1 Monday, 5 April 2004

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 2.14 p.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call

6 the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case

8 number IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir

9 Kubura.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11 Could we have the appearances for the Prosecution.

12 MR. WITHOPF: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,

13 Your Honours. Good afternoon, Counsel. For the Prosecution, Chester

14 Stamp, Ekkehard Withopf, and Ruth Karper, the case manager.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And could we have the

16 appearances for the Defence.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President. Good

18 day, Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic, Edina

19 Residovic, counsel; and Muriel Cauvin, my legal assistant. Thank you.

20 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honours. On

21 behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and our legal

22 assistant, Mr. Mulalic.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Trial Chamber

24 would like to greet everyone present in the courtroom, the members of the

25 Prosecution, Defence counsel, the accused, the registrar, who has joined

1 us for this hearing, the usher, and everyone else present in the

2 courtroom. And I wouldn't want to forget the interpreters either.

3 We have a witness scheduled for today, but I will first give the

4 floor to the Defence, who have had the opportunity to reflect on the

5 matter over the weekend and are now in a position to tell us about their

6 position with regard to our decision rendered last week, which concerns

7 the documents and documents that were contested. The Prosecution may make

8 comments after the Defence has taken the floor, but could the Defence tell

9 us what the situation is at present.

10 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. On behalf of both Defence

11 teams, we wish to thank Your Honours firstly for the opportunity you have

12 given us to consider your decision over the weekend.

13 Our requests today, following in-depth discussions about the

14 matter, is that Your Honours consider varying to some degree the decision

15 that Your Honours rendered on Friday last week.

16 Our proposal is, Your Honours, that we as the Defence teams are

17 not required to give our detailed reasons why we object to the documents

18 at this stage. The date which Your Honours gave was the 8th of April

19 or -- or one week later but that we are given until the end of the

20 Prosecution case to outline what our objections are.

21 In the interim, Your Honours, we propose that all of the

22 documents are marked for identification - that's the contested documents -

23 that they are available to the Court and to the parties, and that in the

24 two months that remain of the Prosecution case, the Prosecution seek to

25 introduce as many of those documents through witnesses who do attend. In

1 addition, the expert witness, General Reinhardt, will have an opportunity

2 to refer to those documents that are relevant that are marked for

3 identification. And at the end of that process, we then reassess how many

4 documents have still not been admitted and that the Prosecution then have

5 an opportunity to address Your Honours on which documents they still wish

6 to rely upon and tender into evidence.

7 It is correct, Your Honours, that the jurisprudence of the

8 Tribunal does not require a witness to be available to introduce each and

9 every document. There are many examples from other cases where documents

10 have been admitted without the presence of a witness. But at the same

11 time that the jurisprudence does indicate that where possible, and as far

12 as possible, documents should be introduced through witnesses, and if not,

13 then the practice has been, Your Honours, for the Prosecution to outline

14 to the Trial Chamber which documents they wish to rely upon, making legal

15 arguments as to their relevancy and their reliability, with the Defence

16 then being given an opportunity to respond and the Trial Chamber rendering

17 its decision thereafter.

18 And our proposal would be that with the remaining documents which

19 haven't been tendered through witnesses at the end of the Prosecution case

20 some time is set aside for the parties to address Your Honours on which

21 documents should still be admitted. The Prosecution would then have a

22 chance to go through the documents category by category, which has been

23 the -- the practice in other cases, not to admit documents wholesale but

24 for the Prosecution to be required to explain category by category - for

25 example, if documents came from a government office, to explain the source

1 of those documents, the relevance of them, why the Prosecution believes

2 they are reliable, and for the Defence in light of those submissions to

3 then respond, and for Your Honours then to rule on which documents should

4 be admitted.

5 So the -- the net result, Your Honour, our proposal is that we

6 not be required to state what our objections are now because many

7 witnesses might still be coming who can introduce these documents and we

8 then have the opportunity to cross-examine them and set out our

9 objections, and that at the end of the case, when we know exactly what is

10 left over, the Prosecution can outline what is the relevance of the

11 remaining documents, the reliability of those documents, if they to

12 introduce them, and we can then respond, in accordance with Your Honours'

13 ruling that we then set out what are our particular objections.

14 Your Honours, we will, if you so request, set out our arguments

15 in writing and indicate what the jurisprudence is, if that could be of

16 assistance to Your Honours. We don't wish to delay the matter any

17 further. But if Your Honours are not in agreement with the proposal that

18 we are putting forward - and further motivation is required - we can in

19 the next few days, certainly by the end of our session on Thursday, submit

20 our arguments in more detail in writing. The Prosecution could also

21 submit their arguments in response at the same time or be given some

22 further time to -- to respond. And then a decision could be rendered.

23 But we've outlined our basic proposal today, so Your Honours are aware of

24 what consideration we have given to the matter.

25 In our submission, such a proposal would be a much more practical

1 way, firstly, of resolving a situation which involves many hundreds of

2 documents, and not just a handful, but hundreds of documents; and

3 secondly, and most importantly, it would ensure that the rights of the

4 accused are properly protected in that, firstly, the Defence would be

5 given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who are introducing

6 documents. And if witnesses cannot attend, be given an opportunity to

7 respond to what the Prosecution is submitting regarding the relevance and

8 reliability of those documents. And the burden would remain on the

9 Prosecution to present its case, with the Defence having to respond, which

10 is the way in which proceedings are conducted before this Tribunal.

