth. But today I'm going to try to ask you some questions and then hopefully I'll go back to some of the exhibits so that we could clarify some points necessary for the Defence. Are you ready to proceed?

A. I am.

Q. Sir, yesterday you discussed the drinking water that was provided at the iron ore mine and that there was a special water well located at Donja Lamovita, which was 5 or 6 kilometres away from the facility that was shown to you on the picture S15.2. Correct?

A. Correct, yes. Yes, from the restaurant that was being shown me and the place, the hall where the vehicles belonging to the mine were parked.

Q. Sir, was part of your duties and responsibilities to maintain and service this special water well in Donja Lamovita so that persons at the iron ore mine could use and be provided with drinking water?

A. Yes, yes. The well was of major importance, and I had to devote most of my attention to it so as not to have any shortages or any cuts in water supply.

Q. So just so I understand your testimony, you would actually leave the area that was depicted that we saw yesterday on Exhibit S15-2 -- you ¹¹⁵³² would leave that area and go 5 or 6 kilometres to the actual special water well in order to maintain and service that water well; correct?

A. Yes. Yes, correct.

Q. Now, the duties and responsibilities that you described in connection with maintenance and service of this special water well, those are the same duties and responsibilities that you performed before the attack on Prijedor as well as after the attack on Prijedor; correct?

A. Yes, it is. I maintained the drinking water well in the same way before.

Q. Sometimes lawyers have to be a little more specific, so I'm going to ask you a question in connection with that. Specifically, sir, during the time period that you shared with us, the end of May 1992 through August of 1992, did you continue to maintain and service this special water well so that the detainees who were at the iron ore mine were able to be provided with drinking water?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. You also told us yesterday that you worked a 24-hour shift. During that 24 hours, sir, did you utilise the drinking water that you were maintaining and servicing for the people at the iron ore mine, during the period of May through August 1992?

A. I also drank that. Not always. At times I'd bring water from home, because we had a problem before the war. There was an outbreak of epidemics and a number of our workers fell ill. Some of them were in the hospital. While, I was lucky and did not succumb. But after these epidemics, the mine management distributed mineral water to us, and then ¹¹⁵³³ special teams came from laboratories to do some chemical tests and they added something -- they added some chemicals and things. The water wasn't quite right either biologically or chemically. And there is documentation to this effect and analysis, and I believe it can still be found in the mine archives.

Q. Okay. When was that, sir? When did that happen?

A. It happened -- I mean, the epidemics, it was before the outbreak of war, at the time when the situation was regular. Now, I don't exactly know when was that. It could have been 1990 or perhaps 1989. I do not know the exact day, but it was a long time before the war. Nobody even imagined that there would be a war at that time.

Q. Just so that we're clear, when you say "before the war," you're not referring to the war that commenced in Prijedor. You're talking about the war in Slovenia and Croatia. So somewhere between 1989 and 1990; correct?

A. Yes. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Before any conflict, either in Slovenia -- no, nobody could even dream that there would be a war.

Q. Let me switch the topic from water to food now. You mentioned yesterday at pages 80 and on, you discussed the cafeteria that you identified on Exhibit S15-2 and then you also mentioned another restaurant and a kitchen which was near the separation where all the food was prepared. And for the Court and counsel, that's on page 81. And you also mentioned that that cafeteria, the other one, and kitchen were approximately 2 kilometres east of the photograph that we were discussing yesterday evening. Do you remember that testimony? ¹¹⁵³⁴

A. There's a slight error there. The kitchen, that is, where food was cooked, was east of the cafeteria where it was distributed. And we called it Kop, that is, to the east where the -- was the restaurant with cooking facilities and to the west was the cafeteria, where food was distributed to the workers at the time when the mine worked, and then later on the place where the detainees were also distributed food.

Q. [Microphone not activated]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Just so that I may have clarification. On the exhibit that we saw yesterday, there was the cafeteria; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Is that the cafeteria where in the spring and summer of 1992 the detainees would be provided with food?

A. Yes.

Q. And was the food prepared in that cafeteria that we saw on the exhibit or was it prepared in a different cafeteria, as you described it, 2 kilometres east and then that food being prepared was brought to the cafeteria?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. Well, actually, sir, I gave you an option on the question. I used the word "or," so let me just clarify it. It's true, isn't it, that in fact the food was prepared for the detainees in the spring and summer of 1992 in a different facility 2 miles east from the area that was depicted in the exhibit and it was brought to the cafeteria that you identified and ¹¹⁵³⁵ that is where the detainees ate that food; correct?

A. Yes, correct.

Q. Thank you. Mr. Vuleta, you having been working a 24-hour shift, did you also and likewise eat the same food that the detainees ate in the spring and summer of 1992?

A. I took of the same food as the detainees, except because I also maintained the cooking facilities and I knew the personnel, I would get larger portions of the food. But the type of food was the same for the workers, for the detainees, and the troops. It was cooked the same way, using the same facilities.

Q. And can you describe for us, please, the food that you ate during the period of summer 1992 that the detainees also ate.

A. Well, the food was beans. One day we'd have potatoes, then rice. It depends. It wasn't the same food every day.

Q. How often in a given day was food being provided to the detainees in the spring and summer of 1992?

A. They had only one meal a day.

Q. Do you know, sir, if bread was provided to the detainees at that time, the spring and summer of 1992?

A. Yes. Yes. In the early days, they got a quarter of a loaf of bread. But as the time went by, they were getting an eighth part of a loaf because we were surrounded and cut off from Serbia and cut off from Croatia in the west, and since our supplies were running short, then we had to distribute what we had.

Q. So is it fair to say that there was less food being provided to ¹¹⁵³⁶ everyone at the iron ore mine, including the detainees, as well as the employees, such as yourself, including the police force that was there, as well as the military force; correct?

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'd ask counsel to refrain from leading from now on in.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Comments?

MR. OSTOJIC: I think, quite frankly, Your Honour, we've set a precedent here. And I'd hate to argue this rather, in my opinion, minuscule point, when if we review the transcript of any witness, and I don't say with any reservation, that this Court is allowed, at least with all the OTP witnesses they've been led, and there was not an open-ended question that they asked without it being led. But I can restate the question without any problem, but...

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objection dismissed.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Mr. Vuleta, let me try the question again, in any event. The food that you said ultimately during the tenure of late May through August of 1992, it became -- the supplies were reduced. Did that apply just to the detainees?

A. I think the detainees -- I think -- I mean, I know that they were getting less. And as for the troops, I believe they had two meals. That is what I think. I didn't really go there, but I saw their food being poured out, distributed, taken away, army troops, detainees -- so I -- no, I still think that the army troops received two meals.

Q. And what about yourself and other employees of the iron ore mine? ¹¹⁵³⁷ Did you also receive the main -- the same portions as you had prior to this reduction in supply?

A. Well, when our supplies declined and the quality of food also declined, so I often brought my food from home so that I never even went to that kitchen. I would simply bring it along. Sometimes I did eat in the kitchen, but I -- I mean, I had enough.

Q. Let me switch now from water and food to sleeping accommodations at the iron ore mine. During the spring and summer of 1992, did you, sir, during your 24-hour shift also sleep at or near the iron ore mine?

A. When on my shift, I slept in the electric workshop.

Q. Were you provided, sir, with a mattress and a pillow for your specific sleeping accommodations, or at the very least describe for us, so that I don't lead -- describe for us your personal sleeping accommodations during the time that you were at the iron ore mine from late May through late August 1992.

A. I and other workers who worked in the mine, I personally slept on a wooden table, on a work table. I brought a kind of a sponge mattress from home, and it was -- the weather was warm, so there was no need for me to cover with anything. But we had no beds.

Q. And were there beds anywhere within the iron ore mine complex in the spring and summer of 1992?

A. Beds? No. There were no beds. I -- no. No, there were no beds there at all. No.

Q. Moving right along. Yesterday on page 70 of your testimony you mentioned one of your superiors by the name of Mirko Babic. Do you ¹¹⁵³⁸ remember that name, sir?

A. Yes, yes, I do.

Q. Can you tell us what Mirko Babic's title was in connection with the iron ore mine during the spring and summer of 1992.

A. Mirko Babic was the foreman in the workshop. He assigned jobs. He issued orders to me concerning work involving the electric installations or -- he also issued orders to locksmiths, what they had to do and so.

Q. Was he a member of the police force during the spring and summer of 1992?

A. Oh, come on. No. He was a civilian.

Q. I just wanted to get clarification on that. Sir, was he a member of the military during the spring and summer of 1992?

A. Come, no. He was a civilian.

Q. Did he, sir, Mr. Babic, at any time during the spring and summer of 1992, when the detainees were at the iron ore mine, order, direct, or supervise any of the members of the police force that were present there?

A. Mirko Babic had nothing to do with the police. He merely organised work in the mine. He had nothing to do with the police or the army or anything.

Q. I understand that, sir. But it's my duty as an attorney to just clarify those factual issues. So just be patient with me. With respect to Mr. Babic, again, did he, sir, give any orders, commands, instructions, or supervise any members of the military at the iron ore mine in the spring and summer of 1992 when the detainees were present? ¹¹⁵³⁹

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And may I add, in case you don't know, please say so.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not aware that he could issue any orders to the army.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. What I'm, sir, looking for is specifically your personal observations and experiences. Did you, sir, at any time in the spring and summer of 1992 see or hear that Mr. Babic at any time ordered, commanded, instructed, or supervised any members of the military who were present at the iron ore mine in the spring and summer of 1992 while the detainees were there?

A. Why, no. Mirko Babic had nothing to do with the military. I don't know what could he order.

MR. OSTOJIC: With the assistance and permission of the Court, if the usher can show the witness Exhibit S15-2 again, please.

Q. And Mr. Vuleta, we're going to return to this exhibit that we spent some time yesterday and hopefully by utilising this one exhibit we can at least get some clarity on some issues, hopefully. Mr. Vuleta, I have a couple more questions in connection with this exhibit, S15-2. Specifically, if you can recall, based upon your personal objections, can you show us on this picture of a model prepared by the OTP where the police officers were stationed typically, on a typical day, in the spring and summer of 1992 while the detainees were there.

A. The police was in this part, here. And it was police from Banja Luka. ¹¹⁵⁴⁰

MR. OSTOJIC: And just so the record is clear, if I may, Your Honour, the witness -- or Mr. Vuleta is indicating the picture -- by facing the picture, the building to the right -- on the right-hand side and immediately south of the building. He indicated the vacant area in front of that building.

Q. And in any other area were police force in existence?

A. There were policemen in the administrative building too. I saw them there. And there were guards standing around here and here, around the buildings.

MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the record is clear, the witness has essentially encircled both -- or the building to the left, the large building, as well as the building to the north facing this picture, which I think is previously identified as a white house. And then the witness has also indicated that there were guards stationed around the entrance of the building which as we face is on the right-hand side.

Q. Mr. Vuleta, to the best of your recollection, do you remember where the military personnel were stationed at or about the iron ore mine during the spring and summer of 1992?

