1 Tuesday, 27 November 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody.
7 Mr. Registrar, can you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. Case
9 number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Could we have the appearances
11 for today, starting with the Prosecution.
12 [Technical difficulty]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome.
14 Could we have the appearances, please, starting with the
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Good morning, Your Honours, counsel and everyone in and around the
18 courtroom. For the Prosecution, Daryl Mundis and Kyle Wood, assisted by
19 our case manager, Alma Imamovic.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 And for the Defence.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
23 morning to my learned friends. Good morning to everyone in and around the
24 courtroom. Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas Robson on behalf of General Rasim
25 Delic. Our case manager is Lejla Gluhic.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 WITNESS: MURIS HADZISELIMOVIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, sir. Just to remind you that you
5 made a declaration at the beginning of your testimony last week to tell
6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. You remember
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
9 morning to the Defence and everyone else. Of course, I remember that. I
10 abide by that sworn statement that I made.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. So just to remind you that you are still
12 bound by that declaration.
13 Yes, Mr. Wood.
14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Examination by Mr. Wood: [Continued]
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hadziselimovic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Just before we took the weekend recess, you had mentioned, at page
19 86, starting at line 19:
20 "I think that there was a decision by the Presidency of the
21 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina where it was stated that all the Geneva
22 Conventions were to be applied."
23 Do you remember that?
24 A. Of course.
25 MR. WOOD: If we could have document P04050 displayed, please.
1 Q. Do you see that document in front of you, sir?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And can you tell the Trial Chamber what this is?
4 A. As far as I can tell, this is a decree of the BH Presidency
5 relating to the implementation of the International Laws of War within the
6 Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 Q. Is this the law you were speaking of on Friday before the recess?
8 A. I don't think we looked at this decree on Friday. We spoke about
9 the decision of the Presidency to apply the Geneva Conventions and about
10 the criminal laws that were applied in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time.
11 This is a special decree in relation to the armed forces.
12 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this into evidence, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our apologies. First
15 of all, this document was tendered when Witness Delic testified and
16 admitted. I think it might be a good idea to check, because we are
17 duplicating a lot of our documents. I remember this document clearly.
18 Secondly, we have a monitor problem here, Your Honours. We don't
19 have the transcript. This should be 427, Exhibit 427, if the OTP could
20 please check that.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say you don't have a transcript on your
22 screen, ma'am?
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's right, Your
24 Honours. We have a technical glitch over here, it seems, but the court
25 deputy seems to be suffering from that same problem too.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Trial Chamber's been advised that 427 is a
3 signed version in a slightly different format and with a little more text
4 on top. I'm not quite sure whether it's exactly identical to this. No
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's have a look at 427. Let's have a look at it.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's identical, but
9 the document that the OTP are now tendering is a copy.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood, there's 427 on the screen now.
11 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. Our case manager has also checked
12 into this. It does appear to be slightly different copies. The
13 Prosecution is persuaded that the text is the same. It would be easier, I
14 think, in this regard -- they have different ERN numbers as well. But if
15 427 could be shown to the witness, that would make things much easier.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: 427 is on the screen now.
17 MR. WOOD: And I'll put that question to the witness now, then, as
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you withdraw P04050 now?
20 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 MR. WOOD:
23 Q. Now, Mr. Hadziselimovic, does this appear to be the same as what
24 you previously looked at, the document that was just on the screen in
25 front of you?
1 A. I think so.
2 MR. WOOD: We can move on then. This document can be put away,
3 Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The document may be put away.
5 MR. WOOD:
6 Q. Now, Mr. Hadziselimovic, I want to take you into more specifics
7 about the military -- District Military Prosecutor's Office. Can you tell
8 me, sir, about how many cases did you handle during the war as a deputy
9 District Military Court prosecutor?
10 A. Throughout my time with the Prosecution, once a year.
11 Q. Let me ask you the question again, sir. If you could remember,
12 you told us you were a military prosecutor from 1993 to 1996. During that
13 time, if you could tell the Court generally as a rough estimate, how many
14 cases you handled, how many criminal cases you handled.
15 A. It is difficult to say exactly what the figure was, but between
16 1.000 and 1.500 cases.
17 Q. And if you can tell the Trial Chamber generally, what was the
18 majority of these cases about?
19 A. These were cases where crimes against the armed forces were
20 handled. That was in Articles 201 through 239 of the Criminal Code of the
21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Those were adopted, and that accounted
22 for 60 per cent of the cases that we dealt with. The remaining cases had
23 to do with what we termed "general crime," covering all the other crimes
24 defined under the criminal law of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 Q. What were the most common criminal offences that you prosecuted
1 during the war?
2 A. The most common criminal offences had to do with crimes against
3 property. That's what the chapter was called in the Criminal Code. Also,
4 there was unauthorised departure from the armed forces or desertion,
5 failure to obey orders, that sort of thing. It's difficult to remember
6 now all of the crimes that were handled, but for the most part it was this
7 type of crime that we dealt with.
8 Q. Criminal reports that you received, did they come from -- only
9 from military police or did they also come from civilian police?
10 A. It was possible for both the military police and the civilian
11 police to file criminal reports.
12 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, if a case was sent to the District
13 Military Prosecutor's Office involving a person over which the district
14 military prosecutor did not have jurisdiction, what would the Military
15 Prosecutor's Office have done with that criminal case?
16 A. If this was something that the district military prosecutor did
17 not have jurisdiction over but, rather, a civilian prosecutor, for
18 example, we would forward any such case to the appropriate prosecutor.
19 Q. If the police, when they went to the scene of a crime, after a
20 preliminary investigation decided that the district military prosecutor
21 did not have jurisdiction over the case, what would the police be
22 obligated to do in that situation?
23 A. You mean civilian or military police?
24 Q. Thank you for that clarification. I mean the military police.
25 A. Their responsibility was to file a criminal report. However, in
1 practice, what I think was most often the case was that civilian police
2 was contacted as soon as possible, especially if the investigation had
3 been a joint one. So if at one moment it was decided that this was
4 something for the civilian police, they would take over straightaway.
5 Q. When you say, sir, that their responsibility was to file a
6 criminal report, what do you mean by that? Is that a legal
8 A. That's right. The law dictates that authorised officials had the
9 responsibility of filing a criminal report whenever they came across
10 evidence of a crime that was committed. It was the responsibility of each
11 and every citizen, after all, to file a criminal report if there was
12 anything to suggest that a crime was committed. This was a responsibility
13 enshrined in the country's laws.
14 MR. WOOD: If document P02943 could be put on the screen, please.
15 I see that document is coming up. Before we get to this, I do
16 have one further question about the District Military Prosecutor's Office.
17 Q. You said in your testimony that you worked in that office until
18 1996. What happened in 1996 to the District Military Prosecutor's Office?
19 A. At the time, there was a decision to abolish the military courts
20 and military prosecutors. The same decision said that deputy military
21 prosecutors and military prosecutor would be absorbed by the Higher Public
22 Prosecutor Offices, and that's what happened to me. I was absorbed by the
23 higher public prosecutor in Zenica, soon after which I was appointed
24 deputy municipal public prosecutor in Zenica.
25 Q. What happened to all the archives and records of the District
1 Military Prosecutor's Office when -- after 1996?
2 A. The district military prosecutor -- I'm speaking about Zenica
3 now. That applied to all district military prosecutors throughout the
4 country. I'm sorry.
5 So in the decision abolishing military prosecutors, it was clearly
6 envisaged what would happen to the files or, rather, to the cases being
7 processed by district military prosecutors. The decision was made that the
8 archives should be handed over to the appropriate public prosecutors
9 throughout the country, meaning some of the cases might have been taken up
10 by the higher public prosecutor in Zenica. Some of the cases might have
11 been taken up by the municipal public prosecutors from throughout the
12 country. As far as I remember, some of the cases were taken up by the
13 Sarajevo higher public prosecutor. We were to hand over cases according
14 to both real and territorial -- subject matter and territorial
16 Q. What happened specifically to the archives and records of the
17 Zenica District Military Prosecutor's Office after 1996?
18 A. Most of the archives was taken over by the civil prosecutor and
19 the municipal prosecutor in Zenica, amounting to about between 60 and 70
20 per cent of the case-load.
21 Q. And what office has jurisdiction or has supervisory authority or
22 custodian possession of those archives from the Zenica District Military
23 Prosecutor's Office right now?
24 A. The cantonal prosecutor of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, and I happened
25 to be head of that office.
1 Q. If we could turn to the document now. Do you recognise this
2 document, Mr. Hadziselimovic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. We can see on the bottom of the version in Bosnian that there
5 is --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Counsel, can somebody scroll down, please, in the
8 MR. WOOD: And only to advance this second page to see the
9 signature line, if that's what you have in mind, Mr. President.
10 We can see, on the bottom of the Bosnian page and in the bottom of
11 page 2 in the English version, there's a name, "Muris Hadziselimovic," and
12 there's a signature.
13 Q. Is that your signature, sir?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, please, how did you go about
16 producing this letter, sir?
17 A. The Hague Prosecutor requested that we hand over this
18 information. If you look at the introduction from 1 to 2, Arabic 1
19 through 3, you will see that this was in fact the case. It was about the
20 period between 1993 and 1996. I, as the chief prosecutor, ordered our
21 archives to verify this information. A check was carried out, and based
22 on that, this document was eventually produced. I endorsed this document
23 with my signature. I confirm this document's authenticity.
24 Q. Now, you say in your answer: "A check was carried out and our
25 archives -- and based on that, this document was eventually produced."
1 What archives or what records were checked in order for you to
2 produce this letter?
3 A. I'm talking about our archives, which comprised the archives of
4 the former district military prosecutor in Zenica and the former higher
5 public prosecutor in Zenica, as well as 10 municipal public prosecutors
6 covered by this particular canton.
7 Q. You say "archives." What role did the registers that we talked
8 about on Friday have in your search?
9 A. Well, what we mean by "archives" is, above all, registers. All of
10 those were inspected. Whenever we found a case, we would formally inspect
11 it, so this included registers, logbooks, as well as individual case
12 files, the check that I talked about.
13 Q. And why would it be important to look at the registers when
14 determining whether a particular criminal case had been received by the
15 District Military Prosecutor's Office?
16 A. If you're talking about the registers, this is something that's
17 really important, because as I said on Friday, each case was registered in
18 this kind of book. So, first of all, we would go through the registers.
19 Whenever we found a case that was registered, it would always prove easy
20 to track down. It never happened that we had a case that was not
21 registered. That is why how the search took place is very important.
22 First you look at the register and then you look at the logbook and then
23 you look at individual case files.
24 MR. WOOD: If we could turn to the number 1 on that document,
25 which is on page 1 in both versions.
1 Q. Under number 1, Mr. Hadziselimovic, we see that there are certain
2 articles listed. Those are 36, 37, 38, 42, 52, 172 and 177 of the
3 Criminal Code of BiH, as well as 142 to 146 of the Criminal Code of
4 Yugoslavia. Can you tell the Trial Chamber generally what Article 36
5 would have covered?
6 A. Article 36 was murder.
7 Q. And if you recall -- we can bring up these pages of the Code as
8 well to assist if you don't recall, but if you recall generally, what did
9 Article 37 cover?
10 A. Article 37 covered manslaughter.
11 Q. If you could just take the Trial Chamber through the rest of
12 those, 38, 42, 52 and the others. What did those articles cover,
13 Mr. Hadziselimovic?
14 A. As far as I remember, 38, reckless endangerment. 42 was grievous
15 bodily harm. 52 was unlawful detention. 172 was causing public danger,
16 and 177 covered serious cases of causing public danger. I forget the name
17 because there were three later amendments to these laws.
18 Q. In any event, though, the document that we saw on Friday does
19 explain what these laws are? That was the law that was in effect at the
20 time; is that correct, sir?
21 A. Yes, that's right, but 140 through 146 covered war crimes. This
22 is something that was adopted from the Criminal Code of the Federal
23 Republic of Yugoslavia. All these applied from 1993 to 1996, as the
24 document reflects. 142 to 146.
25 MR. WOOD: Now, Mr. President, there are more pages of this, as we
1 MIF'd it. There's a table, specifically. I see there at the top of the
2 Bosnian version, it says "1 of 1". I don't know if there's any further
3 pages beyond that. There are.
4 If we could go to page 2 of the Bosnian version and just the final
5 page. That would be, I'm sorry, page 3 of the English version.
6 Q. Do you see that in front of you now, Mr. Hadziselimovic?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, is this an accurate reflection of
9 a portion of the registers that you kept during the war?
10 A. Yes, the entire table reflects our records. I believe that each
11 page has my initials.
12 Q. If we could just go through one particular entry just to get an
13 idea of how things were recorded. Let's stick with the first one, for
14 example, which appears to be under the first column. Could you please
15 tell the Trial Chamber, first of all, what "KT" means?
16 A. It is simply the name of a register. This is where we kept cases
17 with identified adult perpetrators of criminal offences.
18 Q. In the first column there, there's a number. It says "33596".
19 What is that number, sir?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which number are you talking about, Mr. Wood?
21 MR. WOOD: Immediately beneath where it says "KP Vojno." I see
22 that it's been highlighted now.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Interpreter. Yeah, okay, I see it now.