11 Your Honours, lastly we wanted to -- to point out for the record,

12 because this was mentioned last week, that it is correct that the

13 Prosecution has indicated in their pre-trial brief which documents they

14 seek to rely upon and what the relevance of those documents is. We have

15 looked at the pre-trial brief carefully and have calculated that only 222

16 of the documents mentioned in the pre-trial brief are in the consolidated

17 list of documents, and of those we have already admitted 95, leaving 127

18 documents which the Prosecution have given the Defence proper notice of

19 regarding how they seek to use those documents to prove their case. So

20 that's 127 documents of the over-600 documents that we are on notice as to

21 how the Prosecution seeks to rely upon them.

22 But doing the calculations, Your Honours will see that that

23 leaves over 500 documents which we do not know what reliance the

24 Prosecution wishes to place on them. We also in many instances are not

25 aware of what the source of those documents is and how those documents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 were gathered. They are not even, in many instances, basic chain of

2 custody statements as to who obtained the documents, when they were

3 obtained, and how they were handed to the Prosecution.

4 So we would be in a position, Your Honour, to respond to that

5 small number of documents, the 127, but not the bulk of the documents,

6 over 500. And in our view, it would be a much more practical solution to

7 look at all of the contested documents together by, first of all, seeing

8 what witnesses can introduce them, and then dealing with the remaining

9 documents category by category thereafter.

10 We should also not forget, Your Honours, that the Defence, when

11 it presents its case, might well refer to many of these documents as well,

12 which could allow them to be introduced that way, depending on the nature

13 of the Defence case. And, of course, Your Honours have the opportunity to

14 call witnesses who might be relevant to these documents at the end of the

15 case. So it is a process that can continue beyond the Prosecution case if

16 necessary.

17 Your Honour, those are our submissions. It's an oral application

18 for Your Honours to consider varying the order that has been made. But as

19 I have mentioned, it can be formalised in writing with all the arguments

20 if Your Honours would prefer that method and if that could be of

21 assistance in resolving this matter.

22 Thank you, Your Honours, again for the opportunity to revisit the

23 matter.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to

25 Mr. Withopf, there is something I would like to Defence to clarify for me.

1 You said that in their pre-trial brief 222 documents were mentioned.

2 There are 95 documents which are not problematic, in your opinion, and

3 there are 127 documents which raise certain issues. As far as the 95

4 documents are concerned, the ones that you say are admissible, have those

5 documents already been included in the list of documents that you have

6 approved of, or are these 95 new documents? Are these different

7 documents? Or have these 95 documents already been included among the 200

8 documents that are not being contested?

9 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, the 95 documents are already included in

10 the 286 documents that the Defence is prepared to admit at this stage, so

11 they are already included in that -- that number. And 127 are documents

12 that are not included, that are still contested.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Dixon.

14 I'll now give the floor to Mr. Withopf to hear what his position

15 is, and then the Trial Chamber will assess the matter.

16 Mr. Withopf.

17 MR. WITHOPF: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

18 Mr. President, Your Honours, the Prosecution's response to the

19 submission of the Defence will be comprised of three sections. It appears

20 to be necessary to very briefly summarise what has happened in the past in

21 order to show where we were on Friday last week. I will then address the

22 legal principles and the legal considerations of motions for

23 reconsideration. And even if Defence phrases it differently, the today's

24 motion is a motion for reconsideration of the Trial Chamber's decision of

25 last Friday. Then, Your Honours, Mr. President, I will provide the

1 Chamber with a number of additional facts which may help the Chamber to

2 determine on the motion for reconsideration, as put forward today by the

3 Defence.

4 Where were we on Friday, Friday last week at the point the Trial

5 Chamber made it decision? The Prosecution has a consolidated exhibit

6 list, and the consolidated exhibit list has 966 documents on the list.

7 663 of such documents are contested by the Defence, meaning more than 65

8 per cent.

9 In respect to the reasons why they do contest such documents,

10 Defence has given very general reasons in their filing of 13th of March,

11 Tuesday last week, mainly outlining - and I'm referring to paragraph 3 -

12 that there are two reasons, authenticity or relevance, and in some cases

13 both of such reasons, and Defence is then providing the Prosecution and

14 the Trial Chamber with additional 12 criteria which may impact on these

15 two reasons, and they are emphasising that these are criteria inter alia.

16 The Chamber has decided on Friday the Defence at the very latest

17 by 15th of April should provide the Chamber and the Prosecution the

18 grounds for contesting the documents and that the Prosecution has to

19 respond a week later. This decision, Your Honour, was based on the Trial

20 Chamber's consideration that - and I quote - that: "Introducing documents

21 solely through witnesses would result in a considerable extension of the

22 time needed for hearing witnesses and would have adverse effects on the

23 efficiency of the process of the proceedings."

24 The Defence on Friday has asked to readdress this issue after a

25 number of different indications were given as to how they wish to

1 readdress this issue. It turned out, as the Prosecution has already

2 anticipated on Friday, that it is a motion for reconsideration. What

3 Defence want is not varying the decision in the one -- in respect to the

4 one or the other minor issue. They wish to have the motion being

5 reconsidered and being reconsidered along the lines they had addressed

6 earlier on in these proceedings.