A. Military personnel were stationed -- well, I couldn't tell you the exact distance, but it was behind these buildings over there. There were some swamps there. And on this side there was a petrol station. So it was basically there was a ring -- there was military encircling the whole area.

MR. OSTOJIC: I think that adequately describes it, so I won't have to. ¹¹⁵⁴¹

Q. Sir, during the spring and summer of 1992, while the detainees were at the iron ore mine, did you carry a gun or a pistol or were you in any manner armed?

A. I was a civilian. I wore my work clothes, and I wore a white armband. I can't remember whether it was on my right or left arm, so that it was quite clear for all the guards to see that I was not one of the inmates.

MR. OSTOJIC: If I can, with the Court's permission and the assistance of the usher and the registry have the witness look at Exhibit S15-16.

Q. Sir, I'm going to show you what's been previously marked as Exhibit S15-16 and ask you to please describe, if you can, the aerial side photograph of that picture. Thank you.

A. This building is the white house. And while the mine was operating, this was where the roll call was read out for the miners. This building here was a pumper for sewage and the container. This here was the administration building and the canteen. The part up there was the administration building and down here was the canteen, where the workers had their meals. This here is a transformer station. This is a warehouse for lubricating oils. Then this building here -- you can't see it, but there were two buildings here. There was a pumping station here for sewage as well, and this is where there were high pressure pumps which were used to wash vehicles, to hose down vehicles when they were going to the mine and also the vehicles were washed here before being repaired. This building here we referred to as "the workshop." The western part of ¹¹⁵⁴² this building was where bulldozers and excavators and the trucks and other large vehicles were repaired. This part here, this was the garage and also a workshop for -- for dump trucks, and they were repaired here. And here there is a compressor station. Up here there were offices where various employees, technicians, engineers worked. I don't know if you're interested in anything else besides this.

Q. I think that's adequate for now. If the OTP or the Court has any other questions, I'm sure they're going to ask.

Can you share with us, by looking at this exhibit, S15-16, during the spring and summer of 1992, when you were under your work obligation, where would you sleep during your 24-hour shift?

A. I slept in this area here, between this building and this part here. So it was right in the corner here.

MR. OSTOJIC: Let me just describe it if I can for the record. It's the larger of the two buildings by facing the picture on the right-hand side. And it's the area generally which is perpendicular section of that building to the right.

Q. Correct?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. I don't want to interrupt you if not necessary, but on page 16, line 9 you said "the spring and summer of 1992, when you were under your work obligation." I don't have the impression following yesterday's transcript that we have already established when the work obligation started, whether it was in May or in August.

MR. OSTOJIC: I could clarify that.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please. ¹¹⁵⁴³

MR. OSTOJIC: I thought it was clear.

Q. Before you answer this question, sir, if I may, can you tell us when you were placed on a mandatory work obligation.

A. I was placed under mandatory work obligation when the prisoners arrived in the mine. Before that, I was normally employed. But then instead of being recruited to go to the front line, I was left to work where I had been working and I was issued with a decision that this was my work obligation, to work in the Omarska mine.

Q. And what period of time was that, sir? Was it in May or August of 1992 -- or what period of time was it?

A. This was in May, but I can't be sure of the date. I think it may have been the 10th of May. I don't know the exact date, but I continued to work as usual. And later on I was issued with a decision that this was my mandatory work obligation and that I would not have to go to the front line.

Q. Just so that I clarify, with the Court's permission on the dates, it's my recollection, sir - and you please correct us, because we want to know what you recall - did you obtain this work obligation before or after the attack on Prijedor, as you described yesterday?

A. I received it after that, when the prisoners arrived in the camp, when they first arrived. Maybe ten days after that.

Q. I understand. But just for clarity purposes, you mentioned just briefly approximately May 10th. The Court and counsel and I have been operating under the assumption that the attack on Prijedor happened May 30th of 1992. Would it be fair, sir, for purposes of clarity that you ¹¹⁵⁴⁴ received your work obligation after the attack on Prijedor, which would have been after May 30th, 1992? Correct?

A. Yes, yes. You're correct. I made a mistake. After their arrival -- that's right. I was a bit confused.

Q. And as you stated yesterday, just so that it is clear, your work obligation continued, sir, beyond the spring and summer of 1992; correct?

A. Yes, yes. My work obligation continued. And after the prisoners left the mine, I was still under work obligation until 1995, when Sanski Most fell, when there was an attack. And then I was mobilised as well.

Q. Thank you. I'd like to turn to another issue, sir, and that involves a delegation that arrived in the second half of July 1992 at the iron ore mine. Can you tell us, sir, whether you have an independent recollection of a delegation from Banja Luka coming to the iron ore mine during the period of mid to late July 1992.

A. Yes. I remember that a delegation arrived, but I didn't know where they'd come from or who they were. On that day I had a problem, if I may show you on this picture --

Q. If I may interrupt. For my purposes, independent of your testimony --

MR. OSTOJIC: If the usher, with the Court's permission, and show Mr. Vuleta Exhibit S15-2, so that he could show us exactly what he recalls. I think the witness may have --

Q. Thank you, Mr. Vuleta. I apologise for interrupting. Again, can you show us on this picture, as you did yesterday, where the entrance to the iron ore mine was where this delegation came ¹¹⁵⁴⁵ from. Point at it.

A. The entrance was on the east side, on the eastern side, here, in the direction coming from Omarska.

MR. OSTOJIC: So the record --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. I think the witness just told us that on that very day he had a problem, and I think it might be fair that -- for the witness to tell us what was the problem and to finalise his answer. Maybe then --

MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- all the other questions will be vacated. Mr. Vuleta, you wanted to tell us about a problem you had on that concrete day. Could you please continue, as you wanted.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On that day, there was a problem because the external lighting had broken down. This was outside the buildings, around this edge here, around the perimeter. There were posts there with lighting, and I had a problem in this part here and here because the lights were out. On that day I worked to find the source of the problem. The transformer station is up here, and then cables run from the transformer station under the ground from post to post, and then they come up to here. So I set out to find out what had happened and why the lamps were out, so I went to look for the breakdown. I set out from the transformer station and followed the cables, and in this part here I found that a cable had been pierced between two posts. The cable was underground. I had to repair the damage, and I was unable to dig the cable up, so I had to go and find another piece of cable I could use to ¹¹⁵⁴⁶ bridge this gap between these two posts. So I went and I found a piece of cable which I laid above ground in order to bypass the underground cable so that I could repair the lighting.

MR. OSTOJIC: May I proceed, Your Honour? Just so the record is clear, with the Court's permission, can the witness identify with a marker the area that he was discussing where he was on or about the date that the Banja Luka delegation came.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we can describe it in a fair way. Please, it's for the parties to correct me if I'm wrong. In the beginning, the witness indicated that there was a problem concerning the entire area that is depicted as a grey area, and he wanted to find out the problem, which was somewhere between the main building, the white house, and the administrative building. And he found in front of the administrative building to the right-hand side of the model a problem where -- and he resolved the problem there in order to have the lights switched on in the entire area surrounding this administrative building. Would this be a fair description?

MR. OSTOJIC: We're very grateful for the Court's assistance. Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.

MR. OSTOJIC:

Q. Now, Mr. Vuleta, the section that the Court just identified on the lower right-hand corner, the section where this cable was separated and you were repairing, can you tell us, sir, when the Banja Luka delegation arrived, where were you physically present at the iron ore mine? ¹¹⁵⁴⁷

A. I was right in this part where I was working, because it couldn't be done quickly. I was there until the afternoon, because I had to set out from the source of electricity and then check post by post until I found to where the breakdown had occurred. Then I had to go and fetch the cable. I had to lay it down. I had to connect it, and so on.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, just for the record, the witness hasn't said they were from Banja Luka. He said, "I didn't know where they'd come from or who they were."

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objection sustained.

MR. OSTOJIC: That's fair, Your Honour.

Q. The group that came, as I identified them as a delegation - I apologise, Mr. Vuleta - the delegation that came that day while you were present on that day, can you tell us in which part they entered the iron ore mine. Did they come in on the same entrance that you've previously described for us?

A. The delegation entered from the east.

Q. Did you, sir, personally observe the delegation coming?

A. Yes, I did. Two passenger cars drove in, and they stopped here, behind the administration building, here.

MR. OSTOJIC: Well, perhaps not a big point, Your Honour. I think the witness said luksuzna and not "passenger," but luxury passenger vehicle. But in any event, we could check that later.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the booths.

THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, very often this is synonymous. Witnesses often use -- say "luxury car," when they actually mean ¹¹⁵⁴⁸ "passenger car." But he did say "luxury car," yes.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then there was an objection?

MS. SUTHERLAND: Not an objection. I'd just like it marked for the record where he's pointing to.

MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I'm just curious from the comment how anyone can anticipate what a witness is thinking or not. The interpreter is saying very often witnesses are thinking this and meaning that. We'll discuss it at a later point, but if I could just proceed --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No. I think it's quite clear. The interpreter assisted us by telling us that it's used as a synonym, luxury car or passenger car, so ...

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Mr. Vuleta, can you tell us, having been there, the route in which the vehicles entering the iron ore mine in July of 1992, which route did they proceed upon entering into the complex, which route did they proceed to take?

A. The vehicles entered from the east, from the direction of Omarska.

Q. Can you just point at it for me again. I didn't have my picture --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

Q. Can you point to the area again where the vehicles entered and then where they proceeded to go.

A. The vehicles entered from this direction and turned right, and they stopped here. I was working here repairing the breakdown. I saw ¹¹⁵⁴⁹ that there was some sort of delegation, that they were gentlemen getting out of the cars. I knew Mr. Predrag Radic from Banja Luka, who was one of these people. I also knew Mr. Simo Miskovic and Simo Drljaca. I didn't know the others. And they went off behind the building and then they went off in this direction.

MR. OSTOJIC: And just for the record and for the OTP the witness indicated that the vehicle upon entering the iron ore mine on the lower right-hand side made a right turn immediately before the building, at which point the cars were stopped. As the witness described, they got out of the car and then proceeded in a northerly direction by looking at that picture S15-2 and then proceeded left, which would be eastbound.

Q. Is that correct, Mr. Witness?

A. No. This is the west here. Towards the west.

Q. Very good. Thank you very much. I think it's clear though. But just to make sure it's clear. The people who exited the vehicle, as you've described them, they proceeded northbound and then made a left that being westbound; correct?

A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Just going back a little bit. This delegation that you saw, how many people were in this delegation, sir?

A. There were seven or eight people. The drivers remained in the cars. They stopped here. It was a very hot day, and it was shady here because this side is south. So most probably they stayed there in order to stay in the shade.

Q. Could you tell us, sir, on that day how far away were you from ¹¹⁵⁵⁰ this delegation that arrived in mid -- or the second half of July 1992? How far away were you?

A. I was very close to them. I didn't measure the distance, but it was some 3 or 4 metres away. I was here. It's not far.

Q. Did you proceed to follow the delegation, sir, as they went westbound on the other side of this picture or building that's depicted on the picture S15-2? Did you continue to observe and follow them?