1 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. So specifically, Mr. Hadziselimovic, what does this "/96" indicate
3 about this particular criminal report?
4 A. Registers were kept for each year individually. We would start
5 with a new register with a new number at the beginning of the year, and we
6 would conclude the register with the end of the year. Therefore -- excuse
7 me. There should be "KT" just in front of the number and then "335/96".
8 That would mean that within the KT register, this case was registered as
9 case 335 in that year, that is, 1996.
10 Q. And is that the same -- the same practice followed throughout the
11 war and is it still followed today in your own registers, that a case
12 would have a slash and then the year in which it was filed after it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Moving to the second column immediately to the right, we see that
15 it says: "CSB Zenica." Can you tell the Trial Chamber, what is CSB
17 A. Centre of Security Services, Zenica, one of the organisational
18 units of the civilian police. This should mean that they were the ones
19 submitting the criminal report.
20 Q. And the third column labelled "Suspects," I believe that speaks
21 for itself. If you look to the fourth column, there's a "36/2". Can you
22 tell the Trial Chamber what that means?
23 A. That means that the crime in question is murder, Article 36(2) of
24 the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
25 Q. The column immediately after that, we have a translation here. It
1 says "The injured party" or "victim." I want to draw your attention to
2 the next column over. The heading in B/C/S, I believe it says "Ishod."
3 Can you tell the Trial Chamber what that is?
4 A. It says here that 150890 -- well, it seems the case was
5 transferred to the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica perhaps in
6 1996. I cannot see it clearly. Yes, I can see it better. The 15th of
7 August, 1996, the case was turned over to the Higher Public Prosecutor's
8 Office in Zenica.
9 Q. So in that entry, we see a "VJT." Immediately below that, we
10 see "OJT." Can you tell the Trial Chamber what those initials stand for?
11 A. It stands for -- well, "VJT" is Higher Public Prosecutor's Office
12 in Zenica. "OJT" means Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica.
13 Q. And the next -- if we -- the next table down, if we could stay
14 where we were, we see that there's an entry -- if we count six down, it
15 says "KTM 1993". Can you tell the Trial Chamber what "KTM" stands for?
16 A. "KTM" is the register for criminal offences committed by minors.
17 MR. WOOD: If we could go to the next page in B/C/S, and I will
18 explain, Mr. President, that each individual entry has not been translated
19 in this, but the headings have, so this amounts to the final page or one
20 of the last final pages in the English. But I will take him through some
21 of the entries in B/C/S at this point.
22 And I apologise. If we could actually go to the next page in the
23 B/C/S version.
24 Now, we see -- if we could scroll up a little bit.
25 Q. That entry at the top, that says "BVP Zenica." Can you tell the
1 Trial Chamber, sir, what does "BVP Zenica" stand for?
2 A. It is another acronym for the Battalion of the Military Police,
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know, let me just interject here, Mr. Wood. I
5 notice that these things that you are asking the witness to go through
6 have not been translated on the English side. What are you expecting is
7 going to happen at the time judgement is written? We're going to have to
8 look at the B/C/S document to try and figure out what we have been told by
9 the witness today?
10 MR. WOOD: I'm told, Mr. President, that is the practice with
11 respect to tables. One thing that can be done, I see that it wasn't with
12 this document, but I know it has in others, and in particular the document
13 that I'll be showing next, it does have a list of abbreviations that
14 explains what those things stand for. We can have that produced for this
15 one. I believe Mr. President is right, that it would be certainly helpful
16 to have that done with this document.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear you say this is the practice that is done.
18 You know, if the practice doesn't answer to the problems -- address the
19 problems, then maybe it's about time the practice was revisited.
20 What's the point of giving us a translation if the translation is
21 not identical to what is being translated?
22 MR. WOOD: I take your point, Your Honour, and we can have these
23 particular acronyms translated. I believe you're right, that would be
25 As I said, the next document that I show him, the witness will
1 have those -- a list of acronyms and what they mean, the abbreviations and
2 their translations. We can have that done with this document as well.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: So are you saying we've got to refer to the list of
4 acronyms and come back to the table when we arrive at judgement, or are
5 you saying that the translations are going to be in the table?
6 MR. WOOD: What's been done, as you'll see in the next document,
7 is that there's a list of acronyms at the back of the English translation
8 of a cover letter that are the acronyms that are referred to throughout
9 the table. This is typically how we get them back. They wouldn't --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, your answer is the former of my two
12 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just say so, then.
14 MR. WOOD: Okay. Yes. We will request a full translation of this
15 document, Your Honour, that includes the tables and all the abbreviations
16 and so on.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
18 Finally, where are we going with this examination?
19 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. This is to show the Trial Chamber a
20 little bit of exactly how the records were kept, what records were
21 indicated, and ultimately as we get to number 1 and then ultimately to
22 number 2, this is to show exactly what criminal reports were filed with
23 regard to the particular crimes at issue here.
24 I'm taking the witness through this portion to explain the table
25 to Mr. President and Your Honours and so that the Trial Chamber can get an
1 idea of exactly what sort of search was done and can feel confident that
2 the search was proper and --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: What sort of search was done or what kind of
4 archiving was done?
5 MR. WOOD: Both, Your Honour, the records that were kept and how
6 those records were searched.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Wood.
8 MR. WOOD:
9 Q. And in the fourth row, Mr. Hadziselimovic, we see that there's
10 a "KTN." Can you tell the Trial Chamber what "KTN" stands for?
11 A. It is the name of the register with criminal offences committed by
12 unknown or unidentified perpetrators.
13 MR. WOOD: Thank you, sir.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: All those abbreviations, the witness explained last
15 week, KT, KTM, KTN. You're taking him through the same things again,
16 Mr. Wood.
17 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour, I'm taking him through these again so
18 that Your Honours have an indication of how it looks and to remind Your
19 Honours what these abbreviations stand for as they see them in the tables.
20 I will move on, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
22 MR. WOOD: If we could look at page 1 of the Bosnian version. And
23 I believe we'll probably be looking at page 2 of the English version.
24 This is at Roman numeral II. Yes, that's perfect.
25 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, you indicate in your letter here that there
1 are no charges that were filed with regard to the following events. When
2 you signed this letter, were you confident that this is an accurate
3 reflection of what appeared in your archives?
4 A. Yes, certainly. My clerks ran detailed checks, and since I trust
5 them fully, I signed the document.
6 Q. And what criteria did you use in searching your archives to
7 determine whether any crimes with regards to Arabic 1, 2 and 3 were
8 referred to your office?
9 A. I believe we were given a list of names of those killed.
10 According to their names, we ran those checks in the appropriate
11 registers. We didn't find a single case that was opened against known or
12 unidentified perpetrators with any of the names from the list appearing in
14 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this document into evidence,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
17 please be given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 881.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 MR. WOOD: If we could have document P06211. If we could advance
21 to the page that's marked ERN 0613-2621. I believe it's a couple more.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this document dated at all?
23 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour, it's dated 22 August 2007.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where is the date?
25 MR. WOOD: What you see before you now, Your Honours, is the
1 request from the prosecutor's office.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. I just want to see the date of the
4 MR. WOOD: If we could advance to the next page. The way this
5 document was submitted, it's the -- first is the request from the
6 prosecutor, and following that is the response from Mr. Hadziselimovic's
7 office. It's the response that I'm most interested in. I believe that is
8 page 3 of the Bosnian.
9 It's beyond that even further. Perhaps page 4.
10 Again, what we're seeing here is the --
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 6.
12 MR. WOOD: Page 6, thank you. Yes.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.
14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.
15 Q. Do you recognise this document, sir?
16 A. Could we please zoom out? Can I see the following page, please?
17 Yes, I recognise it now. This document was a reply to the prosecutor's
18 request. It was signed by my deputy, since I was on annual leave at the
19 time, and I authorised him to sign the document.
20 Q. And these letters are similar, this letter and the last letter we
21 saw. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber what is the primary difference
22 between them? That is to say, what is the different search of the
23 archives you did to produce this letter than the search you did to produce
24 the letter we saw just before?
25 A. The period is important. The first document referred to 1993 to
1 1996, whereas this one pertains to the entire period up until end 2000.
2 Q. And did you use the same search criteria, Mr. Hadziselimovic, in
3 both searches of the archives?
4 A. Yes, and that was the instruction I gave to my deputy.
5 Q. One notice -- one thing I noticed that's different,
6 Mr. Hadziselimovic, that I wonder if you might be able to comment on.
7 If we could go back to page 1 on the B/C/S again, and if we could
8 stick with that page in the English, actually, the page we were on before
9 it disappeared just then. And if we could scroll down in the Bosnian, I
10 want to draw your attention, in particular, to the second bullet point
11 that reads:
12 "The killing and cruel treatment of three RS prisoners of war
13 [Realtime transcript read in error "62 prisoners of war"] in the village
14 of Livade [Realtime transcript read in error "Kesten"] or Kamenica camp,
15 in the period 21 to 23 July 1993." [Realtime transcript read in error "11
16 to 19 September 1995"].
17 I believe if we looked at the request of the prosecutor, that date
18 was actually 21 to 23 [Realtime transcript read in error "23 to 21"] July
19 1995, and I believe if we looked at the other letter, the search criteria
20 was again 21 to 23 July 1995.
21 Can you tell the Trial Chamber, sir, what period was searched for
22 this particular letter to be produced?
23 A. We ran our searches pertaining to the period between 1993 and
24 2000, including this period, as per request.
25 MR. WOOD: If we could go back to the prosecutor's request. That
1 would be the first page --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do that, can I just intervene here?
3 At page 20, line 21, you said, Mr. Prosecutor -- actually, 21 to 23 "July
4 1995". It's printed here "23 to 21". Just make sure that is corrected.
5 MR. WOOD: Yes, Mr. President.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. And, Mr. Wood, while you said "1995", I see
8 the document there says "21 to 23 July 1993", so I'm not quite sure
9 whether you're talking about 1995 or 1993. Do you see it?
10 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. I'll clarify this.
11 If we could go to the first page of this document in both
12 versions. And if we could actually go to the second page. The part of
13 the request that's important is on the second page of both documents. And
14 I want to draw your attention particularly to number 2.
15 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, did you carry out the search as requested by
16 the Prosecutor in this case?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. We can see that the Prosecutor requested, under number two:
19 "Murder and cruel treatment of three war prisoners, members of the
20 Army of Republika Srpska in the village of Livade or on the Camp Kamenica
21 in the territory of Zavidovici Municipality in the period from 21 to 23
22 July 1995 ..."?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Can we now explain why the
24 other one says "1993"?
25 MR. WOOD: Yes, Mr. President.
1 Q. Could you please explain to the Trial Chamber, sir, why the
2 response from the prosecutor's office, from your office, indicates "21 to
3 23 July 1993", whereas the request from the Prosecutor from the OTP was
4 from 21 to 23 July 1995?
5 A. I cannot explain that with any degree of certainty, but what I can
6 tell you is that the entire period between 1993 and 2000 was checked. I
7 suppose that this was merely a typographical error. It reads "1993" by
9 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this document into evidence,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
12 please be given an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 882.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 MR. WOOD:
16 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, during your time as a deputy District Military
17 Court prosecutor, do you remember there being any criminal reports or
18 prosecutions involving any crimes coming out of the Kamenica Camp, what is
19 called "the Kamenica Camp"?
20 A. I can tell you with certainty that I did not handle such cases. As
21 you said, yourself, I was deputy district military prosecutor. The
22 district prosecutor -- district military prosecutor would know for sure
23 whether there were any such cases, if he were here. I cannot tell you
24 anything as to whether there was such a case received by the District
25 Military Prosecutor's Office at the time, since I was not the head of the
1 office at the time.
2 If we go back to the document we've just seen, I can tell you that
3 we did not receive any such cases, that is, it wasn't received by our
4 military prosecutor's office.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, there's something that I don't understand
6 from the answer that comes. I thought, when you took us through the
7 exercise of your registers here, you were trying to show to us that you
8 searched, using your registers during that time, the time covered by the
9 time when you were a deputy prosecutor, military prosecutor, and that
10 therefore, according to the records of that office, you give an answer.
11 Now, when you say you were merely a deputy, "the prosecutor, if he were
12 here, could answer better," I got a bit lost. I thought you've told us
13 what the prosecutor would have told us. Did I miss something?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As deputy district military
15 prosecutor, I was not responsible for the registers and what was being
16 entered. That is why, personally, I cannot tell you whether anything was
17 entered or not. But from the point of view of the chief prosecutor of the
18 cantonal office in Zenica, where I was also responsible for the archives
19 of the former District Military Prosecutor's Office, I can tell you that
20 what we were asked to carry out searches on was not found. However, I
21 cannot tell you the same thing pertaining to Zavidovici.
22 MR. WOOD: If I could ask a follow-up question, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, you may proceed, sir.
24 MR. WOOD:
25 Q. Now, the question I asked you was about whether you personally
1 remembered. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, are you confident, sir, that
2 if a case had been filed with -- under the criteria that are listed in
3 your responses to the requests of the prosecutor, would it appear in the
5 A. Had a criminal report been submitted, it would have been entered
6 into the register, and as such, there would be a case.
