IT-09-92-T 81800 D81800 - D81760 01 September 2014 MB THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-09-92-T IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before: Judge Alphons Orie, Presiding Judge Bakone Justice Moloto Judge Christoph Flügge Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Date Filed: 1 September 2013 THE PROSECUTOR v. RATKO MLADIĆ PUBLIC WITH PUBLIC ANNEXES A & B DEFENCE MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 92TER TO ADMIT THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF TOMISLAV SAVKIĆ The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Dermot Groome Mr. Peter McCloskey Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Branko Lukić Mr. Miodrag Stojanović IT‐09‐92‐T 1 September 2014 1 81799 THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA PROSECUTOR v. RATKO MLADIĆ PUBLIC WITH PUBLIC ANNEXES A & B DEFENCE MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 92TER TO ADMIT THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF TOMISLAV SAVKIĆ ________________________________________________________________________ The Accused, RATKO MLADIĆ, by and through his counsel of record, respectfully submits the instant Motion pursuant to Rule 92ter of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and in support thereof states as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Pursuant to the Guidance previously expressed by the Trial Chamber, motions offering written statements under Rule 92ter of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence are to be filed at least 30 days before the anticipated testimony of a given witness. Witness Tomislav Savkić is currently scheduled to testify in the next 30 days and thus the Defense hereby files the instant motion in compliance with the Chamber’s guidance, and applying for the evidence of this witness to be heard pursuant to Rule 92ter. This Motion is filed publicly, as the witness does not require protective measures. 2. Herein this application is made to tender one written witness statement of the witness, with four associated exhibits. At this time the Defense estimates that the evidence-in-chief of this witness will last up to 30 minutes. IT‐09‐92‐T 1 September 2014 2 81798 3. The Defense does not otherwise seek to deviate from the Chamber’s Guidelines in tendering this witness’ evidence. II. APPLICABLE LAW 4. Under Rule 92ter of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter “Rules”) a Trial Chamber is permitted to admit the evidence in whole or in part in the form of a witness statement or transcripts of a proceeding before the Tribunal, under the following conditions: i) the witness is present in court; ii) the witness is available for cross-examination and any questioning by the Judges; and iii) the witness attests that the written statement or transcript accurately reflects the witness’s declaration and what the witness would say if examined.1 5. A party calling a witness pursuant to Rule 92ter may seek to admit into evidence documents that have been discussed by the witness in his or her witness statement of previous testimony.2 III. DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS A The Chamber Should Admit the Witness Statement 6. Witness Savkić’s statement is relevant, reliable and probative, as set forth in greater detail herein below. 7. The witness will be present at trial, and thus will be able to attest to the evidence and will be available to be cross-examined by the Prosecution. Thereby the 1 Rule 92ter of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. 2 Prosecutor v. Karadzic, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, “Decision on Prosecution’s Submission regarding Additional Transcript Pages from Momcilo Mandic’s Stanisic and Zupljanin Testimony for Admission into Evidence.” 8 September 2010, para.5. IT‐09‐92‐T 1 September 2014 3 81797 requirements of Rule 92ter will be fulfilled, and fairness to the Prosecution will be observed. 8. The Defense submits that due to the nature of the Witness’s testimony 45 minutes will be necessary in order to conduct a limited and focused direct examination of the witness to clarify, expand on, and contextualize aspects of his evidence directly relevant to the Defense case. 9. In 1984, after completing his compulsory military service, the witness Savkić was employed at Bokslt in Milići where he worked until the outbreak of the war. In mid-1992 the witness was appointed commander of defence of the Bokslt mine, and on 1 November 1992 was assigned as Commander of the First Infantry Battalion in Milići. On 1 November 1993, the witness became President of the Milići Municipal Assembly and no longer carried out military duties. 