A. I only saw when the delegation disappeared behind this corner. I continued doing my job. Why should I follow them? What mattered to me was to get my job done that had been assigned to me by my superior, and that was to solve the problem of the lighting.

Q. Sir, do you know Dr. Milomir Stakic?

A. I do.

Q. Was Dr. Milomir Stakic with this delegation in July of 1992?

A. On that day, Dr. Milomir Stakic was not in that delegation.

Q. Tell us how long you have known Dr. Stakic and how it is that you met his acquaintance.

A. I have known Dr. Stakic for a very long time. We were born in the same village. We weren't close neighbours. There were 5 or 6 kilometres between us. I first met Dr. Stakic before the war when we would see each other in the Tri Asa restaurant in Omarska. I remember very well he wore a black hat. His clothes were conspicuous. He had the long coat, and so on.

Q. Sir, at any time during the spring and summer of 1992, while you were there, did you observe or see Dr. Milomir Stakic at the iron ore ¹¹⁵⁵¹ mine?

A. No, I never saw him during the period I worked there in the mine.

Q. Is there any doubt, sir, in your mind, based upon your personal observations, that had Dr. Milomir Stakic been with this delegation in July of 1992, that you would have recognised him?

A. I'm 100 per cent sure, and I can swear in a church or wherever you like that on that day Dr. Milomir Stakic wasn't there. If he had been, of course I would have recognised him. I would have said hello to him. But on that day, Dr. Stakic wasn't there.

MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. That's all we have.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is the Prosecution prepared to start the cross-examination immediately now, or should we have the break now?

MS. SUTHERLAND: I don't mind, Your Honour. I'm ready to start, or we can have an early break and then go on.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Trial Chamber stays adjourned until 4.00.

--- Recess taken at 3.26 p.m.

--- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. May I ask the Prosecution to start their cross-examination.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. Cross-examined by Ms. Sutherland:

Q. Mr. Vuleta, if you don't hear my question or you don't understand my question, can you please ask me to repeat it. Do you understand?

A. I do.

Q. In May of 1992, were you working in the electrical workshop at the ¹¹⁵⁵² Omarska mine?

A. In May, yes, I did.

Q. And that's the electrical workshop that's contained in what we described as the hangar building, and you pointed at that on Exhibit S15-2.

A. I worked on the entire mine system, and I would be in the workshop when I was off, and during the night that is where I slept.

Q. That's right. And in the beginning of -- in May 1992, that is where your office was, where you pointed to it on that exhibit earlier today.

A. Yes. But it was a workshop, not an office.

Q. You said earlier at page 63 for counsel and the Chamber, that the mine stopped working when Prijedor was attacked. And we've established that that was on the 30th of May, 1992, when the non-Serbs tried to reverse the takeover of power. Is that correct, that the mine stopped working when Prijedor was attacked?

A. The mine stopped with the exploitation of the ore, when the attack on Prijedor took place.

Q. Did you see any detainees in Omarska camp before the 30th of May, 1992?

A. No, after. After.

Q. Isn't it a fact that there were detainees in the Omarska camp before the 30th of May, 1992?

A. No. There was nothing.

Q. Are you as certain about that as you are as certain about ¹¹⁵⁵³ Dr. Stakic not being part of the delegation that you told us about just before we broke?

MR. OSTOJIC: I'm going to object to the form of the question and to the sarcastic nature of the question, Your Honour. I think the witness's testimony speaks for itself. And I don't think that she should, in my opinion, respectfully weigh one thing or the other. If she has a point of contention with the witness, place it to the witness. But to place a question like that, in our opinion, is inappropriate.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe it can be appropriate to rephrase the question.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I don't believe I was being sarcastic, and I apologise to the witness if he took my question as that.

Q. Sir, you just said a moment ago that you saw no detainees in the camp and you were certain that there were no detainees in the camp prior to the 30th of May, 1992; is that correct?

A. The detainees came after the attack on Prijedor and Kozarac, when the extremist groups attacked military columns.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness be shown Exhibit S353.

Q. Sir, this is a nine-page document from the chief of the Prijedor police station, Simo Drljaca, and it's a report about "reception centres" in the municipality of Prijedor. Can I take you, please, to page 5. And that has the ERN number for the usher at the top of the page B0032582. And if the English could be placed on the ELMO. And it is page 4 of the English translation.

Sir, looking at the third paragraph on that page, it talks about a ¹¹⁵⁵⁴ Crisis Staff decision ordering that the Keraterm facility in Prijedor be used only for transit purposes. And then it goes on in the following paragraph - and I will read it for you - "pursuant to this decision, on 27 May 1992, all prisoners of war were transferred to Omarska." Do you still say that there were no prisoners -- no detainees in the Omarska camp prior to the attack on Prijedor?

MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, let me object to the form of the question. And I also think it mischaracterise this witness's immediate prior testimony on page 27, lines 13 through 14. He specifically mentions Kozarac and an attack on the military convoy. This Court has restricted sometimes for us to discuss because it's hearsay events --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you please stop arguing. I think we were -- we had agreed on the form of objections and in the way an objection has to be phrased.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The objection is dismissed on the basis of previous transcripts.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, thank you. I've finished with that document.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Usher.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you may proceed with the question.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, I am.

Q. Sir, having taken you to that document, and it can be seen that detainees were transferred to the Omarska camp on the 27th of May, is it still your testimony that there were no detainees in Omarska prior to the ¹¹⁵⁵⁵ attack on Prijedor?

MR. OSTOJIC: The same objection, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Dismissed.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Would you please answer the question.

A. As far as I can remember, I did not make a record so as to be able to specify the date or the day. I know that it was when there was this attack on Prijedor. It was a long time ago. It's hard for me to remember whether it was on the 27th or on the 30th of May. But in any case, it was towards the end of May. I did not make any statistic so as to be able to know the day, the hour. It's very difficult to remember the exact day. I was -- I did not enter anything into a diary. I did not write a diary, so I don't know whether things happened on the 27th, the 30th, or the 1st. It was in that period of time. I was not authorised to run any records, to keep any records. I worked there, and it's very difficult for me to know the exact date. I am not in the position to -- to give you the exact dates.

Q. Thank you. I want to move now to Dr. Stakic. How do you know him? You said that he was from the same village as yourself and that he lived 5 to 6 kilometres away and that you would see him in the Tri Asa restaurant. Did you know him personally?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please make reference to the point in transcript.

MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry. It was the page before the break, just before the break. ¹¹⁵⁵⁶

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The parties are aware. Thank you.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Page 24, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, did you know Dr. Stakic personally?

A. Let me explain it to you in more specific terms. I know him because we come from the same village. I know Mr. May because I saw him on TV. If I saw him in the street, I would recognise him. We come from the same village and obviously we knew each other.

Secondly, Mr. Stakic married a woman whose sister married my neighbour. I know the parents of his wife, her brother's sisters, and we know each other. I know the villagers of my village. I am not intimate with them, but I know who is who, if you understand what I'm saying. I will know you when I see you on TV tomorrow, because I saw you. That means I met you. Is that enough?

Q. Thank you. Did Dr. Stakic have any siblings?

A. Mr. Dr. Stakic had a father whose name was Milan. His mother is Mira. She is from Kriva, from Sejici [phoen]. I think he has a brother. He doesn't have a sister.

Q. You think he has a brother. Do you know that person's name?

A. I know his nickname is Baco. It is on the tip of my tongue. I know he worked in Germany. He drove a bus in Germany. I know that he is now married. He has two children. I can't remember his name.

Q. Is his brother's name Milorad Stakic?

A. I don't think so. I know that his nickname is Baco. That's what ¹¹⁵⁵⁷ people call him. He was in Germany for a long time, and currently I don't know, I think he runs a department store in Prijedor. I haven't seen him in a long time. I saw him when he drove this bus to Germany, and that's where he was for quite a long time. I don't know exactly how long he was there. Milomir's father was a conductor in the bus that run from Maricka to Prijedor.

Q. Did Dr. Stakic's brother, the one you call Baco, did he work in the iron ore mine at Omarska?

A. No. No.

Q. Did he ever have any other siblings?

A. The only brother I know is this one. I don't know of any sisters that he had. I've never been to his house. I know where his house was. I didn't go into the house. I used to pass by because I know his neighbours, Vidak Stakic, Dusan Stakic, and the entire neighbourhood I know. But I have never been into his house nor was he ever in my house.

Q. Did you know a driver in the mine called Milorad Stakic?

A. I do. I don't know what his name is, but his nickname is Mico. That's what we all call him. And what is his official name in the identity card, I don't know. I've never inspected his identity card. And amongst us worker, we used nicknames and we called him Mico. For example, my nickname was Vule. Nobody ever called me by my real name. We all had, so to say, our internal names.

Q. I want to move now to the delegation we were discussing just before the break. Do you recall anything --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. In order that we don't have to come back ¹¹⁵⁵⁸ to this area. You just mentioned, "I do know a driver in the mine called Milorad Stakic. I don't know what his name is, but his nickname is Mico." I really don't understand this answer. May I ask you what is the link for you between Mico and Milorad Stakic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It must be a mistake. There is only Mico Stakic.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So then once again, the question -- apparently it's not yet answered. Did you know a driver in the mine called Milorad Stakic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know any Milorad. I only know Mico Stakic. But I don't know whether in his identity papers his name is something else. We all call him Mico, if that is what we mean, what we have in mind.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. Your testimony now is that indeed there were -- there was a person working there called Mico Stakic; correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mico Stakic exists. He still exists. And he still works in the mine, Mico Stakic. That's what we workers call him. And what is written in his birth certificate, I don't know. We all call him Mico. If that is clear.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. So you may proceed, please.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Sir, my question was: Did anything unusual -- do you recall anything unusual happening the day that you saw this delegation in the ¹¹⁵⁵⁹ Omarska camp?

A. I noticed and I heard songs. The detainees were singing Serbian songs.

Q. Where were the detainees who were singing these songs?

A. Can you please show me the drawing, the map, the sketch, that is, and I'll show you.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could the witness please be shown document S15-2 once again and --

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I've got a fresh copy which I'll actually get the witness to mark, a fresh copy of Exhibit S15-2.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's proceed this way. But it's still the same document, S15-2.

MS. SUTHERLAND: If you could just place that on the ELMO.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can see there is a problem.

MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I'm not sure if it's a problem. Just that the Court can engage me and explain while why we did the direct we were unable to have the witness mark a document but they can now. I mean, they can mark it. But just perhaps at another time the Court can just for my benefit and edification explain why when I asked the witness, the Court rejected my application. But let's proceed --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I had the impression you appreciated the description and based on this description, it was satisfactory for the outcome and what you wanted to outline by your line of questions. But let's wait and see whether it's really necessary to have another document marked. We'll proceed on the basis of document S15-2, full stop. ^{11560BLANK PAGE 11574} Please.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. What's on the ELMO at the moment is a copy of S15-2.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I am fully aware of this. Please continue.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, you said earlier today that -- can you please point on the ELMO machine where you were standing, where you were working.