7 Motions for reconsideration, Mr. President, Your Honours, motions

8 for reconsideration do not form part of the Rules of Procedure and

9 Evidence of the International Tribunal. They have no basis in the Rules

10 of Procedure and Evidence. And I refer to the Celebici Appeals Chamber

11 decision of 1st of June, 1999 in which this issue has been addressed in

12 some length. That means, Mr. President, Your Honours, that only in

13 very -- in very particular circumstances a Trial Chamber can be asked to

14 reconsider one of its decisions. Such particular circumstances,

15 Mr. President, Your Honours, have been detailed by the jurisprudence of

16 this International Tribunal as, "A change of circumstances," number one;

17 and number two, "A change of circumstances resulting in the previous

18 decision being erroneous and causing prejudice to the accused."

19 These principles, Mr. President, Your Honours -- this principle

20 applied to the present case show -- this principle shows that the Defence

21 motion for reconsideration has no basis in law. There is no change of

22 circumstances, Mr. President, Your Honours. The Prosecution exhibit list

23 is very well known to the Defence. The exhibits themselves are known to

24 the Defence. The majority of these exhibits has been disclosed many

25 months ago. Many of them actually have been disclosed more than two years

1 ago. And the issue has been discussed repeatedly and in each and every

2 detail since the beginning of these proceedings. The Defence has had

3 ample -- has had ample opportunity to address all the issues they

4 addressed today in oral -- in both in oral and in written submissions.

5 Secondly, the Trial Chamber's decision is not erroneous. The

6 procedure applied by this Trial Chamber - namely, the tendering of the

7 documents into evidence from the bar table and not via witnesses - this is

8 not only a well-established procedure in civil law jurisdictions and a

9 well-established practice in such jurisdictions; it has also been applied

10 repeatedly -- it has been applied repeatedly before this International

11 Tribunal. And I'm referring to the cases of the Prosecutor versus Simic

12 and the Prosecutor versus Galic.

13 As a result, the Defence motion has no basis in law. The motion

14 for reconsideration has no basis in law. Already for this reason, the

15 Prosecution submits that the Defence motion should be denied.

16 In the event, however, Mr. President, Your Honours, that the

17 Trial Chamber doesn't share this view, as just detailed by the

18 Prosecution, I wish to provide the Chamber additional facts to finally

19 determine this issue. Defence has identified, as already mentioned, two

20 main criteria: Authenticity and relevance. And they had identified,

21 inter alia, as they are saying, additional 12 factors which impact on such

22 criteria. They did not show which of these two criteria apply to which

23 document. They even said that in some cases both criteria may apply, and

24 of course and consequently, they did not inform which of the 12 factors

25 may apply to the different sorts of documents.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Since the Defence, Mr. President, Your Honours, were able to

2 identify the two reasons and they were even able to identify the 12

3 factors, one would have thought that they have carefully considered the

4 issue document by document and that they would have been able to inform

5 both the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber what the problems and what the

6 challenges to the documents may be. They haven't done so.

7 On Friday after the Trial Chamber rendered its decision - and I

8 really wish to emphasise that last week this issue prior to rendering the

9 decision has been again and in great detail discussed - Defence counsel

10 informed both the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution - and that's now a

11 quote; and I'm referring to page 111552 and 111559 of the Friday's

12 transcript - that: "It would require more than two weeks of work to make

13 our first assessment without drafting anything." That means it would be

14 the first assessment. This statement, Your Honours, Mr. President, leaves

15 the Prosecution with the question how were they able -- how were Defence

16 able to identify the documents which they were contesting and which they

17 were not contesting if Defence hasn't made even -- hasn't even made its

18 first assessment?

19 In respect to the facts, I wish to draw the attention of the

20 Trial Chamber of a number -- on a number of issues. 375 documents which

21 were contested stem from the so-called Sarajevo collection.

22 Mr. President, Your Honours, the Sarajevo collection is a collection of

23 documents seized as a result of a consensual search of the ABiH main

24 archive in Sarajevo. These are official documents that were kept in the

25 official ABiH main archive in Sarajevo.

1 The Chamber, Mr. President, Your Honours, you may be interested

2 to know that 72 per cent out of these documents have been contested by the

3 Defence; 308 of the Sarajevo collection exhibits are 3rd Corps documents;

4 204 are contested; 148 of such documents are 7th Muslim Brigade documents;

5 138 are contested, meaning 93 per cent; and there are many more. More

6 than 300 of such documents actually stem from the ABiH 3rd Corps, and

7 these are documents that are relevant to the time period of the

8 indictment. More than 100 of such documents - namely, 104, Mr. President,

9 Your Honours - show that the accused Hadzihasanovic is the originator of

10 such documents. More than 50 of such documents show that the accused

11 Kubura is the originator of these documents.

12 Mr. President, Your Honours, taking into account that these

13 documents stem from the official ABiH main archive, they were seized as a

14 result of a search operation which was done in consensus with the Bosnian

15 authorities, and that they show both of the accused as the originators of

16 these documents, it would be very helpful for the Prosecution and for the

17 Trial Chamber to get to know the reasons why Defence are contesting these

18 documents. And in this context, Mr. President, Your Honours - and I'm

19 coming to the end of my oral submissions - I wish to draw the attention on

20 two of these 12 factors which have been detailed by my learned colleagues

21 from the Defence side, which are, just an example, since I don't want to

22 waste the Court's time -- which are just an example, what would it mean if

23 the Court were to reconsider its decision from last Friday. There is the

24 issue of signature, and there is the issue of problems with translation.