10. Witness Savkić’s testimony is relevant to and probative of salient and material issues pertaining to the Indictment. The Defense is confident in that it will, among other things, establish the following: a. The circumstances and ethnic composition of employees of the Bokslt company prior to the war.3 b. In late1990 inter-ethnic problems began to escalate, particularly with the establishment of the national political parties.4 c. Muslim resentment towards the Serbs intensified, as demonstrated by the attacks on Serbs when they travelled through Muslim settlements to attend the Serbian Democratic Party (hereafter “SDS”) inaugural rally in Kravica and Srebrenica held on 19 August 1990.5 3 Statement, para.3. 4 Statement, paras.4-5. 5 Statement, para.6. IT‐09‐92‐T 1 September 2014 4 81796 d. Muslims did not allow Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina to publicly display their national insignia. Extremists set fire to SDS flags in the Serbian settlement of Kravica.6 e. Multiparty elections in Vlasenica were won by the SDS with 44.43% of votes. The Party of Democratic Action (hereafter “SDA”) won 43.8% of votes, and the remaining 12% went to minor parties. A Municipal Assembly of 60 assemblymen was established based on these results, with 27 representatives from the SDS, 26 from the SDA, and seven representatives from other parties.7 f. Agreement was reached at the republican level that the Serbs and Muslims in Vlasenica should establish government based on the fifty- fifty principle. 8 g. Staff proposed by the SDA did not have adequate qualifications for the posts as required by existing regulations, however, the proposals were accepted following interventions from the republican level.9 h. Muslim republican authorities gave instructions that only Muslims be appointed to supervisory posts.10 i. When the break-up of the JNA began in June 1991, Muslims were ordered by the SDA leadership to stop sending their conscripts to perform compulsory military service and responding to the Territorial Defence call-up. The Muslims of Vlasenica complied with these orders.11 j. Muslims began to arm themselves.12 Serbs protested to their municipal representatives and requested their safety be guaranteed. The 6 Statement, para.7. 7 Statement, para.8. 8 Statement, paras.8-9. 9 Statement, para.10. 10 Statement, para.11. 11 Statement, paras.12-14. 12 Statement, paras.15, 19. IT‐09‐92‐T 1 September 2014 5 81795 authorities attempted to persuade Serbs the JNA would intervene if necessary.13 k. Most operations undertaken to cut off the illegal weapons supply and stop Muslims arming themselves failed.14 l. Muslims in Vlasenica established paramilitary formations, and units and command personnel were sent to Croatia for training. The central office of the SDA instructed executive committees in municipalities to nominate Muslims for police roles so they would be sent for training in Croatia.15 m. Serbs and Muslims organized night guards around their settlements.16 n. The Serbian leadership proposed the establishment of the Birac Autonomous District and the Municipal Assembly adopted a decision that Vlasenica join the Birac Autonomous Region on 26 December 1991.17 o. Serbian members of the Vlasenica municipal authorities attempted to avoid war and find peaceful solutions with Muslims, whose representatives stated there could be no co-existence with Serbs.18 p. As the political situation deteriorated in early 1992, Serbs and Muslims began leaving Vlasenica in large numbers.19 q. Muslim paramilitary formations led by Ibrahim Ademovic set up ambushes in Muslim settlements in Milići.20 r. An Agreement on the Division of the Municipality was adopted by the Vlasenica SO on 13 April 1992.21 13 Statement, paras.15-16. 14 Statement, paras.17-18. 15 Statement, para.20. 16 Statement, para.22. 17 Statement, paras.23-24. 18 Statement, paras.25-26. 19 Statement, para.27. 20 Statement, paras.28, 39. 21 Statement, paras.29-30. IT‐09‐92‐T 1 September 2014 6 81794 s. The Muslim population of Vlasenica was not expelled. The SDA ordered the departure of the Muslims22 who left Vlasenica in three stages.23 t. The context of circumstances and events that took place in Vlasenica before and during April 1992.24 u. On 21 April 1992, the remaining Muslim population of Vlasenica left for Tuzla and Kladanj, travelling via the regular bus lines and their own vehicles. Some Muslims requested the municipal authorities provide organized transport. Such transport to Tuzla and Kladanj was organized and buses ran every day, however, there were not enough buses to transport all the Muslims within a few days.25 v. Muslims waiting for transportation were accommodated in the Territorial Defence facility in Sušica once the Serbian refugees from Goražde vacated the premises.26 w. The circumstances of the eruption of hostilities in May 1992.27 The Milići and Vlasenica municipalities were cut off from Serbia and left without electricity due to the Muslim sabotage and terrorist organizations mining roads and damaging electric power transmission lines.28 x. Muslims carried out attacks on Serbian villages in the Milići and Vlasenica municipalities. The Muslim armed forces command was located in Drum at the house owned by the father of Ferid Hodžic.29 y. When the Milići – Vlasenica – Zvornik road became unsafe the Republika Srpska leadership decided to establish a corridor to deliver 22 Statement, para.31.