7 Q. The other question I have is: On page 24, line 4, you say:
8 "However, I cannot tell you the same thing pertaining to
10 Can you tell the Trial Chamber what you meant by that?
11 A. I don't understand your question.
12 Q. What District Military Prosecutor's Office had territorial
13 jurisdiction over Zavidovici Municipality in 1993 and 1995?
14 A. The District Military Prosecutor's Office in Zenica.
15 Q. So it follows, then, if a criminal report had been filed for an
16 event occurring in Zavidovici Municipality involving military personnel,
17 it would have been filed into the Zenica District Military Prosecutor's
18 Office; is that correct?
19 A. It is.
20 Q. And it follows from that, then, that if such a report had been
21 filed, it would appear in the registers and in the archives that your
22 staff had searched when you produced these letters; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. WOOD: Thank you, sir.
25 The Prosecution has no further questions at this time.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 Madam Vidovic. Sorry.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, Madam Vidovic, but I thought that we
4 should conclude the Prosecution's examination-in-chief by asking the
5 witness about the possible reasons why no official record was ever made of
6 the incidents that are mentioned in the Prosecution's letter. I realise
7 one option is that the witness never heard of these incidents before they
8 were introduced to him in the Prosecution's letters, and another option
9 would be that these incidents never took place. So my question to the
10 witness is if you ever heard of these incidents while you were serving as
11 a prosecutor in Zenica.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Concerning the murders referred to
13 here, I had never heard of them before I was contacted by the Prosecutor's
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: I guess that settles my questions. Thank you very
16 much, sir.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
18 Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hadziselimovic. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and
20 I will cross-examine you today on behalf of General Rasim Delic.
21 I would kindly ask you that you pause before answering, and I will
22 do the same with my questions, so that the transcript could accurately
23 reflect our discussion.
24 Most of my questions can be answered by saying "yes" or "no," and
25 I'm sure you're familiar with the nature of cross-examination, for that
2 You gave us some information on your career. I will not go
3 through those questions again, but I wanted to ask you this: It is
4 correct, is it not, that you were a member of the War Presidency of the
5 former municipality of Kotor Varos or, rather, the Municipality of Kotor
6 Varos in exile, until March 1993?
7 A. It is not correct. In March 1993, I was appointed a member of the
8 War Presidency.
9 Q. In any case, you were a member of the War Presidency, of this War
10 Presidency in exile. The thrust of my question is this, actually: You
11 know how war presidencies in exile functioned; don't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You told us you were deputy district military prosecutor in Zenica
14 from the 1st of April, 1993, until July 1996, when District Military
15 Courts ceased their work; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you tell us who was your boss, his first and last name? Who
18 was the chief district military prosecutor at the time?
19 A. As of 1992 until, I believe, 1995, the middle of that year, it was
20 Kemal Mularifovic, succeeded by Sefedin Suljevic until District Military
21 Prosecutor's Offices were abolished.
22 Q. Those two people are alive, aren't they?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. There was a regulation in place by which the cases of the District
25 Military Prosecutor's Office were taken over by the Higher Public
1 Prosecutor's Office in Zenica; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, inter alia, or among others.
3 Q. The same process was conducted when it came to the issue of
4 District Military Courts, was it not?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I wanted to ask you about the status of cases of the District
7 Military Prosecutor's Office and the Court in Travnik. When the District
8 Military Court in Travnik was closed down, the cases of the District
9 Military Prosecutor's Office and the Court were taken over by the Higher
10 Court in Zenica, were they not?
11 A. Yes, that is correct.
12 Q. Therefore, even today the Court in Travnik, as well as the
13 prosecutor's office there, functioned as departments of the Cantonal Court
14 in Zenica; is that correct?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Very well. In any case, these cases which existed during the war,
17 including any potential criminal reports, investigations, indictments
18 issued by the District Military Prosecutor's Office in Zenica were taken
19 over by the Travnik institutions; isn't that so? I believe that is clear.
20 A. Not completely. I need to explain, I believe.
21 Q. Please do so.
22 A. It is as follows: The District Military Prosecutor's Office in
23 Zenica had territorial jurisdiction. The Municipalities of Travnik and
24 the other ones I mentioned on Friday, that situation existed until the
25 Military District Prosecutor's Office in Travnik was founded.
1 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, I would like to stop you here. Tell us when
2 exactly the District Military Prosecutor's Office in Travnik was formed.
3 A. I cannot tell you what year exactly, unfortunately, as I said on
4 Friday. I believe it was 1993, though.
5 Q. Very well. I will go back to the Travnik cases again, but I want
6 to move on to something else right now.
7 During the war, anyone could submit a criminal report, even an
8 ordinary citizen. However, I'm interested in any potential activities of
9 the relevant bodies in that regard. As you said, criminal reports could
10 also be submitted by security organs, civilian and military ones; is that
12 A. The civilian and military police, to be more precise.
13 Q. That certainly included the Military Security Service, did it not?
14 A. I don't know that for certain.
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.
16 Perhaps this is a good time for the break.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
18 We will take a break and come back at quarter to 11.00.
19 Court adjourned.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately we have to sit pursuant to Rule 15
23 bis again because again Judge Harhoff has had to go to the Milosevic case.
24 Yes, Mr. Wood.
25 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution had concluded its questions. I believe
1 Madam Vidovic had the floor when we took the break.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic. I'm so sorry.
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. We talked about those filing criminal reports. After whoever is
5 filing a criminal report has filed that criminal report, this person no
6 longer wields any influence over the proceedings, do they?
7 A. Yes, that's right.
8 Q. So from that moment on, it's down to the appropriate prosecutor
9 and court to see what measures need taking, in terms of prosecuting
10 whoever is suspected of having committed a crime; is that right?
11 A. Yes, that's right, but this was the responsibility of whoever the
12 appropriate prosecutor happened to be.
13 Q. Yes. You mean the chief prosecutor or -- I didn't quite get your
14 answer, sir.
15 A. The chief prosecutor was responsible for prosecuting, yes. And
16 needless to say, in certain trials he would have his own deputies who
17 would press on with the proceedings.
18 Q. All right. So a prosecutor could start proceedings having
19 received a criminal complaint, but they could also throw out any criminal
20 complaints that they received, or maybe there was an investigation, after
21 which charges were dropped; those were possibilities, weren't they?
22 A. Yes, precisely.
23 Q. It was down to the prosecutor to legally define any possible
24 crimes? Whoever filed the complaint did not have the authority to
25 categorise or classify crimes into legal terms?
1 A. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. Even just learning of a possible crime, without the criminal
3 complaint being filed, meant that a prosecutor was responsible to take
4 measures to see who the perpetrator might have been and what the crime
5 might have been that was committed or possibly committed; is that right?
6 A. Well, that is not entirely true.
7 Q. Can you please elaborate on that, sir?
8 A. I'll do my best.
9 The law contains, indeed, the provision that you allude to in your
10 question. The prosecutor, however, did not technically have the authority
11 to carry out an order or perhaps order an investigation to anyone, so that
12 knowledge of a crime that was committed did not, in practical terms, allow
13 for the possibility to immediately launch proceedings. Why? Because the
14 basic jurisdiction of any prosecutor is to prosecute possible
15 perpetrators, but it didn't have anything to do with discovering that a
16 crime was committed.
17 Q. Would I be right if I stated this: Only if any rumour reached the
18 prosecutor that a crime had been committed would he have been under an
19 obligation to order the appropriate authorities to start pre-trial
20 proceedings; right?
21 A. Yes, but that's not what was done.
22 Q. Maybe that was not the done thing in the Zenica area, but you will
23 agree with me, surely, that this was a provision, a legal provision, and
24 the provision itself is crystal clear about what it says; right?
25 A. I can't quite agree, because the provision, the way you interpret
1 it, did not exist. It wasn't consistently phrased like that. There was a
2 possibility that existed, but this was by no means a commitment or an
3 obligation. It is said should any rumours reach the prosecutor, they may
4 or may not choose to start proceedings. That, at least, is my
5 recollection of the wording.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the witness
7 please be shown D713.
8 Your Honours, could we please look at page 4 of the document, the
9 Bosnian. Page 3 in the English. Could we please focus on the right-hand
10 page. That's right, thank you.
11 Q. Witness, could you please look at paragraph 2. You will agree
12 that this is what it says:
13 "If the public prosecutor is unable to determine on the face of a
14 criminal report whether the allegations in the report are probable, or if
15 the information in the report does not provide a sufficient basis needed
16 to decide whether to request an investigation, or if --"
17 And now this is the bit that is relevant for our purposes:
18 " ... Or if the public prosecutor has only heard that a crime may
19 have been committed, and particularly the perpetrator is unknown, the
20 public prosecutor, the public prosecutor, if unable to do so himself or
21 through other organs, shall request the internal affairs organs to gather
22 the necessary information and take other measures toward uncovering the
23 criminal act and the perpetrator."
24 You will therefore agree that this is an obligation enshrined in
25 the law on criminal prosecutors?
1 A. I can't agree. It says "may," and that is a possibility or an
2 option, but no obligation or commitment. When talking about the
3 prosecutor, obviously the reference here is to the chief prosecutor.
4 Q. That is not a dilemma for us. I'm talking about the chief
5 prosecutor, but I don't see the word "may." It reads: "The prosecutor
6 shall request ...," does it not?
7 A. Yes, but the very last sentence: "The public prosecutor can or
8 may always request the internal affairs to inform him ..."
9 Q. To inform him of any measures taken. That's a different thing,
10 but I'm talking about launching an investigation; right?
11 A. The matter at stake is really this: How does one prove that a
12 prosecutor has heard rumours of a crime being committed? This always
13 needs to be in writing, does it not?
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very much,
16 Your Honours, can this document please be assigned a number.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
18 please be given an exhibit number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 883.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We can put this document away for
22 the time being. Thank you.
23 I want the witness to look at Exhibit 882 now, please. It was
24 shown to the witness today by the OTP.
25 Q. Before we see that document, let me ask you a number of questions
1 to do with the reports that you forwarded to the Prosecutor about crimes
2 that you enumerated, 36, 37, 38, Article 42, 52, 172, 177, of the Criminal
3 Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, crimes, 142 through 146 of the Criminal Law
4 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was adopted. That relates to
5 war crimes; right? You remember looking at this document today, don't
7 A. Yes, indeed I do.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Go back to page 1,
9 please, and then I'll be asking you to go to page 2.
10 Your Honours, I wish to ask a number of questions about both of
11 these documents, the documents used by the Prosecutor today, and at times
12 this might require that the witness go through the documents. That's why
13 we have hard copies available to the witness, whereas we ourselves can
14 follow what is going on on our screens, by your leave.
15 Q. The Prosecutor specifically asked you, as he explained, to go
16 through certain documents - registers, case files - in order to see
17 whether any reports, investigations or indictments were received or were
18 recorded that have to do with trials here before this Tribunal.
19 On the 28th of October -- of August, you wrote a letter to the OTP
20 about that.
21 I want the witness to look at page 6 now of that letter in both
22 the Bosnian and the English. The reference is page 6.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was the letter on the 28th or on the 22nd?
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The 22nd of August, Your Honour.
25 That's what I said.
1 Q. You explained that in your letter dated the 13th of October, 2006,
2 you forwarded information about these crimes in the period between 1993
3 and 1996; is that right?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Madam Vidovic. Now the transcript talks
5 of 13th of October, 2006.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a different
7 letter that I'm talking about dated the 13th of October, which I will be
8 invoking later on. I'm just trying to create a link between these two
9 documents. It's a shortcut that I'm taking, really.
10 Q. So you said "yes," did you not? All right, we'll get to that.
11 You confirmed the authenticity of the information, for the most
12 part, contained in both these documents that you were shown by the OTP
14 A. Yes, indeed.
15 Q. You explained that you forwarded to them a table or a chart about
16 criminal complaints received between the 1st of January, 1996, and the
17 31st of December, 2000; is that right?
18 A. That's in the letter that is dated the 22nd of August, 2007.
19 Q. Yes, that's precisely what I'm talking about. I'll be going back
20 to that document, but right now we can leave this one aside.
21 And I want the witness to look at Exhibit 881, please.
22 So this is a letter, the letter that we talked about a while ago,
23 the 24th of October, 2006. Please look at Roman II on the first page.
24 You said that:
25 "In the aforementioned archives there were no files or other
1 documents which would indicate that the following was carried out:
2 Submission of criminal reports, investigation of pressing of charges,
3 related to the following events."
4 And then there's a list. We see, back in 1993, something that
5 occurred in Maline/Bikosi, the village of Maline/Bikosi the 8th of June,
6 1993. There is murder and mistreatment of POWs, members of the Army of
7 Republika Srpska. So this is all in relation to 1995 under "2"; right?
8 Can you please now go to page 2 of the Bosnian, and this is page 3
9 in the English.
10 The Prosecutor showed you these tables or boxes. I won't be
11 spending a lot of time with this, but what I'm putting to you is this:
12 I've gone through this document, the document which you now have in front
13 of you, so you can just leaf through it, for your benefit. There is some
14 information there, and aside from some exceptions, this is information
15 from the register, the register which lists known perpetrators of crimes;
17 A. Yes, that's right, but there's also the KTN register and there's a
18 special register for known crimes.