A. I was working here, in this part.

Q. Could you take --

MS. SUTHERLAND: Would Your Honour like the witness to mark this exhibit?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think at the moment we should do it as we did it previously. The witness pointed at the same point. If you could describe it, please, for the transcript.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, you're pointing to the administration building -- the corner of the administration building. As we look at the photo, where the triangle is, at the bottom right-hand corner of the photograph, you're pointing to the side of the administration building nearest that triangle and you pointed in your evidence in chief, as I believe it -- as I understood it, to the corner of the administration building just before it goes into the restaurant -- cafeteria.

A. This is the east side. This is not where you go into the restaurant. You go into the restaurant from the west, if you get my meaning. This is the east here. ¹¹⁵⁷⁵

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I don't know what's north, south, east, or west, but for the record is Your Honour clear where the witness has pointed? So it is the side of the -- near the cafeteria and the corner of the administration building away from the garages.

Q. Is that what you're -- is that where you're pointing to?

A. Yes. This is the east side of the administrative building.

Q. Yes. You're pointing to the side closest to the cafeteria of the administration building.

A. Well, this is not the nearest point to the cafeteria. The nearest point to the cafeteria is there.

Q. Sir, just pause there.

A. Here was -- these were the premises for the kitchen personnel and the cafeteria was over there.

Q. Sir, put your pointer back to where you were working.

A. [Indicates]

Q. And for the record, that is near to the corner of the administration building nearest to the cafeteria.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Is that clear enough for the Defence and Your Honours?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's in the middle of the right-hand side of the model we can see depicted on this picture. Correct?

[Prosecution counsel confer]

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Because we don't -- we shouldn't discuss in terms of north, east, south, and west. But I think it's fair to state that in the middle of the right-hand side; correct? ¹¹⁵⁷⁶

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think he was pointing more to the top side, not -- not specifically right in the middle of the administration building. It was more towards the cafeteria.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We can see at this side of the building apparently in the first floor two white, maybe windows or whatever it shall be.

And please once again - sorry for this confusion, Mr. Witness - could you please once again point to this exact point where you were working.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So when we can see at the right-hand side of this model. The witness pointed now closer to the second window we can identify to the -- from this side of the building also to the right-hand side of the building. Would this be a correct description, or would the parties have any problems with this?

MR. OSTOJIC: Well, just for the record, I want to state that the witness identified it during the direct and that I think it's consistent with that aspect of it. And if counsel wants to attempt to question him on where he identified he was at, she's welcome to do so. But the description is as it was in direct and as it is now in cross.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please continue.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Sir, how far away from the wall of the building were you?

A. From the wall of the building, well, I'd say -- I never measured it, so I can't tell you exactly, but it's about 4 metres, 5 metres. I ¹¹⁵⁷⁷ mean, I didn't take a measuring tape to tell you exactly it is 4 metres or it is 5, so it's difficult for me to give you the accurate figure.

Q. I understand that. And that's an approximation of where -- how far you were away.

Was there a ceremony for this delegation? Was the delegation greeted by anybody?

A. I was working here at the time when I stopped there, so naturally people got off, went behind the building, and I went on doing my job. And I wasn't interested in that delegation. I merely heard the detainees singing Serb songs. Because I was asked to look to -- to look after the lighting. I wasn't expecting a delegation, or I didn't know when they were coming, why they would be coming, who would be coming.

Q. You mentioned that the -- can you then just use your pointer and show us again where the delegation walked, the ones you saw.

A. The delegation got off here, went round there, and then went westward. And I was working there. I wasn't looking after them, wasn't following them, and I couldn't know where they went.

Q. For the record, you said that they walked down to the cafeteria restaurant building and then turned left and walked along the front of the cafeteria building; is that correct?

A. You are slightly off the mark. They went here. This is the northern direction. And this is then towards west. This part over here is the restaurant, not this part, and they moved from this side and then went on. That is, down the building and then moved on. And I couldn't really keep my eye on them, and I wasn't really interested to know where ¹¹⁵⁷⁸ they were going or why they were going.

Q. Sir, just leaving aside north and west and -- did you see any security persons with the delegation?

A. Yes. They had escorts with them. That is, there were armed guys. And they went -- they got off their cars. The cars stayed where they were. The drivers stayed in the cars.

Q. I want to move now to another topic. I've finished with that photograph.

Sir, you testified about the water and that the drinking water came from a well and there was industrial water also that came from the River Gomjenica. Is that right?

A. It is.

Q. Did the guards have access to this industrial water supply?

A. What do you mean "guards"? Guards guarding the facility?

Q. The guards at the camp who were guarding the detainees, you said that they were all around the buildings.

A. Around buildings, yes. But they had access to that industrial water. We called it the washing point. It wasn't drinking water. It was water to wash. So yes, I suppose they did. Why not? Some washed their cars.

Q. Did you see evidence of crimes being committed in the Omarska camp when you were working there?

A. When I worked there, in the early days of the camp - once again, I can't say anything date-wise, because I didn't keep the record - but in the early -- in the first days, I saw several bodies. And if you could ¹¹⁵⁷⁹ give me back the picture, then I could show you where I saw them.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, again, this is a copy of S15-2. And I would like to ask the witness to mark on this photograph where he saw the bodies.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We can -- let's first hear the testimony, and then let's agree whether it's necessary to mark it or to describe it. Could you please answer.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, you said in the first days you saw several bodies. Where were those bodies?

A. The bodies were on the northern side of the restaurant, somewhere here.

Q. For the record, you're pointing as we look at the photograph to the left-hand side in front of the left-hand side of the cafeteria restaurant building; is that correct? Before the -- before you see the lawned area. Are you pointing to the area to the left-hand side of the cafeteria on the cemented area before the grass? Is that correct?

A. On the lawn, on the grass. If we are looking west -- if I turned westward, then it is to the right of the restaurant. I don't know from where you are looking or if you are looking from the west when you say "left." To my mind, this is to the right of the restaurant, if we're looking in the east-west direction.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think now it's really necessary that we mark this point because it will be extremely difficult to follow at this time the testimony without in further marks on it. And it's for the Defence to ¹¹⁵⁸⁰ come back to this later on if they so want. Because the last time we got a clear explanation and it transpires from the transcript, but here it's no longer possible to follow.

This would be then S15-2-2. If the witness would please take a marker and mark the position where he believes ...

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, I cannot do it down to an inch, but it's here.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Can you mark next to the circle that you've just drawn the number "1."

A. [Marks]

Q. How many bodies did you see?

A. As far as I can remember, there were five, maybe six. It was a long time ago. I don't know how well my memory still serves me. But it was thereabouts. Once again, I did not write it down to tell you whether there were exactly five or exactly six.

Q. And just so we're crystal clear, these were dead bodies, were they not?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Did you see any other bodies while you were working in the Omarska camp, any other dead bodies?

A. I saw them later on. But once again, I cannot tell you how much later. Later on, however, I saw two more bodies in front of the white house. I never went near it. It was -- I was going this way. I was ¹¹⁵⁸¹ going down this pavement performing my jobs, and I did not -- I could not come closer because the police would not let me to do that and for my own safety's sake I had no wish to go near it.

Q. Would you take the marker and draw again where you saw those bodies and put next to that the number "2."

A. [Marks]

Q. Did you see on any other occasion dead bodies in the camp?

A. After that, I never saw bodies again. It was only on those two occasions.

Q. When you testified in the Omarska trial on the 6th of February, 2001, do you recall saying - and this is for Defence and Your Honours at page 7447 - do you recall stating then that you said, "On more than one occasion, I saw one or two dead bodies near the white house"?

A. Well, that's it. I saw two bodies. Perhaps it was interpreted, worded different. I don't know.

Q. You were asked in the Omarska trial -- I will just put the questions and answers to you. You were asked: Did you ever have an opportunity to see bodies? And you said -- answer: At the very beginning of the functioning of the camp, I saw several dead bodies.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, the page number and --

MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honours. 7446.

Q. You said: Answer: "They were located behind the kitchen building. That is, behind the restaurant of the mine near the pit. There were some containers on the northern side of the complex."

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence, please. ¹¹⁵⁸²

MR. OSTOJIC: I have an objection to the attempt by counsel to use this transcript for purposes of impeachment. It's rather clear if you read it in context, starting from page 7446, when this witness previously testified consistent that he saw --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, no argument. If you want to have a broader scope that should be read out, please tell the other party.

MR. OSTOJIC: It's not a question. I'm basing my objection because she's already asked the question. If the Court reads the question that counsel omitted to on page 7446, line 25, and then reads specifically the answer of the witness, I think it will be clear for all of us.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So --

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm trying.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I understand your objection in this way, that you want -- that both the question and the answer be read out.

MR. OSTOJIC: Specifically -- -- specifically the prior questions as well. Because I believe that it's misleading and mischaracterises prior testimony.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In order to avoid that we have to come back to this issue later on, I'll ask the Prosecution to start at that point on page 7446. The Defence believes it's necessary to start with the line of questioning.

Could you indicate the line.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour --

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, I can, Your Honour. It commences on line 15.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you have problems with starting with line 15? ¹¹⁵⁸³

MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour. And I was taking the witness to the very question and answer that the Defence objected to in the middle of my question.

Q. Sir, I will start again, and I will read in relation to what the questions and answers that were put to you in relation to seeing dead bodies in the Omarska camp when you testified two years ago. The question was: "Mr. Vuleta, throughout these 20 days that you spent in the Omarska camp, did you ever have an opportunity to see bodies?"

Your answer was: "Yes." You were asked: "When?"

You answered: "At the very beginning of the functioning of the camp, I saw several dead bodies."

You were asked: "Where were they?" You replied: "They were located behind the kitchen building, that is, behind the restaurant of the mine near the pit. There were some containers on the northern side of the complex."

You were then asked: "Later on did you ever see any bodies again?"

You replied: "Yes. On more -- on one more occasion I saw one or two dead bodies near the white house."

And I apologise to counsel and the Court. So it was only those two occasions --

A. Well, isn't it the same, what you read and what I said? You were mentioning some containers at the mine, at the pit, but there are no ¹¹⁵⁸⁴ containers here, so there is something wrong with the interpretation. But I said the same thing. Perhaps you have in mind some containers and that there were bodies in containers, but there are no containers. I said that there was a container -- a pump collecting sewage, and perhaps you confused that with the container containing bodies. So perhaps -- why, we're talk at cross-purposes.

To the north, behind the restaurant, there is a pump which collects sewage waters and then pumps it out. So perhaps -- and that we also call containers, so perhaps that's why a misunderstanding arose.

Q. Thank you for that clarification. You said that you worked 24 hours on and had 48 hours off and that you slept in the electrical workshop.

A. Yes.

Q. There were approximately 1.000 to 2.000 detainees kept in the hangar building, were there not, on the first floor and the ground floor?

A. Well, these are some general estimates that I made. I didn't count those men, nor did I have any lists to know exactly. So these are some approximate figures. From what I could see or what I estimated, but it need not be accurate. I mean, if I see a throng of people in the street, I cannot really say whether there were 500 or 550 or 400. But generally speaking, a rough approximation.