25 If the signature on a document is challenged by the Defence, this

1 of course would involve a number of efforts - and everybody in this

2 courtroom is knowing what I am talking about - would involve a number of

3 efforts which would significantly delay the court proceedings, which would

4 delay this trial, since we would need an expert if there are issues with

5 the signature. And the expert would need to get examples, and he would

6 have to compile his report, and he would have to submit the report, and

7 the report would have to be translated. Obviously this would cause a

8 serious delay of the proceedings.

9 Even more of concern, however, Mr. President, Your Honours, is

10 the factor which is identified by the Defence as problems with

11 translation. As already mentioned earlier on, Defence, since a

12 substantial period of time, is in possession of most of the vast majority

13 of the documents themselves which are on the exhibit list, and they got

14 the translations and they were able to assess any translation problems.

15 And Defence is the only party which is able to assess translation

16 problems, since we are not speaking B/C/S we have to rely on what we get

17 from CLSS, and there's no reason for the Prosecution to have any doubt

18 that what we get from CLSS is the absolute correct translation.

19 What Defence is asking for - and I really wish to emphasise this -

20 would result in the following situation: There is a witness the

21 Prosecution wishes to -- wishes the witness to comment on a certain

22 document. The document is shown to the witness. Defence raises an issue

23 in respect to problems with translation. Nobody in the courtroom other

24 than Defence is in a position to identify where the problems are. The

25 problems - and I do appreciate the position of the Defence, that sometimes

1 it may be very necessary to have a 110 per cent accurate translation -

2 that would mean even the best qualified translator in the courtroom may

3 not be in a position to translate it on the spot. It would have to be

4 re-given to CLSS, the concerns of the Defence would have -- would have to

5 be taken into account, the witness would have to be sent home, the witness

6 would have to be recalled at a later point in time, and the document would

7 have to be shown to the witness again.

8 Since Defence is not volunteering to us at this point in time to

9 give an indication which documents are concerned and which documents --

10 and what are the problems with translations, such a situation we may face

11 with each and every witness in the near future. We don't know, since

12 Defence is not telling us. And the Prosecution doesn't want to speculate

13 on the reasons why not.

14 The burden of proof has been addressed by my learned colleagues

15 from the Defence side. If the Defence follows the procedure as

16 established by the Court decision of last Friday, the burden of proof

17 isn't touched upon at all, since it's obviously still the Prosecution who

18 has to address the issue of authenticity, who has to satisfy the Trial

19 Chamber about the relevance of the documents, and it's still the

20 Prosecution who has to show that the other 12 factors are met.

21 To summarise the Prosecution's submission, Mr. President, Your

22 Honours, number one, Defence had ample opportunity over the past months,

23 and they did so, to address all related issues in order to inform -- to

24 give the Trial Chamber a chance to make an informed decision. The motion

25 for reconsideration as such has no basis in the Tribunal's law, nor in the

1 Tribunal's jurisprudence. And number three, if the motion for

2 reconsideration would be granted for the reasons I outlined - and I really

3 wish to emphasise that I don't want to waste the Court's time; I could

4 make such submissions in respect to each and every of the 12 factors

5 Defence mentioned - if the Trial Chamber would grant the Defence motion

6 for reconsideration, it can be anticipated that this trial -- that the

7 duration of this trial will be substantially - will be substantially -

8 longer.

9 Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Withopf.

11 I give the floor once again very briefly to Mr. Dixon, and then

12 we will stop the discussion on this issue.

13 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. I will take it very

14 quickly. Thank you.

15 The main point that we wish to make, Your Honour, is that we are

16 not trying to avoid making our objections known on these various

17 documents. It's only in the interests of the accused to make sure that

18 our objections are conveyed and clearly stated for the record.

19 Our position is that at this stage it would not be practical for

20 us to be putting forward our objections in detail when it's not clear from

21 the Prosecution side how they wish to rely upon many of these documents.

22 My learned friend very successfully outlined the way the

23 procedure could work when he, for example, started addressing the Sarajevo

24 collection, setting out which documents are part of that collection, how

25 were they collected, how were they to be relied upon. I don't wish to in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 any way suggest how the Prosecution could address this matter further, but

2 it would be open to the Prosecution to call a witness or witnesses

3 regarding that collection, and many of the documents could then be

4 addressed through such a witness, giving the Defence an opportunity to

5 cross-examine as to how documents were collected, how were they sent to

6 this archive. And in that way, to test the reliability of those

7 documents.

8 As my learned friend from the Prosecution has indicated, the

9 burden does rest on the Prosecution, and our simple request is not to

10 change Your Honours' decision. We of course have to respond by indicating

11 what our objections are. But in our view, it would be a much better

12 course for the Prosecution first to outline through their witnesses and

13 through their oral submissions, like my learned friend has done, what

14 relevance they place on these documents and at a minimum to show what are

15 the indicia of reliability, and then the Defence, as Your Honours have

16 ordered, would be in a position to respond. And at that point, at the end

17 of the Prosecution case a ruling can be made as to what documents would be

18 admitted.

19 Thank you, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Residovic.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

22 I would just like to refer to some of the arguments submitted by

23 my learned friend, drawing attention to the legal situation with regard to

24 the request for the reconsideration of the ruling.

25 Reviewing your decision of Friday, the Defence was confronted

1 with a problem that we presented before you, Your Honours, and that is

2 that the consistent implementation of such a decision within the deadlines

3 you have set could result in the basic rights of the accused being

4 infringed upon, and that is one of the arguments that colleague Withopf

5 referred to, that is, that it was in accordance with the jurisdiction of

6 this Tribunal, that one of the grounds for reconsideration is based on the

7 rights of the accused.