19 Q. All right. Can you please go to page 4 of the document in the
20 Bosnian. The same in English. Page 3 in the English, as a matter of
21 fact. It's the one with the boxes and columns.
22 Can you please focus on "KTN Military," "KTN Military."
23 You say that you went through this record; right? This relates to
24 unknown perpetrators or unidentified perpetrators. If one goes through
25 this report that you wrote, the inference one can draw is as follows:
1 Between the 8th of June, 1992, and the 1st of January, 1996, according to
2 this information, at least, a mere 12 criminal reports were received
3 against unidentified perpetrators in relation to these crimes, all forms
4 of murder, endangering another person's safety, unlawful detention, that
5 sort of thing. Is it your evidence that you went through the KTN
6 registers relating to unknown perpetrators for this period of time and
7 this is all you found? You found no other criminal reports in relation to
8 unknown perpetrators, other than these listed here? That's what I mean.
9 A. The table states "KTN Military." The cases that were recorded in
10 the KTN register of the district military prosecutor. "Unknown
11 perpetrators," that is stated in each of the boxes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear you and the witness talk of "KTN Military,"
15 and I do see on the B/C/S "KTN Vojno" or something like that. But on the
16 English, we see "KT," "KTN" and "KT", so it doesn't look like we're on the
17 same page.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please look at
19 the first box? It says "KTN" -- or the first column on the left, "KTN,
20 Unknown Military." Did you see that? The first column, the first table,
21 and it reads "KT" -- yes, Your Honour, you're quite right. There's an
22 error in the English. You're right, and thank you for that. It should
23 read "KTN." There's an "N" missing there. That's what I have been
24 discussing with the witness.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's my problem, because I don't have the "N" on
1 the English. That's why I couldn't follow you. Okay. Anyway, now this
2 is "KT" on the first box on top is supposed to be "KTN Military," "Unknown
3 perpetrators in the military"?
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour, that's
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I'm with you.
7 Do you know that, Mr. Wood? Mr. Wood? Mr. Wood?
8 MR. WOOD: Just a moment, Your Honour.
9 Yes, Your Honour. This document, the English translation will be
10 revised, and we'll produce a final version.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's do that. Thank you very much.
12 You may proceed. I'm sorry, Madam Vidovic. You may proceed.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No problem at all.
14 Q. Witness, it is your evidence that in those registers, between the
15 8th of June, 1993, and the 1st of January, 1996, there were a mere 12
16 criminal complaints relating to unknown perpetrators for these crimes; is
17 my understanding correct, sir?
18 A. Unfortunately, it's not.
19 Q. Can you explain, please?
20 A. These are KTN cases that were recorded in the KTN register.
21 Therefore, perpetrators of these crimes remain unidentified. Every time a
22 perpetrator was identified, the case would be transferred to the KT
23 register, the register for known perpetrators. What this means is that
24 these particular perpetrators remained unidentified. That's all it means.
25 Q. Thank you very much for that particular clarification.
1 Let's assume this: I go to the Zenica archive and I find a case
2 file from 1993 which is recorded as "Unknown perpetrator, KTN," I'll
3 always be able to find it there, right, regardless of whether it's still
4 on the unknown list, unidentified, or whether a name has been assigned to
5 it because a perpetrator has been found; is that what you're saying, sir?
6 A. Yes, that is my evidence.
7 Q. Is it your evidence that over this two-and-a-half-year period, you
8 did not receive a single criminal report against any unknown or
9 unidentified perpetrator for a war crime?
10 A. Known or unknown?
11 Q. Unknown.
12 A. I see that it's not stated on this list. What this means is that
13 perhaps there was something like that, but then it became KT over time,
14 which means that the perpetrator was found. Unknown perpetrator for a war
15 crime, yes, that would have been on a list like this, so it is likely that
16 a criminal report was filed, but then the perpetrator was found, and in
17 the meantime the case file became KT, known perpetrator. That's the only
19 Q. In which case we would be able to find it on one of your lists?
20 A. Yes, marked as "KT, known perpetrator."
21 Q. Thank you very much. Okay, talking about war crimes, there's one
22 thing I want you to clarify, your letter of the 24th of October, 2006.
23 You write in your reply to the OTP there are no case files or other
24 documents that would indicate that criminal reports were received or any
25 requests for investigation or any charges brought for the killings at
1 Maline. You were quite clear about that.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please go to page 3 of
3 this document, the Bosnian version of this document.
4 Your Honour, it seems that this page was not translated at all. It
5 seems that this document had only two pages translated. I apologise. It
6 wasn't what I would expect to find. It was not a large document, and I
7 thought the whole of it would be translated. However, I will ask the
8 witness to clarify, as I believe it needs some clarification.
9 Q. On page 3, the seventh row from below, we can see that there was
10 an investigation, the number of which was K33/01 or 014/2000, against
11 Besim Spahic concerning the events in the villages of Maline and Bikosi.
12 Do you see that?
13 At this moment, it is the third line from the bottom on the
14 screen. Your Honours I will read out so that you can follow, or perhaps
15 the witness can do that.
16 Can you see that? The third column, Besim Spahic, Articles 141
17 and 142, that is war crimes; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you read what follows, "Zenica Municipality" and then the
21 A. "Zenica Municipality, the 26th of January to the 31st of December,
22 1993." I believe it says "Dusina, Miletici, Susanj, Ovnak, Maline and
24 Q. Please read out the next column.
25 A. The next one?
1 Q. Yes. Now you can see it better. It's towards the middle of the
2 screen. It says "Return from The Hague ..."?
3 A. Yes, "Return from The Hague, forwarded to" --
4 Q. "BH"?
5 A. "Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 5th of January 2006." It should actually
6 read: "Forwarded to the prosecutor's office in B and H," I believe,
7 since the date is the 5th of January, 2006.
8 Q. Very well. Did you have this piece of information in mind when
9 answering the Prosecutor's questions yesterday and today?
10 A. I couldn't recall the whole table, but I believe I had that piece
11 of information in mind.
12 Q. Under that, we have "Ki 37/01, Enver Hadzihasanovic, Article 141",
13 and then it reads: "Returned from The Hague."
14 A. According to the Roman rules of the road, that case was forwarded
15 to The Hague and then returned. I believe it was forwarded to the
16 Prosecutor's Office of B and H, since they handle all communication
17 between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Hague Tribunal, and it could be the
18 case was transferred.
19 Q. Just so that everyone would understand, when it says "according to
20 the rules of the road according to the Treaty of Rome," it means that the
21 organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina forwarded certain case files to The Hague
22 Prosecutor so that it would be assessed there in keeping with the
23 agreement, that is, to see whether certain people could be processed
24 according to international standards; am I correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to page 4 now.
2 Q. Have a look at the bottom part of the table. That's the right
3 one. Four cases are mentioned of war crimes. That was the separate
4 register you had for war crimes; is that correct?
5 A. There was a separate register with the Higher Public Prosecutor's
6 Office in Zenica.
7 Q. Thank you. We have four case files concerning war crimes, and I
8 will ask you some questions about it somewhat later, but let us please
9 move on to the next page now, or perhaps Their Honours can leaf through
10 it, through their hard copy.
11 Witness, would you agree with me that there are no war crimes case
12 files on the next page?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. That is Article 142, for Their Honours.
15 Could we please go to the next page. And then page 9.
16 On this page, look at -- well, look at the first name, "Vinko
17 Vidovic," a person suspected of having committed a war crime, and you
18 would agree with me he is not a Bosniak, judging by his first and last
20 A. That is correct, he is Croatian.
21 Q. We can see that the MP Battalion submitted a criminal report
22 against that person, and now let us go down towards the middle of the
23 page, "383/93". We can also see that there is mention of the MP
24 Battalion. They submitted a criminal report against Mirko Vlajic for a
25 war crime. That person is not a Bosniak, either, would you agree, since
1 his first and last name are not Bosniak?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. There are two names that follow pertaining to war crimes from the
4 Higher Court in Zenica. We have Dzemal Zahirovic, Article 142. This
5 person is a Bosniak, is he not? And please remember this name.
6 A. I suppose he is a Bosniak, judging by the first and last name.
7 Q. The things we've been through so far, according to the report, one
8 would say that the District Prosecutor's Office, for the relevant period
9 specified in the letter, received six reports on war crimes committed,
10 with the exception of those mentioned on page 1. That is what one would
11 conclude, is that correct?
12 A. I cannot tell you precisely whether this is actually the district
13 public prosecutors or the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office, since it is
14 the same archives. These two prosecutor's offices were the only ones
15 competent to process war crimes.
16 Q. Meaning both prosecutors' offices in total received six cases,
17 this is the way we should read it, they received six criminal reports in
18 both offices?
19 A. That is so, pertaining to this period.
20 Q. Let us go to page 6, please.
21 There is an Arabic name. I believe it will be easy for you to
22 spot it.
23 Please go down. It's 236/95.
24 There is Rasid Alsudarji, Sead Alubeidi, Article 50, that is
25 kidnapping. Do you know what this refers to?
1 A. I don't, not exactly.
2 Q. Very well. In relation to the whole of the report, I wanted to
3 ask you this: Again, did you go through all of the registers concerning
4 unknown perpetrators of crimes in 1993, 1994 and 1995?
5 A. As I said, my service did that on my behalf.
6 Q. Did your service go through the KTA registers concerning specific
7 events during those years which, for example, could contain Maline and
9 A. I believe they did.
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We can put this document
11 away, and I'd like to show PT2962 to the witness. This is correspondence
12 between The Hague Prosecutor's Office and -- let us go to page 3, please,
13 and it will be clear. The Hague Prosecutor requested certain information.
14 Your Honours, there is another problem here, because the
15 translation is not organised in the right way, and it is difficult to
16 follow it. However, I'm interested in one detail only.
17 Q. Witness, this is a letter of the Travnik Prosecutor's Office --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you proceed, Madam Vidovic, the documents on
19 the screen don't look alike. I'm not quite sure -- the one side is a
20 letter. The other side is a table.
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Thank you
23 for your effort. I'm interested in this page only.
24 Q. Witness, we can see here that the Cantonal Office, Prosecutor's
25 Office in Travnik, is informing the prosecutor that -- you can see it
1 under Roman numeral II, that they do have a case file for Enver
2 Hadzihasanovic and 32 other persons. The number is KT 56/99, war crimes.
3 It has to do with people killed in the villages of Maline and Bikosi.
4 I wanted to ask you this: We saw that on your list, there was
5 also a case against -- a case file for Enver Hadzihasanovic. However, we
6 see here that reference is made of the Cantonal Travnik Prosecutor's
7 Office. We can see that there -- there was a mention of the same case on
8 two occasions, but however, one cannot have two different proceedings in
9 the same case; am I correct?
10 A. Yes, you are.
11 Q. Can you tell us, is this the same case or did the Travnik
12 Prosecutor's Office have an investigation of their own and you had one on
13 your part pertaining to these events, another case file, another case?
14 Perhaps you can explain.
15 A. I cannot tell you anything for certain. At the time, and this is
16 1999 or perhaps 1998, I was not with the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office
17 in Zenica, and they had jurisdiction over cases such as this. Therefore,
18 without reviewing the case file, I cannot tell you anything.
19 Q. But you will agree with me that you did not study this case file
20 or the other two case files you saw on the list for Enver Hadzihasanovic
21 or for Besim Spahic; is that correct?
22 A. This case file from the Travnik Cantonal Office, well, I couldn't
23 have any insight into that, and I couldn't study the material pertaining
24 to the other Prosecutor's Office. In the other case, before the Higher
25 Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica, I also had no insight into that,
1 since we did not have that case file. It was with The Hague Tribunal.
2 Q. Thank you. But the BH organs forwarded it to The Hague Tribunal;
3 is that correct?
4 A. I suppose so. At that time, I didn't occupy that position.
5 However, I presumed that it was so.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Could we assign an exhibit number to this document, please.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is given an exhibit number -- I beg
9 your pardon, is admitted into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 884.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We can put the document away.
14 I'd like to show 2919 to the witness, P2919. This is
15 correspondence between the federal Minister of Justice of the Federation
16 of B and H and the Cantonal Court in Zenica. I just wanted you to see
18 Please go to page 4 of the document in the Bosnian. I believe
19 we'll have the same problem as before again. This page has not been
20 translated, but what I am interested in has, and it is also on page 4 in
21 the English. No, sorry, on the first page of the English. This is fine.
22 The English is fine. Please let us go to page 4 in the Bosnian.
23 Actually, the fifth page in the Bosnian.
24 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, we can see here that the president of the
25 Cantonal Court in Zenica, on the 10th of May, 2002, is forwarding
1 information pursuant to the request of the 28th of March, 2002. The
2 president enumerates the judges that worked during that period. I believe
3 you're familiar with the names. Do you know that these judges indeed
4 worked at that time?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. Very well. She's also mentioning data on any proceedings for war
7 crimes. Look at the last two paragraphs.