Q. During the night-time, did you ever hear cries and screams coming from within the hangar building?

A. I could not hear anything, because I slept. As I've explained it, if you can give me the marker, and I will draw the area where I was. And ¹¹⁵⁸⁵ the walls are thick there, so I simply couldn't possibly hear anything. And besides, I live in a rural area. I work a lot. I really get tired. And when I fall asleep, I simply can't hear anything. It's not as if you could hear something from behind the wall here. I just couldn't hear anything.

Q. You said that the electrical workshop was in the corner on the ground floor of the hangar building, as you looked towards it.

A. Yes.

Q. Were there other detainees detained in the rooms near the electrical workshop?

A. Yes, in the adjacent room. Yes, there was a certain number of detainees there.

Q. You weren't able to hear their -- any noise coming from anywhere within the hangar building at night-time.

A. All that one could hear before I fell asleep was people talking, and I mean -- I don't know how to explain it. I couldn't -- I couldn't hear any -- practically any major -- now, how shall I explain it to you?

Q. That's okay. We can move on. From -- the detainees that you saw in the hangar building, did you -- did you notice any bruising on their bodies?

A. No. No, I didn't see anyone bloodied or anything. There were no visible marks.

Q. How many toilets are there in the hangar building, if you know?

A. In the hangar -- well, once again, I can't be precise. I should say that there were -- first there were wash basins with the taps, and I ¹¹⁵⁸⁶ think there were about five or six on one side and on the other sinks with faucets. And I'm sure that there were five or six WC cubicles and at least six male urinaries, but perhaps -- urinals. But I didn't count them. Perhaps there were more. I've been thousands of times there. But one can check it easily.

Q. During the time you were there, between -- I'm interested in the period May to August -- end of May to August. What were the conditions of these toilets?

A. Well, you know, conditions weren't really particularly hygienic. Many people came there. There was a sanitation service which put chlorine in there and there was a water hose and one could wash it. But to tell you the truth, it wasn't all that clean. But considering that it was wartime, I'd say it was accessible.

Q. Isn't it the case, though, that those toilets were clogged up very, very early on and these were the toilets that these one to two thousand detainees had to use?

A. Well, I can't really definitely say that nothing was clogged or anything, but there was water and there was a hose and one could wash it. But there was also another toilet in the building up here. I mean, in the administrative building on the lower level. There were also toilets here.

Q. I want to move now to another topic. In relation to the food, it's the case, isn't it, that you didn't either cook or distribute the food?

A. No. I was no cook. I was an electrician. I didn't distribute food. But I was in the kitchen. I was -- I went to the kitchen in order ¹¹⁵⁸⁷ to maintain, repair, be it refrigerators, or the heating installations, lights, so that I saw the food being repaired.

Q. How often were the meals taken over to the cafeteria once they were cooked? Were all the meals taken over at one time?

A. Well, that is something that I can't really -- I know that food was transported. Whether it was all done in one go or in two or how many, I don't know that. But be that as it may, the food was taken over. Perhaps it also depended on the kind of vehicle. There were small vehicles. There were bigger vehicles. I don't know how -- so I can't tell you really whether it would all be taken in one go or on two occasions. I really don't know that.

Q. Did you ever see the food being put onto a truck?

A. Why, food was carried over, and I think it was a small truck. Naturally, nobody carried it on his back.

Q. Was it a TAM truck?

A. Yes, it was a small truck. We all called it TAMIC, little TAM.

Q. Could the witness be shown a photograph.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if that could be marked as S15-41, which I think is the next number in the bundle of photographs.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Madam Registrar, could you please be so kind and confirm that 41 would be the next one.

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then provisionally marked S15-41.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, looking at the photograph in front of you, was that the sort ¹¹⁵⁸⁸ of truck that was used to transport the food?

A. Yes. But this one, this couldn't be that one, because this one doesn't have wheels, does it?

Q. That's true. It doesn't have wheels now. But it did have wheels certainly in 1992.

MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I object to the form of the question, Your Honour. Because this picture certainly doesn't depict the vehicle as it looks "now," and counsel should, for the record, at least tell us when the picture was taken. We certainly know it wasn't taken today.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: First, sustained. Second, I think we can read it from the picture.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I was just about to give the source of the photograph.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the date also is readable.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. This photograph was taken in February 1996 within the Omarska mine by members of the OTP.

Q. Sir, you have identified that as a truck that was used to transport the food; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MS. SUTHERLAND: I've finished with that photograph.

Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you able to read the registration number on that truck?

A. I don't know if this was exactly this one. I can see the ¹¹⁵⁸⁹ registration plate. There were several such vehicles. There was not just one of them. Because there were several vehicles in the mine across various parts of the company.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the audio-visual director please zoom in on the number plate.

Q. Sir, are you able to read the number plate now?

MS. SUTHERLAND: You can zoom out a little bit.

A. Yes. 545- -- 64 -- 46.

Q. Does it read "PD 545-46"?

A. Yes. But this registration plate has been changed. I don't recall this registration plate. This registration plate existed before the war, and then during the war or after the war they were replaced by the Cyrillic ones. Whether these registration plates were used during the war, I haven't a clue.

MS. SUTHERLAND: I've finished with that photograph. Could the witness please be shown S379.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the meantime, objections against the admission into evidence of this photograph?

MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S15-41.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, could you take a moment to read that short document. Have you read the document?

A. I have.

Q. You stated in your testimony yesterday on page 70 other people who ¹¹⁵⁹⁰ had worked at the mines who were then given a work obligation to work at the camp. I want to take you through this document and I want you to tell the Court -- if we go to part 2, the permanent shift employees in the iron ore mine, if you recall what their duties were in the mine. So if we can start with the first name, Dusko Vlacina.

A. Can I start answering?

Q. Please.

A. Dusko Vlacina was some sort of a manager or director, a technical director.

Q. What was he doing after the end of May 1992?

A. I don't know. He was not in Omarska. He was in Prijedor in the main administration. I believe that he was a member of the management. I believe that he was a technical director. But I can't be sure. In any case, he was in Prijedor together with Nedeljko Vujicic, Branko Drljic -- I don't know Branko Drljic. Milorad Serdar.

Q. Sir, you can pause there. I want to do this systematically and I want you to go through those persons listed under the "Permanent shift employees," and I want you to tell the Court those names of the people you knew and what obligation they had from the end of May 1992 and only those names of the people that you remember that were working there and the duty that they had. I don't want to know what position they held when they worked in the mine prior to their work obligation.

Sir, as you go down that list, do you know the person mentioned at number 2, what his duties were -- what his work obligation duties in the mine were? ¹¹⁵⁹¹

A. I don't know. I don't know what his duties were.

Q. Number 3?

A. Drljic -- Branko Drljic. I don't remember this man at all, Branko Drljic. It is possible that he worked in the separation plant. He did -- in the pit where I was, what could he be doing there? He may have been in the separation plant. Maybe something to do with the water pumps. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Maybe we can move this along a little faster. Can you point to the people -- can you name the number of -- and the name of the people that were drivers.

A. Kicema Branko, Milorad Stakic were drivers. But again, a problem. We all call him Mico. But maybe in the books he's recorded as Milorad. That may be the same person. I don't know. I've never inspected his ID card, so I don't know.

Q. So you've just told us about numbers 10 and 11. Is there anyone else listed that you recall being a driver?

A. I remember that there was Pero -- driver Pero, but he is not on the list here. Pero ...

Q. What about number 17, Vlado Kobas? Was he a driver?

A. Vlado Kobas was a locksmith.

Q. That was prior to his work obligation. Do you recall what he was doing on his work obligation?

A. Under his work obligation, he was in the workshop all the time doing some welding. I think that from time to time he also drove, but he is not a driver by profession. He didn't work as a driver in the mine. ¹¹⁵⁹²

Q. In the Omarska trial, when you testified, you mentioned three drivers of TAM trucks. And this is for Trial Chamber and Defence at page 4769 [sic]. You mentioned Mico Stakic, a person called Pero Mrdja, and Vlado Kobas as being drivers of TAM trucks. Do you remember that?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the transcript maybe it's a mistake. It reads "4769." I think you make reference to "7469."

MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Do you recall that testimony in the Omarska trial?

MR. OSTOJIC: I would just object to the form of the question again, Your Honour, and based on the Court's prior ruling I would just respectfully request that counsel puts the specific question and the answer given as previously so that the witness can answer the question without any mischaracterisation.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please proceed this way.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Just so that I'm not mischaracterising any evidence, I will take you back a question or two.

Question: "What was done with the bodies that you saw lying inside the Omarska camp? You've told us that you saw bodies I think on more than one occasion. What was done with those bodies?" You answered: "They were taken away somewhere. I didn't take them. I don't know. How should I know? I was doing my job. I had nothing to do with that."

Question: "Who took those bodies away?" Answer: "There were people who transported them. I was not ¹¹⁵⁹³ authorised to drive them off or anything else."

Question: "Who transported the bodies away from the camp? Who drove them off?"

And you answered: "There were drivers. Mico Stakic and Pero Mrdja. Vlado Kobas was also a driver. He drove the vehicle. But who actually drove, I don't know. I didn't see that."

"What sort of vehicle was used to take the dead bodies out of Omarska camp?"

You answered: "The mine had a small vehicle which we called a TAMIC. It was a TAM van, yellow. All the mines' vehicle were yellow. And the workshop had that particular vehicle at its disposal for its affairs around the compound."

MR. OSTOJIC: I would respectfully request, so that it's placed in its proper context, the next two questions and the next two responses be read for the witness as well.

MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm happy to do that, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So please proceed.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. The next question was: "How many times did you see bodies being transported in that yellow TAM truck?"

Answer: "I did not see that at all." Question: "How do you know that the bodies were taken away in the TAM truck? That's what you just testified to."

And you answered: "As the vehicle existed, that was the only vehicle that existed, so nobody could have carried the bodies on their ¹¹⁵⁹⁴ backs."

Sir, do you remember that testimony?

A. I remember that testimony, but I did not see the vehicle that took the bodies away. Maybe the police came or the military. I know that there was this particular vehicle in the workshop, but I didn't see it taking the bodies away. Maybe a military team came or a police team came for the purpose of taking the bodies away. I don't know. I do not claim that it was this precise vehicle. What I said was that that vehicle was at the disposal of the workshop. For instance, when I had to go to the well, which is 5 or 6 kilometres away, or to the separation plant, which was 2 kilometres away, it brought in food. I didn't see who was it who collected the bodies and who took them away. Maybe it was the military with a military vehicle or the police with a police vehicle. I didn't see it. I'm not claiming that it was the truck belonging to the mine that took the bodies away. It could have easily been another vehicle that I didn't see.

Q. My question to you is related to the drivers, not -- at this point I don't want to talk about the dead bodies being taken away from the camp. I simply want to know whether there's anybody else besides three persons that you mentioned when you testified in the Omarska trial, that is, Mico Stakic, Pero Mrdja, and Vlado Kobas that you remember as being drivers of the trucks, the TAM trucks?