8 The Defence relies on Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute. It is

9 true that Article 20 of the Statute draws attention to the importance of

10 expedition and fair trial for the accused. The arguments presented by my

11 learned friend Withopf draws attention to only one of the two elements,

12 and that is the problems that would be provoked by such a decision

13 regarding expeditiousness. However, we wish to draw attention to the

14 other aspect, that is, the fair trial and respect for the rights of the

15 accused, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Statute.

16 As my learned colleague Mr. Dixon has said, we believe that one

17 of the basic rights of the accused is the right to cross-examine. That is

18 why the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, fully acknowledging the need that

19 the Prosecution may tender documents without necessarily using a witness

20 to do so, the general practice has been for a witness to be brought for

21 the purpose of tendering documents so that the Defence can, of course,

22 cross-examine.

23 Secondly, which we consider to be very important, we looked at

24 your decision of the 24th of February, and we reviewed the procedure we

25 have applied in the past four months, and it is our submission that the

1 objections of the Prosecution to Defence exhibits prompted your rulings,

2 which meant that only 26 Defence documents were identified -- marked for

3 identification only. Also on the basis of our objections, only 13

4 Prosecution documents have been marked for identification, because it was

5 your opinion, Your Honours, that documents needed to be tendered in an

6 appropriate manner.

7 The next argument proffered by the Prosecution in challenging our

8 right to have documents tendered in the way suggested by my colleague is

9 that the Defence has had in its possession most of these documents for

10 more than two years. For clarification purposes, I wish to say that it

11 was through a request for access to the archives that the Defence obtained

12 access to these documents, but this was access to the archives and not

13 through disclosure. The total archives of the 3rd Corps of the Supreme

14 Command and the 7th Muslim Brigade were exempted from the State of Bosnia

15 and Herzegovina and were no longer to be found there but were in the

16 possession of the Prosecution of this Tribunal. For this reason, the

17 Defence was granted access to these documents.

18 I also wish to remind you, Your Honours, that the Prosecution was

19 duty-bound to provide us with a consolidated list on the 10th of October

20 together with their pre-trial brief; however, you are aware that we

21 received that list much later, following repeated insistence by the Trial

22 Chamber.

23 I wish also to go back to one of the basic rights of the accused,

24 and that is to be informed in his own language of all the charges against

25 him. That is why it is our position that the Prosecution should be

1 obliged to state how each document relates to the case and the charges,

2 and the grounds for tendering them, explaining also their authenticity and

3 relevance.

4 As colleague Dixon has already said, on the consolidated list,

5 there are more than 500 documents for which the Prosecution has not linked

6 them to the case in the indictment. And now the Defence is being asked to

7 take a position on these documents, which means that we would have to

8 state our views on documents in advance before knowing the significance

9 that the Prosecution attaches to them and their relevance to the case.

10 Furthermore, in connection with the translations, we never had in

11 mind the translations which contain minor errors. As we have already

12 informed the Prosecution, we today have about 40 documents on the

13 consolidated list which were never provided to the Defence in translation.

14 And one of the basic rights of the accused, according to Article 21 of the

15 Statute, is that he has to have all those documents in his own language.

16 For these reasons, Your Honours, it was our view that we

17 shouldn't spend your time and the time of all of us here in the courtroom

18 to set out all these arguments in detail, as well as the jurisdiction and

19 jurisprudence of this Tribunal. If we had been asked to do so in writing,

20 we would have done so if that were to be of any use to you. If you are

21 going to render a decision today about our oral motion, our final

22 proposition would be that we admit 286 documents not contested by the

23 Defence, that we continue to admit into evidence other documents through

24 witnesses in the same way that we have been doing so far, and that

25 eventually the Prosecution, as in many other cases, should, depending on

1 the needs of its own case, set forth the arguments, the grounds, on the

2 basis of which they need other documents, and only then, upon receiving

3 such reasoned explanation, would the Defence be able to respond. I think

4 we would not only gain in terms of expeditiousness, but also this trial

5 would meet the other basic criterion, and that is respect for the rights

6 of the accused and a fair trial.

7 Thank you, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As we envisaged, that you

9 should only have the right to respond once - you have responded twice - so

10 the Prosecution will also be given the floor to respond to what you have

11 just said, and then we will stop there.

12 I would just like to ask the Prosecution to provide us some

13 additional information regarding two points that were raised by the

14 Defence, and that is that 40 documents have still not been translated; and

15 secondly, regarding the totality of the documents on the consolidated

16 list, I counted more than 800. 860. And out of the 860 documents, only

17 222 apparently will be -- were included in the pre-trial brief. That is

18 what we are told by the Defence. And proceeding from there, there would

19 be about 600 documents which are not referenced in the pre-trial brief.

20 So, Mr. Withopf, just in a few minutes I give you the floor, and

21 after that we will hear the witness. The Chamber will make its ruling and

22 let you know tomorrow.

23 MR. WITHOPF: Mr. President, Your Honours, just very briefly

24 answering the Court's questions.

25 Defence has submitted to us a list containing 40 out of the 966

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 documents which are not yet translated. The Prosecution is taking care of

2 this issue. We will examine the list. It can be anticipated that most,

3 if not all of these documents, are actually not yet translated. The

4 Prosecution will take care of this issue and will provide Defence with

5 translations of such documents at the very earliest opportunity.