8 The last paragraph in English, Your Honours.
9 You can see the names we just saw in your report, Mirko Vlajic, we
10 saw that one, member of the HVO. Then -- is that so?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Let us go to the next page, please, in the English.
13 And in Bosnian, Witness, you can see that there's also Dzemal
14 Zahirovic mentioned?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. These two case files are mentioned. We've seen these two names in
17 your report. You see here "Dzemal Zahirovic." He's a Bosniak, you said,
18 isn't that so, and he was accused of having committed war crimes in the
19 Batkovic camp. When it comes to war crimes, so as to have no
20 misunderstanding, when answering the Prosecutor's questions concerning
21 Article 142, which has to do with war crimes against civilians, you've
22 explained that there was also an offence called a war crime committed
23 against prisoners. Is it true that such crimes have their bases in the
24 violations of the International Humanitarian Law; is that so?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What was specific and particular concerning the Criminal Code of
2 the SFRY when these offences are concerned, anyone could be held
3 responsible for having committed a war crime, provided that person either
4 ordered or perpetrated, committed a violation of the International
5 Humanitarian Law and the people who are protected by such legislation?
6 A. That is what I said on Friday.
7 Q. You will agree with me that the Criminal Code of the SFRY did not
8 foresee any responsibility on the part of the commander in order to
9 prevent and punish the perpetrators of such crimes?
10 A. As far as I know, the Criminal Code of the SFRY that was taken
11 over by Bosnia-Herzegovina did not mention the issue of command
13 Q. In other words, the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as
14 applied in the war, had no mention of superior command responsibility in
15 failing to act following certain crimes committed by their subordinates?
16 A. Command responsibility, as is understood and treated by The Hague
17 Tribunal, well, no, the Code did not contain that.
18 Q. That type of responsibility was put into the Criminal Code of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina only after the war, when the State Court of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina was founded; am I correct?
21 A. I don't know that, since that law is only applied by the
22 Prosecutor's Office and the State Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Q. Yes, but I wanted to ask you this: Commanders responsibility, in
24 terms of failing to act, it was made part of the Criminal Code of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina only after the war? That is what I was asking you.
1 A. I repeat my answer. I don't know. I am not the one who applies
2 that law in practice. That law from 2003 is only applied by the Court of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't have to be familiar with that law.
4 Q. Mr. Prosecutor, in that -- or, rather, in the year of 2006, your
5 Prosecutor's Office submitted a criminal report against Sabahudin Opert,
6 et al based on that particular provision, based on the issue of command
8 A. I wouldn't quite agree.
9 Q. Partially, you would, I presume. What is it that you wouldn't
10 agree with?
11 A. The institution of command responsibility, as such, is only
12 applied by The Hague Tribunal. Therefore, we used only that part of the
13 article in which there is mention of someone ordering that things be
14 carried out. Therefore, a superior can order something and then be held
15 responsible. He -- also, the perpetrator is responsible.
16 Q. Mr. Prosecutor, if you receive a case file, if a report was filed
17 to you for a war crime in terms of command responsibility, how would you
18 determine whether your office is competent or not if you are not familiar
19 with the law? That's what I want to know.
20 A. I have to say that it was actually not being familiar with the
21 organisation of the judiciary in Bosnia-Herzegovina made you ask me such a
23 The exclusive competence to institute proceedings for war crimes
24 lies with the Prosecutor's Office of B and H.
25 Q. Witness, I will tell you that at the level of Cantonal
1 Prosecutor's Offices there are countless investigations into such crimes.
2 However, I don't want to dwell on this issue any further. I wanted to ask
3 you something about your testimony today. However, I am telling you that
4 it is precisely at this moment there are criminal reports about such
5 crimes with all Cantonal Prosecutor's Offices.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.
7 MR. WOOD: I don't see a question here. What I see is, "I want to
8 tell you something." This sounds as if -- I object to the form of the
9 question, Your Honour. It sounds as if Madam Vidovic is actually
10 testifying here and badgering the witness, and on these grounds I would
11 object to this question being asked.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to suggest to
14 the witness that at this moment there are numerous investigations into
15 such crimes. However, I don't want to dwell on this anymore. I believe I
16 would lose much time. I want to go back to this document, and of course I
17 withdraw my question so as not to waste any additional time.
18 Could we please turn the next page of the document in the Bosnian.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: In case we turn the English page as well, can I
20 just get confirmation, did I hear that Mr. Vinko Vidovic is not Bosniak?
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just wanted to confirm.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. On this same page, please look at paragraph 3, from the bottom
25 up. I quote -- it is the same paragraph in the English. It reads:
1 "With regard to BH Army members, according to the records of this
2 court, not a single case was tried in the period in question, nor during
3 the court's existence."
4 So, Witness, in other words, according to this report, for as long
5 as the Zenica District Military Court existed, based on these reports by
6 you and the president of that Court, it would seem that a single Bosniak
7 was prosecuted, a Muslim, as we find stated there, and even that Bosniak
8 was not even a member of the army. That's the conclusion that we might
9 reach, having read your reports. Would you say that that's true?
10 A. My signature is there, which means I confirm that it is true. I
11 assume it to be consistent with what the president of the Court stated as
13 Q. And that was Ms. Alihodzic, right, Zijada Alihodzic?
14 A. She is now.
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
16 Can we please have a number for this document, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
18 please be given an exhibit number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 885.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Right now, Your Honours, I want to
22 show the witness D705.
23 Q. Witness, this is a document produced by the district military
24 prosecutor in Travnik. The date is the 29th of August, 1995. It was sent
25 to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It
1 reads: "Military District Prosecutor Sead Zeric." Based on what you know,
2 is this a person who late in 1995 worked as a military prosecutor in
4 A. I don't know whether he was or not.
5 Q. Mr. Prosecutor, my understanding was the Zenica prosecutor took
6 over the cases previously handled by the Travnik military prosecutor.
8 A. When you asked me that before the break, I told you you weren't
9 entirely right in that respect. The cases handled by the Travnik district
10 military prosecutor were taken over by the cantonal prosecutor of the
11 Central Bosnia Canton.
12 Q. Yes, and what you're trying to say is these cases have nothing
13 whatsoever to do with your Prosecutor's Office; right?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. Be that as it may, is it your evidence that you don't know who the
16 district military prosecutor in Travnik was in 1995? You probably worked
17 together in one way or another, did you not?
18 A. Worked together, sure, but let me remind you that I was a deputy
19 military prosecutor, and that being my role, I was not supposed to know
20 who it was. And, indeed, at the time I did not know who the district
21 military prosecutor was.
22 Q. All right. Let me ask you this: It was quite usual for a
23 prosecutor to inform the Ministry of Justice on certain issues; right?
24 You accept that, don't you?
25 A. Written reports or annual reports were normally submitted.
1 Q. Yes, either one of those; right?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. All right. So what's important here and the reason I'm showing
4 you the report is this: If you can read it, you can see that the district
5 military prosecutor in Travnik was requested to provide information on how
6 many proceedings were underway against Muslims or Bosniaks for genocide or
7 war crimes, and this district military prosecutor from Travnik replies:
8 "Please note that in the preceding period, we received three
9 criminal reports against such persons ..."
10 Bosniaks and Muslims, that is what he means.
11 " ... And these were referred to the Zenica Senior Prosecutor's
12 Office as the court having subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction."
13 Okay. Now, what I wish to ask you is this: This document
14 obviously says that three criminal reports against Muslims or Bosniaks
15 were forwarded to Zenica on the 29th of December, 1995. Did you bear in
16 mind those three criminal reports against Muslims or Bosniaks when you put
17 together that report, the report -- the two reports that you submitted to
18 the prosecutor?
19 A. In order to be able to answer accurately, I would have to explain
20 a little about the situation concerning the hand-over of archives or case
21 files. This is how it works: The military district prosecutor in Zenica
22 and the military district -- district military prosecutor in Travnik were
23 functioning for a while until they were abolished. They had territorial
24 jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction was the same exactly, but
25 territorial depended on their territory. It roughly covers what today we
1 know as cantons in B and H. At the same time, the authority of the
2 civilian bodies, that is, the senior public prosecutor in this case, is to
3 cover the entire territory covered by these two district prosecutors.
4 In this situation, it is possible that the three criminal reports
5 were submitted to the senior public prosecutor in Zenica, but it is far
6 more likely or even certain that the three reports were, I assume, in
7 relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the Travnik Canton. When the
8 Cantonal Prosecutor's Office was first set up in Travnik, these cases, I
9 assume, were submitted to that prosecutor, the civilian prosecutor. So
10 the way this is organised, this is a bit complicated, but I assume that
11 that's what happened.
12 Q. Be that as it may, be that as it may, Mr. Hadziselimovic, do you
13 agree that these three criminal reports were not something that we saw in
14 your chart, in your report? No way that report, the two documents that
15 you were shown by the OTP today?
16 A. I don't know what this is about. I don't know what criminal
17 reports these are, specifically, but if it's confirmed in the report, in
18 the letter, that these were submitted to the senior public prosecutor,
19 well, then they might as well have been registered. If we came across
20 such a case file in the archive of the senior public prosecutor, we would
21 know. Now, how did this happen? If we had the names contained in these
22 reports, we could check; right?
23 Q. Yes, but you agree that these are three Muslims, Bosniaks, and
24 having gone through your report in its entirety, we tracked down no more
25 than a single Muslim; right? So what I'm trying to say is that these
1 three criminal reports were never submitted, although according to this
2 document, they reached Zenica. Would you accept that? Would you accept
3 at least the possibility that this happened, that they simply weren't
4 registered, for God knows what reason?
5 A. I very much doubt that they were simply not registered. We looked
6 at that table and we saw that there was the report against Besim Spahic,
7 so that might have been one of those.
8 Q. Well, that precisely is what I'm talking about.
9 A. But I don't know. I don't have names, therefore --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter didn't hear the last part of the
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Prosecutor, you do agree that --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreter didn't hear the last part of the
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The witness said this might have
17 been the report against Besim Spahic.
18 Q. Is that what the witness said? Yes.
19 A. Yes, it may have been the report against Besim Spahic or against
20 Enver Hadzihasanovic, because those were the two that we found in the
21 report. However, I don't have the names and I can't say for sure.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
23 Your Honours, could we please have a number for this document.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
25 please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 886.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Before the break, D610, please.
4 Q. As we're waiting for this document, Besim Spahic was the head of
5 the Zenica Municipality, the wartime head; right?
6 A. Well, I think so. It's not exactly what the position was called,
7 but --
8 Q. But it was someone from the civilian structures; right?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. All right. Can you please look at this document, sir. This is a
11 criminal report by the Security Services Centre in Zenica. This was
12 submitted to the senior public prosecutor in Zenica on the 1st of
13 February, 1994. You will agree, if you look at the names here, if you
14 look at the information, you will see that these are three Arabs, based on
15 the information contained in this criminal report. Two of them were
16 actually members of the El Mujahedin Detachment. And the criminal report
17 was submitted to the senior public prosecutor in Zenica.
18 Can we just lower the document slightly so we can see the date,
19 please. Right, thank you.
20 It was submitted on the 31st of February, 1994 -- I'm sorry, the
21 1st of February, 1994. I'm sorry. These persons were suspected of having
22 committed the crime of murder under Article 35 or, rather, 36, paragraph
23 2, of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The number is not really
24 all that legible, is it?
25 So these are members of the El Mujahedin Detachment. You will
1 agree that this criminal report was never submitted to the district
2 military prosecutor, rather it was submitted to the senior prosecutor,
3 right, civilian prosecutor?
4 A. That's what the document shows.
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Fine. I will provide a page
6 reference, Your Honour. 6129 of the transcript, lines 20 through 25, and
7 page 6130, lines 1 through 7. That's the reference in the transcript.
8 Q. You said the military courts was responsible for prosecuting and
9 trying members of the BH Army, unless there were civilian co-perpetrators
10 who committed certain crimes with some of the soldiers; right?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. All right. What we see stated here is two members of the El
13 Mujahid Detachment and a third person who appears to be a civilian, an
14 ethnic Arab. We see that the criminal report was submitted.
15 If we could please lower the document so we can see the header.
16 By the Security Services Centre. If we could please just lower
17 slightly. All right. The Bosnian, too, yes please. Thank you.
18 Okay, Security Services Centre submitted this report to a civilian
19 prosecutor. I believe you know about this particular case, which is the
20 murder of Paul Godal, a member of the ODA Humanitarian Organisation. You
21 ever heard of anything like that, sir?
22 A. Well, it does ring a bell, but I wasn't with the senior public
23 prosecutor at the time. Therefore, I'm not familiar with the detail of
24 this case. It does ring a bell, though. I did hear of it at the time, or
25 something like that.
1 Q. Okay. So this was taken to the senior public prosecutor. You are
2 aware of this, aren't you?
3 A. I'd much sooner say that I heard about this somewhere off the
4 record, but I didn't know anything more than that.
5 Q. All right. There was a scandal that erupted over this case
6 because these persons escaped at one stage during their trial; right?