A. Well, the mine was still operating, there were a few more drivers. But I don't think that they were there when -- let me see if Branko Kicema is still here. ¹¹⁵⁹⁵

Q. Yes, you mentioned him. He's listed at number 10. What I'm interested in is --

A. Yes.

Q. Looking at this document, S379, are there any other names listed between numbers 1 and 28 in part 2 that were drivers as part of their work obligation from the end of May until at least the end of August 1992.

A. Drivers -- drivers were Branko Kicema, Milorad Stakic, Pero Mrdja, but Pero Mrdja is not on the list. Those were people who were drivers. And there were probably other people who could drive. So whether any of them drove, despite the fact that they were not drivers -- maybe somebody else who was not a driver could have taken a vehicle, because they could simply drive. They knew how to drive. I don't know.

Q. Just in relation to Pero Mrdja, did you know this person?

A. Yes, I do. He was a driver employed by the mine. He worked in the mine as a driver.

Q. I'm sorry. I may have confused you. I meant did you know him personally? Do you know whether he's related at all to Dragan Mrdja?

A. I really don't know whether they are related. I know the guy worked with me for six or seven years. Who is he related to, I haven't a clue. I know he lives in Prijedor. I don't know his address, but I know that he lives in the town.

Q. I'm sorry. I misspoke. I meant to say Darko Mrdja.

A. I don't know. I don't know who he is related to. I just know the guy from the mine from the time when we worked together. Who his relatives are, I really haven't the faintest idea. ¹¹⁵⁹⁶

Q. Okay. When you were driving around the mine to the well and to the pumps, did you drive the TAM truck or did someone else drive for you?

A. I was usually driven by Pero Mrdja. I believe that we were usually on the same shift, that he was in my shift.

Q. During the spring and summer of 1992, fuel was a precious commodity, was it not?

A. Yes, it was more expensive than gold itself.

Q. And TAM trucks, they ran on diesel fuel?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you agree with me if I said that you could travel approximately 100 kilometres on 15 litres of fuel, 15 litres of diesel?

MR. OSTOJIC: Let me object to the form of question. I think, Your Honour -- although counsel may be an expert in terms of fuel consumption. It obviously makes a difference on the weight and other factors that can contribute to the consumption of fuel, whether it's diesel or gas. I guess that would be my objection.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objection dismissed. Please continue.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, can you answer my question. Do you agree that you could travel on 15 litres of diesel approximately 100 kilometres or so?

A. I didn't drive, and I didn't watch the consumption. It depends on the type of vehicle. Do you mean the TAM vehicle?

Q. Just a normal average TAM truck.

A. It depends on the horsepower. I can't tell you, because there are bigger lorry, smaller lorries, all sorts of lorries. It depends on what ¹¹⁵⁹⁷ you have in mind.

Q. For example, the TAM truck shown in photograph S15-41.

A. I really never put fuel in it. I never drove it. I didn't measure the consumption. It may be possible, but no, I can't give you any answer. I can't say either yes or no. I really never drove that type of a lorry. I never put any fuel in it. I never measured the consumption of that lorry. I never tested it for its consumption. I really cannot give you any answer. I can't say either yes or no, nothing.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I notice the time. It's 5.30. Would you like to take a break now, or may I continue?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The trial stays adjourned until ten minutes to 6.00.

--- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.

--- On resuming at 5.50 p.m.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. And please continue.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. Could the witness be shown a bundle of one exhibit with a number of pages within it, which is a new exhibit.

And for the Trial Chamber's and Defence's benefit, these documents were seized by the OTP from the second floor of the Separacija office building, the Omarska iron ore mine on the 26th of February, 1996. Your Honour, there are 14 reports within that one exhibit, and if it could be marked as Prosecution Exhibit S395, I think is the next number. Copies were provided to the Chamber and Defence.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, that is clear. What is the ERN number of ¹¹⁵⁹⁸ the first page? Because I can't see any?

MS. SUTHERLAND: Down at the very bottom, Your Honour, 00381813.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That is also the number of the next page.

MS. SUTHERLAND: I will read the 14 ERN numbers so the record is clear.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay..

MS. SUTHERLAND: So the second one -- sorry, the first one is dated the 2nd of June, 1992. The ERN number 00381813. The second one is dated the 4th of June, 1992, ERN 00381826. The next is dated the 6th of June, 1992, ERN 00381774. The next one is dated the 7th of June, ERN 00381850.

The next, the 9th of June, 1992, ERN 00381840. The next, 10th of June, 1992, 00381865.

The next, 11th of June, 1992, 00382907. Next, 12th of June, 1992, 00382917.

The next is the 15th of June, 1992, 00382949. The next is the 16th of June, ERN 00381776.

The next is the 18th of June, 1992, 00381732.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. Doesn't it read "18th of July, 1992"?

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, we provided Your Honours and counsel with these -- with two additional pages. I'm taking them in chronological order. If you take these two pages from the registrar, the two pages she has in her hand.

So chronologically after the 16th of June, we have the 18th of June, 1992. ¹¹⁵⁹⁹

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

MS. SUTHERLAND: ERN 00381732. The next, 19th of June, 1992, ERN 00381731.

Next, 18th of July, 1992, ERN 00382961. And finally, the 19th and 20th of July, 1992, ERN 00382962. Your Honours, we have provided an English translation only of the first page, which sets out the headings of the document, and they are reports on the fuel quantities received.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If there is no protest, Madam Registrar, it would be provisionally marked as S395; correct?

So please continue.

MR. OSTOJIC: Just so it's clear, the Defence does have an objection to the document, Your Honour, and we --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the moment, it's only provisionally marked, as usual.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, can you take a moment to look through those documents.

A. Yes, I've done that.

Q. Thank you. Do you recognise these documents?

A. This is the first time I see these documents.

Q. Do you know why one truck would in a 12-day period, that is, from the 2nd of June to the 19th of June, over 12 days, do you know why they would consume over 477 litres of fuel?

A. No, I don't know. Perhaps they were engaged in contraband. It was very expensive, so perhaps they were selling it somewhere. ¹¹⁶⁰⁰

Q. Or perhaps they were transporting bodies from the Omarska camp to other locations.

MR. OSTOJIC: I'll object to the form of the question. It calls for speculation.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, looking at these documents, you have stated yourself that a number of the drivers -- earlier in your testimony you mentioned, for instance, Branko Kicema, Vlado Kobas, and Milorad Stakic. Do you see their names within these documents -- and Pero Mrdja?

A. I see -- I see Vlado Kobas. Let me see. Branko Kicema, Vlado Kobas, Vlado Kobas.

Q. So looking at the first document, the 2nd of June, we can see that Branko Kicema was driving TAM truck PD 545-46, which is the same TAM truck in the photograph that you saw earlier, S15-41, is it not?

A. It is, yes.

Q. If we go to the next document, the 4th of June, we can see Branko Kicema again driving PD 545-46. We also see Vlado Kobas driving a TAM truck PD 641-58. The next date, the 6th of June, Vlado Kobas again driving TAM truck PD 545-46.

Looking alone at PD 545-46, we can see that it goes through 477 litres of diesel in that 12-day period at the beginning of June. You mentioned that these were drivers from the Omarska mine. Do you know what they would be doing to drive that many miles in those days?

MR. OSTOJIC: Let me object to the form of the question and also ¹¹⁶⁰¹ object to the mischaracterisation as to the number of days between the documents and to counsel' calculation. In addition to those two objections, I would object that the question has already been asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it would be better you had included three different questions in one. So if you could have a breakdown question by question and then it would be maybe easier for the witness to answer.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'll rephrase the question.

Q. Sir, isn't it true the mine wasn't operating during this period of time and that there was no -- there was --

A. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. Of course it was not working.

Q. And therefore, the only activities that these TAM trucks and other vehicles would have been used for was in relation to the Omarska mine, the camp -- the Omarska camp, I'm sorry.

A. What we have here is a pure and simple theft of oil, and people were selling it. They would get it. They would be issued with it, and then they would either sell it to somebody or use it for their own tractors, because at that time a litre of oil was 5 marks. 400 litres is a lot of money, and that's the game we have to talk about, not something else. But they covered it with these papers, saying that yes, so much fuel was issued for that -- such and such vehicle. For instance, we have here Milorad Vuleta, he got this diesel for his tractor, which has nothing ¹¹⁶⁰² to do with the -- with the camp. Because there was all fuel in the camp and then everybody tried to get for his own purposes this. I mean, that was what it was, theft of fuel, nothing else but.

Q. I was referring to the drivers that you had mentioned as being drivers in the Omarska camp while it was operational. Sir, at the time the mine wasn't functioning, who would have approved the use of fuel which you say was more expensive than gold?

A. Could you repeat when and who approved. During the camp time?

Q. Yes. When the mine wasn't functioning, who would have approved the use of fuel?

A. Well, nobody approved anything. Whoever managed to tank it did that. I'm not aware of anyone issuing any orders. I saw people coming in their tractors to petrol stations, simply filling in their tanks and leaving because there was nobody there. What we are talking here about is theft, pure and simple, and contraband in fuel.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask you to make a clear distinction between that what you know and what is your speculation, please. A short time ago you told us that you have never seen the papers -- these papers. And later on, page 42, line -- where is it? -- Line 15, "They covered it with these papers." So if you haven't seen these papers before, I think would it be correct to assess this would -- it's speculation, or do you have any indicia or even evidence that at that time petrol was in fact stolen?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I never saw these documents prior to this day. But I'm quite sure that this is fuel contraband. No ¹¹⁶⁰³ need for any further -- no doubt about it.

For instance, fuel was received by people who were never -- I don't know, Kobas, BMW, I don't know. I mean it wasn't my job, and I don't know who issued fuel, when issued fuel. I was busy. I have no idea about any fuel, when, who issued it, how issued it. Who used it up, when. That is something I don't know. But if you ask me something about electrical engineering and high voltage, I'd be able to answer that. But as for the fuel, I haven't the slightest.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MS. SUTHERLAND:

Q. Sir, the place where bodies have been exhumed from, Kevljani, how far is that from the Omarska camp?

A. I don't know Kevljani. I've never been to Kevljani. How far is it? Well, I can make another guess and we can haggle as on the green market, but I've never been there. I don't know. Could be more than 10 kilometres. I don't know. I have no idea. I really cannot answer it.

Q. Thank you.

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

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Today's transcript, page 12, line 21 you testified on the question, "There no beds at all, no." How is it possible that you can come to this conclusion or to this testimony? Did you visit all the buildings and all the rooms in the hangar?

A. May I? May I start talking? In the beginning, when the camp ¹¹⁶⁰⁴ started, there were no beds at all. I spotted -- I started spotting some beds in the latter half of August. I remember how the troops, the military, brought in some beds, but I didn't have one. And in the early days, there were no beds at all, and we saw that throughout the period. I was speaking only -- I was referring only to the early days.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you have free access to all rooms in the hangar?

A. No. No, I didn't have free access everywhere. I only worked in those areas which were of vital importance as regards things electric. In rooms where there were no important electric installations, I never went into them.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May the witness please be shown document S15-17. Have you ever seen such a room with such a number of beds and mattresses?

A. This was a room in the administrative building, I think on the ground floor. But I didn't go in there. I saw the troops bring beds only once, but that was sometime I'd say in the latter half of August. Before that, there were no beds whatsoever.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you actually ever see detainees sleeping on the ground floor?