6 I wish, however, in this context to emphasise that Defence

7 counsel are speaking both languages, English and B/C/S, and that they are

8 able to provide the two accused with a translation of documents if they

9 are in English into B/C/S. However, if there's a problem, the Prosecution

10 will take care of it.

11 The Prosecution has also examined how many documents are referred

12 to in the Prosecution's pre-trial brief. The Prosecution's pre-trial

13 brief is actually exceptionally detailed in making reference to documents

14 and it has done so in great detail, far beyond the usual practice before

15 this Tribunal. The Prosecution has counted the referenced documents as

16 well. The number is similar to the number as put forward by the Defence.

17 This is certainly not at issue. We counted some 254 documents.

18 However, Defence was in possession of the exhibit list three days

19 after the filing of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief, and the delay was

20 actually caused by an agreement Defence and the Prosecution had for the

21 reason the Defence wanted to have the exhibits in an electronic version.

22 It was an agreement by both parties. Again, this is certainly not at

23 issue.

24 My learned colleague from the Hadzihasanovic Defence was

25 emphasising the issue of the consolidated exhibit list. This is, again,

1 not an issue because Defence had two exhibit lists. The consolidated

2 exhibit list is nothing else but having merged two exhibit lists in one

3 list. It doesn't mean that there were many more additional documents.

4 Defence knew by mid-October about the vast majority of the documents the

5 Prosecution is relying upon as evidence in this case.

6 The Sarajevo collection, if I may address this issue - and again,

7 this issue has been discussed at length in the course of the many Rule 65

8 ter meetings and Status Conferences. And I refer to the transcripts of

9 such meetings and conferences. The Sarajevo collection was earlier on

10 provided to the Defence in its whole; meaning, more than 50.000 pages of

11 documents in electronic version. The Prosecution has done far more than

12 it was required under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Under the

13 Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Prosecution was only required to

14 disclose Rule 68 materials and to disclose Rule 66(A)(i) and (A)(ii)

15 materials. The Prosecution has done everything to enable the Defence to

16 have the Sarajevo collection very early on in electronic version, the full

17 collection.

18 At the very end of my submissions, Mr. President, Your Honours, I

19 think that many of the arguments put forward by the Defence distract from

20 the focus of the Chamber's decision of last Friday. The focus of the

21 Chamber's submission [sic] of last Friday was to keep the proceedings

22 focussed and to allow both parties to proceed in the same pace, in the

23 same quick pace as they did in the past. The Prosecution again expresses

24 its serious concerns that in the event the Defence motion for

25 reconsideration is granted, this will result in a serious delay of

1 proceedings. My learned colleagues have already indicated - and that's

2 certainly correct - that the Prosecution would be forced to call

3 additional witnesses, and then -- for example, for the Sarajevo

4 collection, that would mean that more than 350 documents would have to be

5 put to this one witness, and Defence may raise objections in respect to

6 each and every of the documents. It's hardly to imagine how many days, if

7 not weeks, such a procedure would need to be finished.

8 It appears to be far better to proceed as has been decided by the

9 Trial Chamber on Friday; namely, to stick to the decision, to not

10 reconsider the decision, and to order the Defence that they have to come

11 forward with their challenges. It's a bit odd that they say to us, "At

12 the very end of the proceedings we will explain what the challenges are

13 about, and now Prosecution, at the very end of the Prosecution case, now

14 you are obliged to bring additional witnesses to address issues of

15 authenticity, to address issues of signature, and to address the many

16 other issues which have been detailed in the Defence written submission of

17 30th of March this year."

18 Again, the Prosecution wishes this oral motion for

19 reconsideration -- for reconsideration being dismissed. Thank you very

20 much.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will render our decision at

22 the hearing tomorrow, with respect to the oral motion asking the Chamber

23 to reconsider its oral ruling of last Friday.

24 We have a witness planned for today. Before bringing the witness

25 in, I should like to say that tomorrow the hearing will begin at 2.15,

1 simply for reasons linked to a plenary that will be held at 5.00 p.m. So

2 we will have a break at 5.00 p.m., and then we will resume at 6.00 p.m.

3 So tomorrow there will be a break between 5.00 and 6.00 in the

4 afternoon, because there is a plenary meeting of the Judges of this

5 Tribunal at that time.

6 Mr. Usher, will you go and bring the witness.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Let me

9 first check that you can hear what I am saying in your own language. If

10 so, please tell me so.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber welcomes you, and

13 we wish to tell you that you have been called as a witness by the

14 Prosecution and because you're going to testify, you need to take the

15 solemn declaration. But before you do that, I need to identify you, so

16 will you please give me your first and last name.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am Sead Zeric.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And when were you born, please?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 31st of July, 1957.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current

21 occupation?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am a graduate lawyer, and I work

23 in the judiciary.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As a lawyer in the judiciary.

25 But more specifically, what is your exact position? Are you working in

1 the Ministry of Justice or in a court? Will you tell us what your exact

2 position is now.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am deputy district prosecutor for

4 Banja Luka.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And in 1993, more than ten

6 years ago, what was your position in 1993?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was district military prosecutor

8 in Travnik.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified in

10 an international or national court on the events of 1993, or is this the

11 first time that you are being asked to testify in court?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Today is the first time.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 Will you be kind enough to read the solemn declaration, please.

15 Mr. Usher will give it to you. Please read it.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

17 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated.

19 WITNESS: SEAD ZERIC

20 [Witness answered through interpreter]

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As you are a

22 prosecutor, you are surely familiar with the way in which proceedings are

23 conducted before this Tribunal. I'll provide you with certain information

24 about the procedure that will be followed here.