7 Does that ring a bell?
8 A. Yes, it does ring a bell. I heard of it at the time.
9 Q. All right. So what I think is relevant, in terms of your
10 evidence, relevant for our purposes, is this: I looked carefully through
11 your letters. You were asked about the crime of murder. You were asked
12 to go through the registers of the senior prosecutor and the military
13 prosecutor. Do you agree with me that this is not a report that you
14 recorded, although it quite certainly was tried and you know it? It was
15 tried, wasn't it?
16 A. If you don't find these persons or this case in the table, then I
17 didn't state that, did I? However, I do see this criminal report in front
18 of me right now. It should have been recorded in the register of the
19 senior public prosecutor.
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we might want to have
21 our break now, and I'll just ask the witness -- he has both these reports
22 that the Prosecutor was showing him today. I'll ask him to go carefully,
23 through the break, through both of these documents so we may be able to
24 ascertain whether this report is in fact mentioned in any of his reports
25 or not.
1 Could we please have a number assigned to this document for the
2 time being.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
4 please be given an exhibit number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 887.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
7 Would that then be a convenient time, Madam Vidovic?
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break until half past 12.00.
10 Court adjourned.
11 --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 We were talking about the criminal report against those three
16 persons, Security Services Centre of Zenica, senior public prosecutor
17 Abdullah Abtani [phoen] and others. We asked the witness to go through
18 his own reports during the break.
19 Q. Witness, have you had a look at the two letters that we discussed,
20 your reports to the Prosecutor?
21 A. Indeed I have, and I can explain as follows: I had two minutes
22 to -- I had ten minutes to look at them, and I didn't find the names from
23 that criminal report, as stated previously. I think the reason is as
24 follows: As the Defence stated at the beginning of this cross, the OT --
25 the prosecutor was never bound by the legal qualification of a crime by
1 the police. I think what happened in this particular case was this: The
2 senior public prosecutor received this criminal report, and their legal
3 view of the matter was probably different from that stated in the original
4 criminal report. It may have been categorised as abduction under Article
5 50, the crime itself, but no requests were made to check anything in
6 relation to that article, and that is why the names are missing from the
7 table that was attached to the letter.
8 Q. What you just said, that's merely an assumption on your part,
9 isn't it? You did not see the case file, did you?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. We cannot avoid drawing the following inference, based on your
12 response: If the body in charge of pre-trial -- in charge of an
13 investigation, be it a military body or a civilian body, filed a certain
14 criminal report containing the description of a crime, and the crime was
15 described, and if found differently, and this is not something that the
16 prosecutor originally had brought up, in such cases we would not find
17 these cases listed on your list; right?
18 A. I think you're right, because requests were raised in relation to
19 specific crimes that were defined in a specific way.
20 Q. But would it not be true, in fact, if I suggested this: As soon
21 as a criminal report reaches a prosecutor, it is entered into the register
22 with all the original descriptions contained in the original report. For
23 example, Security Services Centre reports Abdullah Abtani and others for
24 the crime of murder, as soon as it is registered the prosecutor is still
25 in no position to change the legal description and definition of a crime
1 contained therein; am I right?
2 A. You're not entirely right, because the chief prosecutor marks
3 whatever articles are to be entered or registered. At the top of that
4 criminal report, he marks the article under which a certain criminal
5 report is to be subsumed.
6 Q. All right, I see. So somebody says "war crime," but they might as
7 well end up writing just "murder"; right?
8 A. The Defence is suggesting something that is not quite right;
9 therefore I can't answer the question.
10 Q. Witness, you just said that he is the person in charge of actually
11 amending something. This is a serious crime, the crime of murder being
12 reported here, and according to what you are saying, it was later defined
13 as abduction, which is a much less serious crime, is it not?
14 A. I can't say anything about any assessments that someone may have
15 made back in 1994. All I'm trying to explain is how it could have
16 happened that these persons were not listed on that list.
17 Q. Fair enough.
18 A. I can't tell you how this really happened, because I don't know.
19 Q. All right. I want to ask you a different question now.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do, can we just scroll up the English in
21 the -- thank you very much.
22 You may proceed, Madam Vidovic.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. In relation to this, suppose a security organ, civilian police,
25 let's assume that for the time being, believed that the perpetrator was a
1 member of a paramilitary unit, a paramilitary unit, this kind of criminal
2 report would not have been submitted to the district military prosecutor,
3 would it?
4 A. I can't possibly know such a thing. They could have submitted
5 their criminal report to whoever they liked. It was up to them to assess
6 that sort of thing. It wasn't up to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor
7 would not have been responsible for affecting this process in any way.
8 Q. Yes, that's precisely the reasoning behind my question. We have
9 someone who submits a report, in this case the Security Services Centre,
10 civilian police. Now, it depended on them alone who they would be filing
11 this report with, right, the senior prosecutor or the district military
13 A. Yes, and here it says clearly "The senior public prosecutor,
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Your Honours, can we
17 I want to refer him briefly to Exhibit 882. I think the witness
18 actually has a copy of this document.
19 Q. Witness, can you please go to page 16. I believe it's page 16.
20 The larger one. This is page 1, and you need to go to page 16 in the
22 Your Honours, it appears there is no translation. Fine.
23 If we could please show this document in the Bosnian, right, okay,
24 so that the witness can see the information there.
25 Witness, this is your report dated the 22nd of August, 2007. I
1 want you to look at this portion here with the blank or empty boxes, about
2 midway down the page, "232/96, district military prosecutor, Travnik."
3 And then we have four boxes in a row like that. You agree, right, all
4 these four cases are in relation to the crime of murder, aren't they?
5 A. Yes, this is Article 36.
6 Q. We have the names stated there, names of persons, but we don't
7 know what particular event this is in relation to or who the victims are;
8 we don't see that, do we?
9 A. That's right, we don't.
10 Q. All right. Let me ask you this one thing, Witness. How could you
11 then have written in your report, since obviously you had portions of the
12 report that were incomplete, that there were no criminal reports that had
13 to do with what had occurred in the village of Maline/Bikosi? You see
14 that these are from Travnik, these cases, don't you?
15 A. These, I assume, came from the Travnik district military
16 prosecutor. The date they were received, the next box, the 10th of
17 November, 1996. That's right. There is the name of the suspect, but all
18 the other information is missing. Therefore, it's possible that these
19 cases were suspended or they may have been sent back to Travnik, according
20 to this information. Date and place of crime, we don't have that.
21 There's probably no information concerning that in the original record.
22 Name of victim, we don't have that either. As long as it's not recorded,
23 to me that suggests that the information was not contained in the original
24 record. Why that is the case is not something that I can explain right
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.
2 Could we please put this document away for the time being.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, Madam Vidovic, I just want to be
4 reminded. There are two dates here, one on the third column and on the
5 fifth column. The date on the third column, what does it signify?
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, is this a question for
7 me or for the witness?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: For the witness.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can you please have a look? The columns are right there for you.
11 A. I assume -- well, I must say --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go to the head of the table.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the head, it says "Date," and I
14 think this is date of receipt, the date a certain case file was received.
15 Senior public prosecutor, 1996, late 1995. Be that as it may, it's the
16 date of receipt.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The date on the fifth column with the name of the
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the date and place of crime,
20 the date on which a crime occurred and the place where it occurred.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
22 Could we please put this one away for the time being, and I want
23 the witness to look at D709.
24 Q. What you see here is a report by the Military Police Battalion,
25 dated the 20th of March, 1994, submitted to the Security Sector of the 3rd
1 Corps. It was produced in Zenica, report on criminal reports filed.
2 Could you please just have a look briefly under "C," the groups of persons
3 that this comprises. You see that a total of 377 reports were filed, and
4 under "B," 804 identified and 20 unidentified perpetrators.
5 And now, under "D": "The structure of the crimes."
6 You see that in relation to the crime of murder, there were 16
8 And now please go to page 2 of the document. That is material for
9 our purposes. In the English, it's page 2 as well.
10 Could you please find where it says "War crimes." That's in the
11 lower third of the page. You see it's the last thing we can see in the
12 B/C/S page.
13 If we could please lower the document so we can see the bottom of
14 the page in the Bosnian.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] I repeat my question.
16 Where is the war crimes in English?
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm looking for it, Your Honour.
18 Your Honour, I'm trying to see if we're on the right page.
19 My apologies, Your Honour. We are trying to track it down in the
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine, take your time.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is page 3, three
23 lines from the top, the third bullet point. You can see it, I believe.
24 Q. Witness, you could read to yourself that this period pertains to
25 the period of about one and a half year of activities of the Battalion of
1 the Military Police. Have a look at this part concerning crimes against
2 civilians, Article 142 of the SFRY Criminal Code. You can see that four
3 criminal reports were submitted; is that correct?
4 A. That's what the document says.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The English says "3".
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe I said "3", Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreter said "4".
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I did say "3."
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Will you agree with me -- well, we went through your document a
12 few moments ago, and we found only two criminal reports submitted by the
13 MP battalion in the whole of your report.
14 A. It concerns the following. I have to clarify something.
15 Q. Please do.
16 A. During the break, I reviewed the tables, and I realised that in
17 the table, when war crimes are concerned, there are separate case files of
18 the former District Military Prosecutor's Office or the former Higher
19 Military Prosecutor's Office. The tables that are part of the document
20 dated the 24th of October, 2006, at page 2, the whole page contains the
21 case files concerning war crimes.
22 I also wanted to say that out of all of the suspects -- well,
23 there were many more, in actual fact. For example, in table 3 -- sorry,
24 in line 3, where the suspect is Opert, Azmahudin [phoen], well, there were
25 more people involved and their names are not mentioned. All of the people
1 in the table on this page are Bosniaks, Muslims, except for the last
2 person mentioned in the last line. I wanted to offer that clarification
3 concerning the questions so far.
4 Then criminal reports, together with all of the evidence, if
5 charges were pressed, all that should be contained in the court file. In
6 that case, it could happen in the table that there are pieces of
7 information missing, as was the case a minute ago, or, as in this specific
8 case, if the criminal report submitted is specified as such in the
9 register, the person submitting that request should be mentioned in the
11 However, we can also see that in the tables we have, for
12 example, "OBT Travnik" or "OVS Zenica," which means that that is the
13 District Military Prosecutor's Office and the District Military Court, and
14 in no case could they have submitted the criminal report. It is rather
15 that the person who made the entry merely noted down who the case was
16 received from or, rather, what institution it was transferred from. That
17 would in turn mean that in the register, in the column the person or body
18 who submitted the criminal report, we do not have that specific
19 information. That is why there may be discrepancies or the issues such as
20 the one you raise raised.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I thank you for your detailed
23 Your Honour, I wish to tender this document.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
25 please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 888.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Witness, could you please have a look at D710.
5 Witness, before you, you have a letter from the District Military
6 Court in Travnik to the 3rd Corps Command of the Army of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina in Zenica. It has to do with the fact that the
8 commander of the OG Bosanska Krajina believed that the cause for the
9 increase of crime on the part of army members is the ineffectiveness of
10 the Military Court, and the president of the Court is now explaining why.
11 I would like you to have a look at the last page of the document, which
12 has to do with your area.
13 Could we please show the witness that part. It is page 4 in the
14 English, page 4 in the English, the last paragraph.
15 I wanted to ask you something about an important issue concerning
16 the work of the judiciary at the time. It is stated here:
17 "In closing down, we should like to mention in connection with the
18 criminal reports, which as has been established, have not been received by
19 this court, it may be asserted that the same are received by either the
20 District Military Court in Zenica or by the District Military Court in
21 Banja Luka."
22 You can see here that Kemal Poricanin was the president of the
23 Court. Do you know that person?
24 A. No, but I have heard of that person.
25 Q. You heard of him as being president of the Court?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood?
2 MR. WOOD: I'm going to object to this entire line of questioning,
3 and the relevance of this document -- because of the relevance of this
4 document, Your Honour.
5 This is not a document that this witness would have any knowledge
6 about. It did not include a court that he was involved with. I believe
7 any answers he might give in this regard are outside his purview and would
8 be irrelevant. I just want to put an end to this at this point, Your
9 Honour, especially considering I see that perhaps my learned colleague
10 might wish to enter this into evidence.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [No interpretation].
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I got no interpretation, Judge. I didn't hear what
14 Judge Lattanzi said. I didn't understand, at least. There was no
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I was just noting when I finished
17 listening to the French translation. I think it was several minutes after
18 Mr. Wood completed the presentation of his objection, and I needed to
19 understand it.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
21 I guess the moral or the lesson is that we should slow down.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Understood, Your Honour.
23 I would like to address the objection. The witness worked at the
24 District Military Prosecutor's Office in Zenica, and mention is made of
25 the criminal reports forwarded to Zenica. This is something that has to
1 do with the operation of the Zenica Court and Prosecutor's Office, and the
2 witness may certainly answer that.
3 You will also remember that at the beginning of my
4 cross-examination, I was asking questions about what he knows about the
5 work of the war presidencies in exile. You will see that the court
6 mentioned here is the District Court in Banja Luka. I just wanted to have
7 all those facts straight to see how relevant it was for the whole matter,
8 since I wanted to discuss with the witness whether criminal reports were
9 sent not only to Zenica and Travnik, but also to such prosecutor's offices
10 as shown here of the District Military Courts. That is the relevance.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before maybe Mr. Wood stands up, if he is going to,
12 do I understand, Madam Vidovic, that Banja Luka is in exile?