A. You mean in beds?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No. Just -- your testimony was that beds were brought only later. But, say, in the period end of May, June, July, did you ever see inmates lying on the ground floor?

A. Yes, yes. The inmates were on the floor, yes, until -- until ¹¹⁶⁰⁵ those beds were brought in the second half of August. In the beginning, yes, they were on the floor. Yes.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And could you please give us a description what was the space available for one person in this room.

A. I can't do that, not in detail. But I know it was crowded. I know they had very little room. I think they had to be -- to lie one next to the other.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you see children there?

A. No. No, I didn't see children.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you see women there?

A. Yes. There were several women, and I came to know the mother of a fellow worker of mine. She washed dishes in the cafeteria where the food was distributed.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Why was it that she was detained there?

A. I don't know that.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you discuss with your colleague about this?

A. Well, I talked with my colleague who worked with me -- I mean, he was under the same conditions, I mean, under the detention conditions, and his mother was also there, and they went to see his mother and we talked, that her son was there, that he was all right, that nobody was harming him, things like that.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it your evidence that all, call it, staff members, opposed to detainees, were specially marked? Wearing, for example, some special insignia or something else that there could be a clear distinction made between inmates, investigators, typists, and so on? ¹¹⁶⁰⁶

A. I don't quite understand the question. The difference between inmates and investigators? Were they differently marked?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For example, you -- I think you mentioned already previously how was it possible to identify you as being not an inmate in Omarska.

A. Oh, yes, yes. I was marked. Yes, I did have this white armband. And we who were under work obligation, we all had those white armbands.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was it only those people under work obligation wearing these white armbands or also other persons working there, maybe in the kitchen, maybe as investigator, maybe as typist?

A. I did not notice the typists or other personnel, investigators, that they had anything. No, I don't think they had any -- any markings to distinguish them, as far as I can remember, because I never went into the rooms occupied by investigators. I could see them only when they came in the morning, on a bus, get off the bus, and enter the administrative building.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you know Ms. Markovska?

A. Mrs. Markovska, no, I did not come to meet her during the camp. I met her here in 2001, when we came here to testify in Mr. Kvocka's case.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you meet her later again?

A. No. No, never.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you discuss with her the testimony?

A. No. No, I didn't. No, no, I did not see her.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You met her, but you didn't see her. In 2001. ¹¹⁶⁰⁷ The question was -- you answered, on page 47, line 13, "I met her here in 2001." My question was whether or not you at that time only met her or had a discussion with her.

A. We only met here at the time of the testimony in Mr. Kvocka's case. We did not discuss anything.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Let's return to Omarska. Were there special rooms for the detention of women?

A. I do not know whether there were any special rooms, but I used to see women in the restaurant washing dishes, and they were in the administrative building. Whether there was a special room assigned for them, I do not know. I did not go there, so I really do not know.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Were there any prohibited area where you weren't allowed to enter into?

A. Well, to begin with, access to the white house was prohibited for me, and I couldn't really go -- go everywhere. I had certain itineries which were safe, because there were also minefields around, and just because of my safety I wasn't really particularly eager on going everywhere, and I couldn't.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Why was it that there were minefields around?

A. Well, there were minefields behind the police in a ring which was held by the army. I don't have a sketch to explain it. Perhaps some 150 metres away from the buildings, behind the buildings.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could the witness please be shown document S15-2 another time.

Could you please indicate where these minefields were. ¹¹⁶⁰⁸

A. I can't show it here, because we see only the end of the asphalted area of the pista, and the minefields were down there. There's a petrol station down to the south, and they were behind that petrol station, and then to the north, because there is where Bare is, where meadows are, and there were trenches which were held by the army, and that is where the minefields were.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: These minefields, had they been there before May 1992?

A. No. No. No, they were laid when the inmates arrived, because in those early days, in the beginning -- at the beginning there was -- there were power cuts and there was chaos, so that later on I had to put up a generator -- a power generator here in front of this administrative building, and I had to put up the flashlights at these two corners to light the area, because in the early days there were even some attempts at escape and fire was opened. That is what I heard, because I wasn't there. I mean, I didn't really see that.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May the witness please be shown once again S15-2-2.

If you could be so kind and take once again the marker and mark those places where you had to put up the flashlights.

A. May I also mark where the power generator was?

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you could be so kind and mark the two flashlights with "3" and "4." Because we had already 1 and 2, and now 3 and 4.

A. [Marks] ¹¹⁶⁰⁹

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And in which direction headed these flashlights?

A. Their lights were directed westward.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So that they would cover the so-called pista, the area between the two buildings; correct?

A. Yes. We called it flower bed because here were flower pots.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this would be correct that your testimony is that the flashlights had the purpose to lighten the area between the two buildings? Correct?

A. Yes, it is correct. When there was no electricity, then I would switch on the power generator so as to be able to see the entrance into the building and this area here.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And to the best of your recollection, you testified - it's quite clear that you can't tell us now whether it was the 23rd, 27th, 30th of May - but how many days after your beginning with your work under the work obligation in this area did you build up these flashlights?

A. Again, I can't give you the precise date.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was it before the detainees arrived or after?

A. No, no, no. It was after the arrival, maybe five or four days after the arrival. Again, I can't give you a precise answer. I can't tell you what date it was, how many days later. I know that people were already there. There were very frequent power cuts. It would be dark in the evening, and that's when we put the power generator here and connected lights to that generator and we also conducted electricity to the administrative building where the typists were and where the investigators ¹¹⁶¹⁰ were so that they could do their job.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I then ask the usher to take my own copy of document S15-16 and this be marked in addition with a "-1." And could you please indicate with the marker where the aforementioned -- where the aforementioned minefields were located. I think the other way around.

A. Here you can't see the petrol station at all, but this is on the southern side, so thereabouts.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the other areas you mentioned before?

A. No. It is here that I noticed them, but I believe that they were also here on this side, across the road, somewhere around here. Or maybe even here.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You didn't make use of your marker. Could you please make use of this marker and indicate that we can follow -- at least on my PC I can't see it. This one I can see, yes. And then where else?

A. [Marks]

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And who told you and cautioned you and warned you that there were these minefields in order to protect your life and limb?

A. I was warned by the army, because I would come from my house from this direction here, from the west, and that's why I would always go in the morning when it was already daylight. I avoided going during the night. I was afraid that I might get killed.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Were there armed policemen protecting these buildings? ¹¹⁶¹¹

A. Yes, there were. But they were around the buildings, around the white house, and they were in front of the administrative building, and here in the southern part --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous interpretation continues] ... these places were to the best of your recollection, these -- I don't know whether it was police, army -- these armed persons were with a "P."

A. [Marks]

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it would be your testimony that on the other side of the hangar there was no armed police or army patrol?

A. The army was behind this part, behind the petrol station. The petrol station is somewhere here. But in any case, there were guards all around.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Armed guards.

A. Yes, yes.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Why was it that you weren't allowed to enter the white house?

A. I don't know. It must have been an order by the police. I don't know. In any case, I didn't need to go in there. I didn't want to go in there.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The final area I want to cover is the following: How many delegations to the best of your recollection ever visited Omarska during, say, end of May until September 1992?

A. I remember two delegations. The first one was the one that came in luxurious cars, and the second delegation was in the second part of August. And those were foreign journalists. I don't remember the date ¹¹⁶¹² again, but in any case they arrived as you can see here in front of the administrative building. This is where they stopped. They were escorted by the police, and I was here at the end of this big building.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness pointed to the area where he himself marked a "P" in front of the administrative building for the area where the journalists were, and he indicated that at that point in time he was in front of the right-hand side of the hangar. Correct?

A. Yes.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Relatively far away. Did the journalists have --

A. Yes.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did the journalists have access to all the buildings?

A. As far as I could see, I recognised them as being journalists. They had cameras. They entered the administrative building as far as I could see. This is where they walked. And later on I don't know where they went. I went into the workshop. It was very hot. I was tired, so I went take a rest. They took some photos. What photos they took, I didn't see.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's come back to the first delegation. I think your testimony was extremely clear where this delegation arrived. And is it correct that your testimony is that the delegation came with two cars?

A. As far as I can remember, those were two luxurious passenger cars. And as far as I can remember, one of those was a Mercedes and the other ¹¹⁶¹³ one was a Golf, if my memory serves me right. Again, I cannot guarantee that this is correct.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The two drivers remained in the car; correct?

A. Correct.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And wasn't it your testimony that seven or eight persons completed this delegation? Correct?

A. Yes, as far as I can remember. I did not count them, and I didn't make a note of that, so I don't know whether there were seven or eight, but thereabouts.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I haven't the transcript before me, unfortunately. Could you please repeat the names of those persons you recall having seen there.

A. I knew - and I will repeat - the president of Banja Luka municipality Predrag Radic, then Simo Drljaca and Simo Miskovic. These were the people I knew. I didn't know the others. They had armed escorts with them.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you estimate how many armed escorts had they with them?

A. Well, as far as I can remember, there were two or three of them. Again, I can't remember that precisely. It was a long time ago. It was 11 years ago.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When you said "seven to eight persons," these two to three were already included, or were they additional persons protecting the delegation?

A. No. They were with the delegation, so I counted them in. ¹¹⁶¹⁴

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You mentioned Mr. Predrag Radic. How did you know this person? From television, from radio, from former visits to Banja Luka?

A. I knew Predrag Radic from before the war. He was a very successful businessman. I even saw him in Banja Luka in the street. I saw him in the papers. And that's how I was able to recognise him.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what about Mr. Drljaca?

A. Mr. Drljaca, I knew him because I would see him in the camp rather often.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Why was it that Mr. Drljaca often visited the camp?

A. Well, he was -- I don't know what he was by his position. I know he was the chief of the Secretariat of the Interior. I only know that I used to see him there.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Have you ever heard the term "Crisis Staff"?

A. Yes, I did.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you know if so that Mr. Drljaca was at that time a member of the Crisis Staff?

A. I don't know who the people were in the Crisis Staff. I only knew that the Crisis Staff existed. That's what I heard. I don't know who was in it, how it was, who had what position in it. I really don't know. I was not into any political matters at the time.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Who was it from the municipality of Prijedor and the person who was in charge of taking care about what happened in Omarska that you, for example, received the necessary material that Omarska was ¹¹⁶¹⁵ provided with the necessary or after following your testimony sometimes even unnecessary fuel and all these daily necessities for to run Omarska?

A. Can you please ask that question again. I'm not sure that I understood you correctly. So would you please be so kind to repeat your question.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was there any person, if any, from the municipality of Prijedor taking care of the, say, hygienic situation, the -- as it was your field where you were working in, the electricity, that you had the necessary material and so on -- a person responsible for the running of Omarska, that everything worked as foreseen?

A. I don't know whether there was any such person. I only know that Simo Drljaca was there, that he could issue orders to people there. And I don't know anything else. I don't know. I really don't know who it could have been. Only Mirko Babic or the management of the mine could give me orders, and for the rest I don't know.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Who gave you, for example, the order to put up these flashlights?