25 Initially you will be examined by the Prosecution. The

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 representatives of the Prosecution are to your right. They represent this

2 Tribunal's OTP.

3 Once they have completed their examination-in-chief, Defence

4 counsel, who are to your left, will conduct their cross-examination.

5 Perhaps you know them. They are to your left.

6 In addition, the three Judges sitting before you may at any point

7 in time, if they believe that it might be useful, ask you questions that

8 relate to the questions put to you by the Prosecution or the Defence, or

9 we may ask you questions if we believe that it is necessary to obtain

10 additional information, to fill in any gaps that there may be in your

11 answers.

12 As you have made a solemn declaration, this means that you should

13 speak the truth. And in the case of giving false testimony, and witness

14 may be prosecuted for having given false testimony. This is a purely

15 academic question, given your position.

16 A second matter that has to do with the procedure that is

17 followed in this Tribunal concerns the fact that if a witness provides

18 information that could at a subsequent date be used against that witness,

19 in such a case the witness may refuse to answer the question. This is a

20 procedure followed in common-law countries, but it also exists in

21 countries where continental law is in force. But if the witness refuses

22 to reply, the Trial Chamber can compel the witness to answer the question.

23 In such a case the witness has a certain form of immunity, in that the

24 information that the witness provides can't be used against the witness.

25 So this is the manner in which the proceedings will be conducted.

1 Given your position, you will be answering the questions fully and

2 precisely. There will be questions that you will have to answer,

3 questions that will be put to you by the Prosecution. You will have to

4 provide them with detailed answers. And then the Defence will ask you

5 questions. And very often when the Defence conducts its

6 cross-examination, the answers might simply be yes or no. When the Judges

7 ask you questions, the questions put to you will be very precise, and you

8 will provide the appropriate answers in such a case.

9 Roughly speaking, this is how the proceedings will be conducted.

10 Without wasting any more time - because we only have a half an hour before

11 the break - I'll now give the floor to the Prosecution.

12 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President and Your Honours.

13 And good afternoon. And good afternoon to you too, Mr. Zeric.

14 Examined by Mr. Stamp:

15 Q. First, could you tell us, please, when were you appointed the

16 district military prosecutor for Travnik.

17 A. I became the district military prosecutor on the 22nd of

18 December, 1992.

19 Q. And can you briefly, by way of introduction, just outline your

20 professional career up until that point.

21 A. When I graduated in 1980 at the Faculty of Law, after graduating,

22 I worked in an educational institute for four or five years. And then

23 from -- and then from 1995 until the beginning of the war, I worked in

24 Travnik municipality. I performed various duties and held various

25 positions. I spent the largest period of time as the main inspector in

1 the sector for protection -- defence and protection in Travnik.

2 On the 22nd of December, 1992, I was appointed as the -- as I

3 have already said, district military prosecutor.

4 Q. As district military prosecutor for Travnik, which court did you

5 work in and when was that court established?

6 A. I didn't work in a court, because the prosecutor was a separate

7 organ. It was independent of the court. And that organ was founded in

8 1992 for the first time -- or rather, in December 1992.

9 Q. And that was the district military court for Travnik?

10 A. The district military prosecutor's office. The district military

11 court was a separate organ.

12 Q. Now, the district military court in Travnik had jurisdiction for

13 which geographical areas?

14 A. Well, the geographic area corresponded, roughly speaking, to

15 canton number 6, the Central Bosnia canton. That's from Kiseljak,

16 Fojnica, Busovaca, Vitez, Novi Travnik, Travnik, Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf,

17 and Jajce. That would be the area that it covers.

18 Q. And what was the subject matter jurisdiction? And by that, I

19 mean what types of offences or crimes did the district military court in

20 Travnik have jurisdiction over?

21 A. Well, it had jurisdiction -- the district court in Travnik or the

22 district prosecutor's office had jurisdiction for all crimes, all

23 first-level crimes committed by military personnel.

24 Q. And the -- your office, the district prosecutor's office, to

25 which government agency did it belong? That is, which ministry or

1 government agency was it subordinated to?

2 A. I think it was to the Ministry of Justice at the time, and we

3 were directly linked to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bosnia

4 and Herzegovina, in terms of organisational structure.

5 Q. Thank you. The criminal cases that the court had a jurisdiction

6 over, how were these cases initiated? In other words, tell us about the

7 system, how a case came before the prosecutor's office and before the

8 court.

9 A. Well, the procedure was the usual one followed according to our

10 criminal law. All organs, all persons could file a criminal report

11 against anyone who had perpetrated a crime. Naturally, natural persons

12 were in a position to file such reports too. Most frequently reports were

13 filed by the civilian police, by the military police, by individual

14 brigades, corps, et cetera. It was very seldom done by natural persons;

15 although, such cases did exist too. Having received a criminal report,

16 the Prosecution would examine it and decide whether they should institute

17 proceedings or not if -- or continue with proceedings or not. If there

18 was sufficient evidence to continue with proceedings, we would follow the

19 law on criminal procedure at the time, and we would take measures provided

20 for by the law. In individual cases, if the law so allowed, we'd carry

21 out direct -- we'd issue direct indictments for crimes which were not so

22 serious, naturally if we had sufficient evidence. But in the case of

23 grave crimes, we would institute investigations or, rather, we would

24 suggest that the court conduct an investigation.

25 At the time, the court -- or rather, the investigative judge

1 conducted an investigation upon receiving a suggestion from the

2 prosecutor's office.