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That's not quite what I meant, Your
14 Honour. I said that the War Presidency and the District Military Court of
15 Banja Luka were in exile, and that is what I wanted to ask the witness.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I see the first page of the English, please.
17 Okay. I must confess I just don't know how to rule on this
18 objection, simply because I'm not following what is happening here. Do
19 you follow, Judge?
20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I also find it difficult to
21 understand, so I think it is worthwhile spending a bit of time on all of
22 these questions. So it might be better to carry on.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: My only problem is that there is an objection
24 raised, and I've heard the objection, I've heard Madam Vidovic's
25 explanation. I'm still in the dark. Maybe you will cast some light.
1 Just say what you want to say.
2 MR. WOOD: Well, first of all, Your Honour, the second page of the
3 document speaks of the writer of the document speculating that perhaps
4 some files went to a place where they shouldn't have gone. Putting a
5 question like that to this witness only invites him to speculate even
6 further, first. And, secondly, this is 20 May 1993. It's the District
7 Military Court in Travnik. This witness was not involved with that Court
8 at any time, and 20 May 1993 is when he was in a different court.
9 Additionally, Your Honour, this is -- as we know, the indictment
10 period begins on 8 June 1993. For these reasons, this document can't
11 conceivably be considered to be relevant, and any questions put to this
12 witness will only lead to irrelevant answers. And that is the
13 Prosecution's submission on this document, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, let me --
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I may be of
17 I don't need this document at all. We can put it away and I can
18 put this question without it. I merely wanted Their Honours to have an
19 example before them.
20 First of all, I don't know how the Prosecutor can anticipate what
21 my question would be. I only want the witness to clarify the issue of war
22 presidencies and military prosecutors' offices in exile, and I can do that
23 without the document. We can put it away now.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we can do that, if we have the document, that
25 would be very helpful, because I'm just a bit lost. Okay.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Witness, you said that you worked in the so-called "War Presidency
3 in exile." I would like to ask you this: It is true, is it not, that in
4 Central Bosnia there were also military prosecutors' offices and war
5 presidencies in exile active?
6 A. I cannot confirm that. I'm not familiar with that.
7 Q. You never heard of a district military court in exile in Banja
8 Luka; is that your testimony?
9 A. That's the first time I hear of it.
10 Q. Thank you. In any case, since this is the first time you've heard
11 of it, you haven't gone through the archives of such prosecutors' offices
12 and courts, in case there are such archives in existence and since you had
13 no knowledge of such cases?
14 A. It seems I've been asked a question I cannot answer. I already
15 answered in -- during the examination-in-chief, what was contained in the
16 archives of the Cantonal Prosecutor's Office in Zenica that I headed. The
17 organs you mentioned, the District Military Prosecutor's Office or Court
18 of Banja Luka, well, we had no such documentation within the Cantonal
19 Prosecutor's Office in Zenica, where I am the chief prosecutor.
20 Q. I wanted to ask you something concerning criminal reports that
21 were submitted by the Ministry of the Interior.
22 Do you agree that before the war, during the war and after the war
23 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was common practice that the Minister of the
24 Interior actually filed criminal reports in the first instance; am I
1 A. I can only tell you about the period pertaining to the war and
2 after that, since before the war, I was not at the same position. In
3 essence, citizens submit reports in most of the cases, and they submit
4 them to the Minister of the Interior. During the war, perhaps they were
5 also submitting reports to the military police as well, and then they
6 would initiate pre-trial proceedings.
7 Q. Perhaps we should clarify something. Did I understand you
8 correctly that you said that the military police could also submit
9 criminal reports to the Ministry -- sorry, to the Centre of Security
10 Services? I didn't understand you.
11 A. I didn't say that. I said that the citizens could inform or
12 submit criminal reports to the Ministry of the Interior, that is, the
13 civilian police, or to the military police.
14 Q. I'm just waiting for the interpreters. If a perpetrator is
15 unknown, in that situation wasn't there cooperation between the military
16 and civilian police, if you know, or, rather, civilian and military
17 bodies, to the extent that reports would be sent to the Minister of the
18 Interior in order to try and establish who the perpetrator is?
19 A. I cannot answer that question. I am not familiar with that part.
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. I would like to show an
21 official note of the District Military Court in Zenica. It's Exhibit
22 number 252.
23 Q. Witness, you can see the official note created in Zenica on the
24 12th of June, 1993. It concerns the bringing of corpses to the
25 Prosecutor's Office from the lines held by the units of the 3rd Corps. It
1 has to do with people from Ovnak and Susanj, as you can see. It seems
2 that you were present during the on-site investigation. Is this your
3 name, Muris Hadziselimovic?
4 A. Yes, it is my name and I remember the event.
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the last page in both
6 versions so as to be able to see the signature.
7 Q. You can see that it was signed by Investigating Judge of the
8 District Military Court, Vlado Adamovic. You said you remember the
9 event. Did the Investigating Judge Adamovic consult the on-site
11 A. I have to correct you. It's not an on-site investigation. Rather
12 it is identification of the dead bodies that were brought to the Pathology
13 Department of the Cantonal Hospital in Zenica. However, this judge headed
14 the whole investigation.
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1, please.
16 Q. You obviously are familiar with this case. I would be correct,
17 would I not, if I said that concerning these events in June 1993, in
18 Susanj and Ovnak, there was an investigation by your Prosecutor's Office?
19 A. I'm not sure there was an investigation. This is one of the
20 investigative measures that was conducted and that was headed by Judge
21 Adamovic. Whether there was a full investigation on the events, I cannot
22 tell you. I don't remember anyone being prosecuted.
23 Q. If I put to you that even a sentence was handed down, would that
24 refresh your memory?
25 A. Only if I was in charge of the case, not in any other case. It
1 would be difficult for me to say that.
2 Q. You're trying to tell me that you were not in charge of the case.
3 However, in principle, would you agree with me that when the organs of the
4 judiciary learn of such events, they are duty-bound to establish what had
5 happened? They didn't merely attend the scene and made a list and leave?
6 A. As I said, it was an investigative measure of identifying the
7 persons brought in. We don't know where they were found, how they were
8 killed, or anything else, for that matter. The only thing important at
9 that point was to identify them, and an external examination of the
10 corpses was made. That was it.
11 Q. Witness, I don't think I can press this any further. I would like
12 to ask you something about your witness statement.
13 In paragraph 15 of your statement to the investigators of the OTP,
14 you described the discovery of 22 unlogged cases. These were not
15 registered in the registers. You subsequently found that at a later
17 A. If we are on the same page, it is about the cases found in the
18 archives. As far as I recall, it was an archives of the one of the former
19 Municipal Prosecutors' Offices where -- I can't recall the exact figure,
20 but between 10 and 20 cases which had not been entered into any of the
22 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 17 of your statement, you say that a
23 damaged party gave you a call recently, inquiring about their case, and
24 you also stated that that case was something you did not find at all in
25 your registers; is that so?
1 A. I have to say I don't remember specifically, but if that's what I
2 said, then it must be that way. It's possible that I made a suggestion to
3 that party to file a criminal report with us so that we may have reason to
4 investigate the case. If that's what this is about, then it must be that
6 Q. That's right. How can you say, then -- you have all those boxes
7 of cases that when filed, people were calling you on the phone, "What's
8 going on with my file," and then you simply say, "Well, it's not there.
9 Can you resubmit that, please." And then how can you be telling us that
10 you have accurate registers containing all the criminal reports that were
12 A. The registers are accurate, and these two facts confirm that.
13 When the archives were tidied up, and this is something that I had
14 requested -- this was just before the request was made by the OTP to me --
15 this particular box was found along with all the other items lying about.
16 Everything save for that one box was fully recorded. So this box is an
17 exception confirming the rule. Everything that ever reached the
18 Prosecutor's Office was recorded. Of course, I can't be expected to
19 answer for something that someone, whoever was responsible in that
20 particular Prosecutor's Office, failed to do, something they didn't record
21 in the register. Everything that was taken over, all the documents from
22 all the Prosecutors' Offices that I mentioned, was recorded in these
23 registers, with the exception of this one box.
24 And as for the criminal report that you asked me about, I have to
25 say that that occurrence was never recorded by any of the prosecutors. I
1 checked the books, first of all, and then we had not a single fact to go
2 on in relation to that case.
3 I made a suggestion to the party in question to file a criminal
4 report -- to submit a criminal report so that we might finally find
5 ourselves in possession of some facts, and then for the prosecutor to
6 launch an investigation. I requested that so that we might be able to
7 record that and then press on with it.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. It looks like this is not my day today.
9 There's a concept of boxes that's being introduced in the
10 discussion. I'm not quite sure -- and both of you seem to be
11 understanding each other. How do these boxes come in?
12 The first answer had been:
13 "I have to say I don't remember specifically, but if that's what I
14 said, then it must be that way. It's possible that I made a suggestion to
15 the party to file a criminal report with us so that we may have reason to
16 investigate the case. If that's what this is about, then it must be that
18 Then the next question says:
19 "That's right. How can you say, then, have all those boxes of
20 cases that, when filed, people were calling on the phone, 'What's going on
21 with my file' ..."
22 That's the first time I hear of a box.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may clarify, the
24 witness made a statement to the OTP, to the investigators of the OTP in
25 March -- or, rather, in May 2007. In that statement, he describes, and I
1 can quote if you like me to, the discovery of these 22 unlogged cases in a
2 box somewhere in the archives of the Prosecutor's Office. That's
3 paragraph 15 of the statement. You can check if you have a copy.
4 And then next, paragraph 17, the witness says:
5 "Three days ago, we received a criminal report for a crime
6 committed against a civilian in Zavidovici in 1992."
7 And then the witness goes on to say:
8 "The brother of the victim contacted us."
9 So it's in that portion of the statement that the witness talks
10 about that.
11 This is an event that was never recorded in any of the registers,
12 and that's why I'm asking the witness these questions, my objective being
13 to ascertain this: There were obviously certain cases that were not
14 recorded, not registered by the Prosecutor's Office. They had them right
15 there, the case files, but the case files were never registered. So that
16 is the purpose behind my question.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm with you, it's just that paragraph 15 and 17 do
18 not talk about boxes. They talk of unlogged cases, but I -- and the
19 logging there is not even -- but that's fine. Now I'm with you, at least,
20 whether there is a box or not, no boxes.
21 MR. WOOD: Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see the word "box" in paragraph 14.
23 MR. WOOD: Yes, I was just about to point that out.
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Box, box, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm with you.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know how it was
2 interpreted. I said "a box containing 22 case files."
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, the reference here is
4 probably to boxes in which these case files were physically kept.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, ma'am.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
7 questions for this witness. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
9 Just before you re-examine, Mr. Wood, I know that you answered to
10 this question, but I just want to ask you the question I'm going to ask
11 you because of the answer you gave at the beginning of your
13 What are war presidencies in exile, if you know?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were civilian authorities for
15 those municipalities from which they were expelled. For example, the
16 Kotor Varos Municipality, which is my municipality, I hail from that
17 municipality, I was elected to the War Presidency by the Presidency of the
18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on roughly the same date I was appointed
19 deputy military prosecutor. These war presidencies, in theory, at least,
20 had certain powers, but in practice they had no particular role, other
21 than to organise people who were expelled from a certain area, to list
22 those people, the citizens, and, in any way they could, to help these
23 people survive in their new areas.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, okay, I hear you now and I understand better
1 Now, when you said, in answer to a question by Madam Vidovic, that
2 it is the first time you hear about this War Presidency, were you talking
3 specifically about the Banja Luka War Presidency? Is that the one that
4 you were hearing about for the first time, or what were you saying when
5 you said: "This is the first time I hear about that," and Madam Vidovic
6 didn't pursue that point, she just left it there? Do you remember saying
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, the question
9 was about the District Military Court of Banja Luka, and that was the
10 first time I'd heard of it. It wasn't about the War Presidency. I think
11 that's the way it was.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Wood.
14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 If Exhibit 881 could be shown, please. And this is in regard to
16 the table. So if we go to page 6 in the Bosnian version.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Wood:
18 Q. Mr. Hadziselimovic, the Defence attorney asked you about 236/95,
19 which is almost exactly in the middle of that page. Could you please tell
20 the Trial Chamber, what is the referring agency for 236/95? I see that
21 it's being highlighted.
22 A. You can see that it was Security Services Centre, Zenica, which
23 means civilian police.
24 MR. WOOD: If we could go to page 9 in the Bosnian, and I want to
25 ask you about entries alluded to by the Defence attorney regarding Enver
1 Hadzihasanovic and Besim Spahic. That's 014/2001. If you could scroll
2 down to where those names are listed.
3 I don't see them on this page, actually.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance, it's
5 actually page 3.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.
7 MR. WOOD:
8 Q. So, Mr. Hadziselimovic, do you see the file 014/2001?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And 015/2001? I'm sorry, I misspoke. 015/01.
11 Mr. Hadziselimovic, what does "2001" indicate at the end of "014"?
12 A. This means that this was recorded in the register in the year
13 2001, number 14 and number 15.
14 Q. And if you could look to the second cell in the row, where it
15 says "Ki 33/01", what does that indicate, Mr. Hadziselimovic?