A. Mr. Mirko Babic, the manager of the workshop.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And in hierarchy, who would be able to order Mr. Mirko Babic to act or not to act?

A. I don't know. There was a chain of command in the mine, in the mine structure. There was, for example, the manager. Above him was the director. I am not familiar with the functioning of those structures. I don't know what their sequence or order was. In any case, I received orders from Mirko. Mirko received -- or may have received orders from the ¹¹⁶¹⁶ director of the mine. And that was that.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it is your testimony that the director of the mine was, also at that time, when the mine as such was no longer operational, was in the -- in this hierarchy, that he had some say in Omarska? Is it really your testimony?

A. Well, I believe that he could do things that had to do with the mine, with the processes in the mine, when something needed to be done in the mine. There was the management of the mine and the management of the mine could order things to be done. Nobody else could give me the order to go and repair the electrical facilities. For example, nobody from the police or the army could order me to go and repair the well. It was only the management structure of the mine who could do that, the manager of the workshop or whoever. And I believe that he took his orders from a higher position, that is, from the director of the mine, that he was the one who could order him. That was my understanding of how things were.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be more concrete, was there a kind of separation of powers, one restricted to the running of the mine and one limited to the responsibility vis-a-vis the detainees, or was there an overlapping responsibility?

A. I believe that the mine did not have any authority over the detainees, that it was up to the military and the police to do that, and that the mine did not have anything to do with them.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you have identified Mr. Kovacevic if he would have been part of this delegation?

A. I don't know. I didn't know Dr. Kovacevic. I didn't know him. ¹¹⁶¹⁷ Only now I can see his photo in the hospital. Before that I didn't know him and I was never in the hospital and -- no, I wouldn't recognise him, because I didn't know him at the time.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Did you know at that time Mr. Brdjanin, if he would have been part of the delegation, would you have seen him?

A. I don't know. At the time I didn't know Mr. Brdjanin. But now if I could go back to those times -- I don't know. I can't -- I don't know. I can't tell you.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I see that you try hard to memorise that what happened ten years ago, Mr. Vuleta. But can you tell me -- can you be quite sure that in fact you saw the entire delegation, or may it be that part of a delegation was separate and the cars not entering the area as such?

A. I know that I saw the entire delegation. I saw them coming from the direction of east and I saw them stopping where they stopped. I have already told you that they passed by me, that they went behind the restaurant and they were westbound.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Correct. You testified previously only briefly that you heard the persons, the detainees, singing -- I believe you said "Serb songs." What kind of songs were these?

A. Well, those were Serb songs. One of them is "Who says that Serbia is little? Who lies that Serbia is little?" Then from "Topola to Radana Gora." Then there was a song Vojvoda Sindjelic, and other Serbian songs. I can't remember all of them.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When did this singing start? ¹¹⁶¹⁸

A. The singing started when the cars stopped there and when the delegation passed by me and went in the direction of the west.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it would be your testimony that in advance there was no singing at all?

A. I don't know. I don't remember. There may have been. It's very difficult to say one or the other. They may have been singing even before that or they may have started when they arrived. I didn't pay too much attention to that. I was thinking about repairing the damage to the electrical line. I didn't even try to memorise the sequence of these events. I only remember that I heard the songs being sung.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But wasn't it your testimony that you surrounded the entire area in order to identify the place where this technical problem was at that time, and when surrounding this entire area, no doubt before you found this mistake and you repaired this, didn't you hear at that time already singing of Serbian or Chetnik songs?

A. I don't know. Like I've told you, I'm not sure. Maybe I did. Maybe they had been singing. I didn't have a tape recorder to record that. I just remember that I heard the singing. At the moment when they arrived, there was singing to be heard.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The detainees, were they lined up? And if so, where?

A. The detainees were lined up in front -- I don't have it in front of me to show it to you. They were lined up in front of the administrative building and in the area on the eastern side, to the east of that big building and on the southern side of this huge hole. ¹¹⁶¹⁹

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the model -- on the picture we have before us, on the side of the administrative building where we don't have the restaurant, on the other side, and in addition to the left-hand side of the hangar; correct?

A. Yes. On the south side of the administrative building; on the eastern side of the big building of the hangar, and partly on one side of the big hangar building, if I'm make myself clear.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the delegation of high-ranking persons, did they pass these lined-up inmates singing Serb songs?

A. They arrived from Omarska, from the direction of the east, and they arrived in the eastern side of the administrative building. That's where the cars stopped. High-ranking officials got off the cars. The drivers had remained behind. The officials went towards the rest, towards the northern part of the restaurant, and from there on I couldn't see them because I did what I told you I did; I wanted to finish that job.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Judge Vassylenko.

JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Mr. Vuleta, can you tell me the ethnicity of the Omarska camp population.

A. In the Omarska camp, there were Muslims and Croats. There were even some Serbs there.

JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Were your acquaintances or friends detained in the Omarska camp?

A. Yes. Yes, there were my fellow workers, my electricians, those who used to work with me in the same mine. ¹¹⁶²⁰

JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And why they were detained?

A. Well, you know, they were detained because an attack had taken place on an army column coming from Banja Luka somewhere. I'm not quite sure where. Jakupovic, somewhere. Some part of Kozarac at any rate. And they attacked the army there, and I heard that they had killed two soldiers there. And after that, the attack on Prijedor followed and fighting started there, and then naturally the army surrounded it and those people were brought there in order to establish who had been those extremists, who had attacked the army, who had organised the attacks, to investigate that and naturally to then let honest people go home.

JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Did your acquaintances who were detained in the camp participate in the attack on Hambarine or Prijedor?

A. As far as I know, they did not. And those guys are still alive today, and they always greet me.

JUDGE VASSYLENKO: I have no more questions. Thank you.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Judge Argibay.

JUDGE ARGIBAY: I don't have any.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the Defence. How many questions do you have?

MR. OSTOJIC: None, Your Honour. Thank you.

MS. SUTHERLAND: None, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This concludes your testimony. We're grateful that you came to The Hague and that you testified, that you gave us your view and your memory. And it's extremely important to hear both sides, and therefore thank you and we all wish you a safe trip home. Thank you. ¹¹⁶²¹ May the -- may I ask the usher to escort the witness out of the courtroom.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for listening to my story.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it remains for us to decide on the admission of evidence. This would be S15-2-2. Any objections?

MS. SUTHERLAND: None, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That's the case. Admitted into evidence as such.

Then -- I have lost the overview. If you could help me, please, S15 --

THE REGISTRAR: -16-1.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections? If not the case, admitted into evidence as such.

THE REGISTRAR: And S395, Your Honour.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections? The bundle of paper, put it this way.

MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I have no objection to S15-16-1. But 395 was the Prosecution exhibit, so Mr. -- Mr. Ostojic --

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. It's only for Mr. Ostojic. Please, you have the floor.

MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. We do have an objection to that document. As the Court duly noted on page 57, line 16 of today's transcript, my learned friend specifically said that these documents were seized on February 26, 1996. The Defence would like a ¹¹⁶²² couple of questions answered in connection with that seizure. First of all, was it consistent with the rules and was it --

THE INTERPRETER: Will you slow down, Mr. Ostojic, please.

MR. OSTOJIC: I will. Thank you. First of all, was it issued pursuant to the rules as the proper subpoenas in another seizure was indicated or was it also a unilateral attempt by the Prosecutor to seize documents?

Secondly, the Defence is enormously concerned that these documents were not tendered in advance and they do not bear a 65 ter number pursuant to the Rules.

Third -- there's a couple more.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Let's come back to the question of 65 ter numeration in connection with the three other documents we still have to discuss.

MR. OSTOJIC: All right. I'd just like, if I can, on this third one.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Of course.

MR. OSTOJIC: The third point, if the Court notes that the picture that the Defence -- or strike that. The picture that the OTP utilises, specifically S15-41 was shown that to this witness and produced to this witness, and we had an objection as to the date of that exhibit. It was clear that that tram, according to the OTP's testimony or statements, I should say, that that document was photographed on February 23rd, 1996. So the Defence is very curious to know how is it that they subpoena documents three days' prior, yet were allegedly on the premises of the ¹¹⁶²³ iron ore mine taking photographs or pictures. And we'd like a clarity on that. And we think that it's an important issue.

Finally, with respect to Exhibit 3 -- S395, the Court will note that some documents have signatures on the sixth column of the documents. Other documents and the predominant number of documents within Exhibit S395 do not bear those signatures. We're perplexed as to how these things continually and consistently happen. We have other concerns in connection with these documents but we raise those four at the present time for the Court.

[Trial Chamber confers].

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In line with the Rules and the guidelines on the admission of evidence and for the reason that the witness testified on the basis of these pieces of paper, to put it this way, this bundle of documents is admitted into evidence.

The English one and single page translated S395A, and the B/C/S bundle S359B-1, 2, and forth following, please.

We have to return to the question of 65 ter documents later. I recall Mr. Lukic asked for the discussion in the presence of Mr. Ostojic. Are there any urgent matters to be discussed today?

I know it's extremely difficult for the Defence to prepare a proffer for Monday. The number of the witnesses we can expect for Monday would be, question mark?

MR. OSTOJIC: It is -- it is a question mark, Your Honour. But we'll attempt tomorrow night, as we have in the past, to e-mail to the OTP and to the Chamber a copy of the proffer of the witness, and at the ¹¹⁶²⁴ latest, I would suggest that by 11.00 Sunday morning so that they would have enough time. And I know it may be inconvenient for the Court since we do convene early next week, but we will provide the OTP with the amended proffer and we'll endeavour to do the same with the Court. Because I do believe we have the e-mail of the proper Court personnel.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you have already the numbers and your 65 ter number of the witness?

MR. OSTOJIC: We're not sure, because tomorrow they're arriving. But I did list four of them, and we're just not sure of the order yet until we meet with them tomorrow. We anticipate that it may be 053, but we're not sure until we meet with him and then we'll make that decision. And again, it involves scheduling for later in the week. This witness may be lengthy, so we want to just make sure to put him in the proper category so that he could finish his testimony.

MR. KOUMJIAN: We will prepare for 053, and it may be -- create problems for us if another witness goes ahead of 053.

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So may I invite the parties to concentrate on S -- the yes. What was it? S53, that we all can try to prepare this together for Monday. And please do the possible. I know it's extremely difficult for you.

MR. OSTOJIC: We appreciate that. And we'll tell them immediately once we make that decision. So if he's prepared today -- I mean, tomorrow within 14 or 18 hours, he'll know exactly the one. But again, because of the schedule, we'd just like to reserve that right. And we'll try bring him if he's ready. ¹¹⁶²⁵

JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So I can't see any additional urgent matters. I thank all participants, and I apologise for once again, especially on a Friday afternoon or evening, to have some overtime. But it enabled the witness to leave The Hague and stay during the weekend in his home country. I thank all of you, especially the interpreters giving access to the testimony of the witnesses.

The trial stays adjourned until Monday, 9.00, in this courtroom. And I wish a very good weekend for everybody.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

the 3rd day of February, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.