16 A. This is the way the Court categorises this file, and the numbers
17 are 33/01 and 37/01. This is a court reference number.
18 Q. And what, specifically, does "Ki" indicate?
19 A. "Criminal investigation," which is as good as a case file.
20 MR. WOOD: If we could go back to page 1 in the English and the
21 Bosnian of this document.
22 Q. And I want to draw your attention in particular to Roman numeral
24 Now, that reads:
25 "That data that we have submitted in attachment, relating to files
1 found in the Archives of the Zenica District Military Prosecution ..."
2 And it continues, as you can see there. Does this indicate,
3 Mr. Hadziselimovic, that the documents listed in the table attached here
4 or the files are only files that are found in the Zenica Military District
5 Prosecution register?
6 A. The documents that were shown, the two case files, should be cases
7 for the senior public prosecutor in Zenica, because this comprises the
8 entire archives, the district military prosecutor in Zenica and the senior
9 public prosecutor in Zenica.
10 Q. My question is more specific, though, Mr. Hadziselimovic. As to
11 the table attached to this document, are these excerpts taken from, as is
12 written here, the Zenica District Military Prosecution archive -- or
14 A. That's what it says, but I am not certain that this is 100 per
15 cent accurate. It may as well be that this comprises the archives of the
16 senior public prosecutor as well.
17 Q. If I could draw your attention to page 2 in the Bosnian, page 2 in
18 the English.
19 If you could scroll to the top.
20 Could you read that sentence out, sir, the very top sentence, the
21 only sentence on the page above the table?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which sentence in the English, Mr. Wood?
23 MR. WOOD: I believe we'll have to go to the next page in the
24 English to see that sentence, Mr. President. Yes, there it is.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It reads:
1 "List of selected files from the Archives of the Zenica District
2 Military Prosecutor," illegible, "21 to 24 August 2006. Mission. Mission
3 from the 21st to 24th of August."
4 MR. WOOD:
5 Q. We saw a document earlier introduced by the Defence that
6 indicated -- that referred to the murder of Paul Godal and some others.
7 Perhaps we could just bring that up. That's Exhibit 887.
8 Now, we see at the top of that page, it says "Senior Public
9 Prosecutor's Office." Does that indicate where this was sent,
10 Mr. Hadziselimovic?
11 A. This is the address to which it was supposed to be sent. I have
12 nothing indicating that it ever got there, though.
13 Q. So if we put these two documents together, if, as is written, the
14 table at the end of 881 is only excerpts of a list of selected files from
15 the archives of the Zenica District Military Prosecution, would there be
16 any reason that a criminal report sent to the Senior Public Prosecutor's
17 Office in Zenica would appear in the table at the end of 881?
18 A. Can you please clarify that for me?
19 Q. Well, we saw, Mr. Hadziselimovic, that a certain sentence was
20 written at the end of Exhibit 881, right before the table, and that
21 sentence indicated that the criminal reports listed in the table were
22 taken from the archives of the Zenica District Military Prosecution
23 registers. We see, on this document, that a criminal report was sent to
24 the Senior Public Prosecutor's Office in Zenica. So if the table at the
25 end of 881 only lists documents or criminal reports from the Zenica
1 District Military Prosecutor's Office, would there be any reason that
2 these criminal reports would appear in the table at the end of 881 if what
3 is written is true and they were sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office?
4 A. If it is stated that the list of files is from the Zenica
5 prosecutor, district military prosecutor, then it should be right, but
6 there could have been a change in the jurisdiction, so I have to assume
7 that the senior public prosecutor, for example, said, "This is not within
8 our jurisdiction. We are forwarding the case to the district military
9 prosecutor." And then this file would be transferred to the district
10 military prosecutor and it could turn up in this table. That is the only
11 explanation that I think is possible in this case.
12 Q. And generally speaking, sir, on Roman II of 881 and 882, and we
13 could bring those up, but we need not, Your Honour, you assert that you
14 did a search of the archives and the registers and found that there were
15 no criminal reports filed for the events that were specified by the OTP;
16 is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In carrying out that search, sir, did you and your staff rely only
19 on the registers or did you also check the individual files for these
20 individual cases?
21 A. We relied primarily on our records, because if a case was tried,
22 then all the documents should be in the Court for us to be able to inspect
23 a certain case file.
24 Q. So, for example, if there are -- if there was a case of Article 36
25 murder that was found in the register, what did your staff do to make sure
1 that that Article 36 case for murder did not include, as in 2(1), the
2 murder of 25 civilians or the murder of the VRS prisoners at -- in
4 A. Well, one runs a check by using the names of those killed, the
5 injured parties, and then we're 100 per cent certain about our records.
6 But it's not just the names of suspects that are looked at here.
7 Q. What else is looked at?
8 A. One looks at the names of the suspects involved, the names of the
9 injured parties, the time of submission, the relevant prosecutor's office
10 that was in charge of a certain case. It was mostly cases from that other
11 kind of register, unidentified perpetrator, or the juvenile perpetrator,
12 under-age perpetrator. For example, when you have a KT record and you
13 don't have a perpetrator, and in that case what you use to run this search
14 is the names of the persons who are the actual victims. There is no other
15 way to conduct a search than that.
16 Q. And are those the criteria that were used in asserting, as you
17 did, in Roman II of both letters that there were no criminal reports filed
18 for these particular events?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And, finally, I want to ask you some questions about the box of 22
21 files that was referenced in your witness statement.
22 Was this the only set of files you found that had not actually
23 been logged in any logbook?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And in the process of going through these files, how many files
1 did you find that were actually logged in the various logbooks?
2 A. That's a little difficult to say off-the-cuff like that. If you
3 look at "unidentified perpetrator," there may be about 40.000 files, all
4 the rest, between 30.000 and 40.000 [Realtime transcript read in
5 error "13.000 and 14.000"] case files.
6 Q. So we're talking about, then -- I'm sorry, I want to clarify
7 here. Did you say 13.000 and 14.000?
8 A. 30.000 to 40.000.
9 Q. So we're talking about 22 case files out of 30 to 40.000, then; is
10 that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And finally, Mr. Hadziselimovic, if you recall, what did these
13 particular cases, these 22, deal with?
14 A. These were criminal reports concerning unidentified perpetrators,
15 about the shelling of Tesanj Municipality and parts of Doboj Municipality
16 by the Serb aggressor.
17 Q. And one final question. You referred, in page 46, line 1, when we
18 were speaking of the case file involving Enver Hadzihasanovic, you said
19 the BH organs forwarded it to The Hague Tribunal. Do you know,
20 Mr. Hadziselimovic, from where the "rules of the road" case file against
21 Enver Hadzihasanovic originated?
22 A. I think it was sent by the senior public prosecutor in Zenica, but
23 I'm not certain.
24 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution has no further questions at this time,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
3 Questioned by the Court:
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question to put to you.
5 This relates to those 22 cases which had not been recorded.
6 Have I understood you correctly that this pertained to the period
7 running from 1992, when you were not yet working for the military tribunal
8 of Zenica?
9 A. This pertained to the period between 1992 and 1995, and I don't
10 know the exact date when those events occurred.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] We're talking about the cases,
12 those cases that were not recorded, pertain to that period running from
13 1992 and 1995. Is that what you're saying? In other words, during this
14 period you cannot confirm either that your office was running efficiently
15 and, therefore, that all cases were registered, all criminal reports were
16 being recorded; is that what you're saying?
17 A. Maybe the explanation was not sufficiently clear. That particular
18 box was found in the same place where other documents were being kept,
19 too, and this is something that the prosecutor in Zenica had taken over
20 from the former municipal prosecutor in Tesanj. When the Cantonal
21 Prosecutor's Office in Zenica was set up, all the Municipal Public
22 Prosecutors' Offices were abolished. That was when we took over all the
23 documentation from all the municipal prosecutors. All the cases were
24 recorded in the register, where receipt was recorded. And when the
25 archives were searched, when we wanted to tidy up the archives so we might
1 know what exactly we had there, it was then that the box was found
2 containing these 22 case files. These case files were not recorded in the
3 register of the Tesanj municipal prosecutor.
4 When we ascertained that, we duly recorded them and pursued those
5 case files. When I say "we," I mean the cantonal prosecutor of Zenica.
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but what we are interested
7 in is as follows: If this period running from 1993 to 1995, you are able
8 to confirm to us that your office was being run efficiently and that you
9 were able to record anything coming in, whenever there were any criminal
10 reports, that you were actually able to record all of this?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] One other point. During her
13 cross-examination, Mrs. Vidovic put a question to you that concerned
14 reports. She was making an assumption, if I remember correctly, and she
15 mentioned reports that might have reached you which would have involved
16 paramilitaries. And if I remember correctly, you said, "I cannot answer
17 that question because I don't know anything about these reports, and I
18 don't know whom these reports were sent to." Have I remembered all of
19 this correctly?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Now, I would like to know
22 something else.
23 As far as you're concerned, if you yourself, working for the
24 military tribunal, if you had received reports which had to do with the
25 involvement of paramilitary forces, would you have felt that these reports
1 fell within your jurisdiction or not, or came under your jurisdiction or
3 A. Under the law, the jurisdiction was determined in such a way that
4 the military prosecutors, military courts, had jurisdiction over anyone
5 who was a member of the armed forces. There was no mention there of any
6 paramilitary units.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. That's all.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you going to have any other questions,
9 Mr. Wood, arising from those questions by the Judge?
10 MR. WOOD: No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: And Madam Vidovic?
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a brief question.
13 Further cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, I'm sure you'll agree, the 22 case files
15 that remained in that box, under the law they had to be recorded in the
16 registers; right?
17 A. Precisely, and that follows from my answer. These had to be
18 recorded or registered, but they were not. It wasn't until 12 years later
19 that we recorded them and entered them into all the logs. Since these are
20 apparently cases involving war crimes, we shall do our best to investigate
21 these cases.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
25 Sir, this brings us to the conclusion of your testimony. Thank
1 you very much for coming to testify. You are now excused and you may
2 stand down. And travel back home safely. Thank you once more.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you, the
4 Prosecutor and the Defence.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to have to keep you waiting, but -- thank
9 you, thank you so much.
10 The Trial Chamber hereby now renders its decision on the
11 Prosecution's fifth motion for leave to amend its exhibit list which was
12 filed on the 7th of November, 2007.
13 In its motion, the Prosecution requests leave to amend its Rule 65
14 ter exhibit list by the addition of 13 documents which are attached as
15 Annex B to the motion. The Prosecution argues that it is in the interests
16 of justice to allow the addition of these 13 proposed exhibits, as
17 they "negate the validity of document MFI 651 that was used by the defence
18 during the cross-examination of a key witness," namely, the witness Goran
20 The Prosecution argues that it should be permitted to add the
21 proposed exhibits to its list, as MFI 651 is directly contradictory to a
22 fact which the Prosecution seeks to prove, and that it will be unable to
23 add these proposed exhibits to its 65 ter exhibit list at a later stage
24 should the Defence tender this document for admission into evidence during
25 the Defence case.
1 The Defence, in its response of the 21st of November, 2007, argues
2 that it is not in the interests of justice to allow the addition of the
3 proposed exhibits, as the correct stage at which to deal with this matter
4 is if the Defence bring a witness to deal with this document during the
5 Defence case, and that the key document among the proposed exhibits
6 carries little or no probative value in the absence of a witness called by
7 the Prosecution to testify as to the error which may have been made in MFI
9 The Trial Chamber recalls that it may grant a motion requesting
10 amendment of a 65 ter exhibit list where it is in the interests of justice
11 and in balancing the Prosecution's duty to present the available evidence
12 to prove its case with the right of the accused to have adequate time and
13 facilities to prepare a defence. The Trial Chamber may also take into
14 account additional criteria, including whether the proposed evidence is
15 prima facie relevant and of probative to the issues in the indictment and
16 where a good cause for amending the 65 ter exhibit list has been shown.
17 Furthermore, the Trial Chamber recalls that there is a difference
18 between the admission of a document into evidence as an exhibit and the
19 inclusion of the document on the 65 ter exhibit list, as in the latter
20 case the Trial Chamber does not need to assess the relevance and probative
21 value of such documents, provided it is satisfied that the party does not
22 submit documents that are obviously irrelevant.
23 Having considered the arguments advanced by the Prosecution in its
24 motion and by the Defence in its response, the Trial Chamber finds that
25 the proposed exhibits are prima facie relevant to the Prosecution case and
1 that the Prosecution has shown good cause for the amendment of its 65 ter
2 exhibit list.
3 Therefore, the Trial Chamber finds that it is in the interests of
4 justice to allow the addition of the 13 proposed exhibits to the
5 Prosecution's 65 ter exhibit list and pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules of
6 Procedure and Evidence, hereby grants the evidence.
7 I'm sorry to have kept the parties for too long.
8 Court adjourned.
9 We have a problem. We don't know whether we're sitting in the
10 morning tomorrow or in the afternoon. We are told that we will be
11 notified sometime perhaps later in the day. I want to suspect that we
12 will sit in the morning.
13 Court adjourned on that uncertain note.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.58 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
16 November, 2007, sine die.