3 Q. That distinction between grave crimes that would cause you to

4 request an investigation, could you elaborate on that a little bit more.

5 What types of crimes would you have to request an investigation of an

6 investigative judge and what types of crimes would you yourself institute

7 or proffer an indictment?

8 A. Well, it depended on the -- the sentence envisaged for individual

9 crimes. For example, in the case of crimes which could be given a

10 sentence of between three and five years, I couldn't tell you precisely

11 now, because the law was amended on number of occasions and it was made

12 more severe at the time, in relation to the law in force in peacetime, but

13 we ourselves could decide in such cases whether we would accuse a person

14 or not. For other crimes, which were subject to a sentence of over three

15 or five year, we had to carry out an investigation. And a full

16 investigation would be launched by the court that had jurisdiction in the

17 case.

18 Q. You indicated that reports were sometimes made to your office by

19 brigades sometimes, by the military police and -- and from the corps.

20 Which corps are you speaking of and which brigade -- brigades and which

21 military police?

22 A. Well, I have to say that from the beginning of the war in Bosnia

23 and Herzegovina and up until the end of the war there were numerous

24 organisational changes implemented in the BH army. In fact, we only

25 received reports from units that were part of the BH army. At the

1 beginning, as far as I can remember, right up until the time when a

2 transformation was implemented in 1993, there was the 3rd Corps and the

3 brigades that formed part of the 3rd Corps, and there was the Zapad, or

4 west operative group. After the transformation was made, the 7th Corps.

5 was established, and we no longer had any points of contact -- we no

6 longer had any contact with the 3rd Corps. As far as the corps is

7 concerned, that's all I could say. But we most frequently received

8 reports from the units in the Travnik municipality and the other

9 municipalities that I have already mentioned. At the time, there was the

10 312th Brigade, then the 306th Brigade, the 17th Brigade, and brigades from

11 neighbouring towns. For example, Jajce Brigade, the Novi Travnik Brigade,

12 the Vitez and the Fojnica Brigade, et cetera, et cetera. There were seven

13 or eight brigades that would file criminal reports with the district

14 prosecutor's office in Travnik. This is what happened most frequently.

15 Q. These brigades that you just mentioned were parts of which corps?

16 Can you recall?

17 A. Well, for the most part of the war they were part of the 7th

18 Corps. I think that at the beginning of the war, up until the beginning

19 or mid-1993, I think the corps concerned was the 3rd Corps. I can't

20 exactly remember when the situation was transformed and when a new corps

21 was established.

22 Q. Just for clarification, your answer is that the -- you received

23 reports from the 3rd Corps and some of its brigades up until the point

24 when the 7th Corps was established, but you can't remember exactly when

25 the 7th Corps was established. Is that what you are saying?

1 A. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, what was the official position, military

3 position, of the persons in the brigade or the various brigades and the

4 corps that you would usually receive reports from? And to clarify that,

5 may I put it this way: Were there any military officials in the brigades

6 or in the corps that had responsibility to forward to your office reports

7 of criminal conduct by ABiH personnel?

8 A. Well, yes. There were special sectors. There were so-called

9 security services. And they would file criminal reports against people

10 who had perpetrated crimes. There were also assistants in the brigades

11 for legal affairs, and we would coordinate our activities with them. We'd

12 cooperate with them in order to discover the perpetrators of various

13 crimes in order to prosecute them. We would provide them with

14 instructions and advice, since these were mostly young lawyers. We would

15 tell them how to prepare a criminal report for further processing and how

16 to provide all the relevant documents.

17 Q. After you received a report of a criminal offence from a brigade

18 or from the corps, what was the role, if any, of the brigade or the corps

19 in any future proceedings?

20 A. Well, it didn't have any particular role in the proceedings,

21 unless the report was not quite complete. If its quality was poor, in

22 such cases we would ask for further clarifications and for additional

23 information, or we would contact the persons who had filed the report in

24 order to clarify certain issues and to obtain additional information that

25 would allow us to institute the criminal proceedings in a satisfactory

1 manner.

2 Q. During your tenure as district prosecutor for Travnik,

3 particularly in the years 1993 and 1994, or focus solely on the year 1993,

4 approximately how many reports of criminal offences or cases did you

5 receive?

6 A. Well, it's difficult to say exactly now, given the amount of time

7 that has passed. I've been a prosecutor from that time right up until

8 today, and I work on various reports on a daily basis. But on average,

9 during the wartime period we would receive between 700 and 900 reports

10 against individuals, and I am referring to individuals, not cases. Those

11 are the records that we had. But to be more precise with respect to 1993,

12 I really couldn't be more precise with respect to the year 1993.

13 Q. And can you give us an approximate breakdown as to how many of

14 these cases would be cases that would have to be forwarded, as it were, to

15 the investigative judge for further investigations and how many -- or what

16 proportion you would institute indictments?

17 A. Well, to provide you with percentages now would be very difficult

18 without having access to certain reports and to other relevant

19 information. As far as I can remember, I think that it was about -- the

20 proportion was about 50/50. I would say that about 50 per cent of the

21 cases -- for 50 per cent of the cases direct indictments were issued;

22 whereas for another 50 per cent the matter would be referred to the

23 investigative judge in order for further investigations to be conducted.

24 But I really couldn't provide you with very precise information.

25 Q. Can you tell us what types of cases were -- withdrawn. Of the

1 cases that your office had to deal with, what were the major crimes or

2 what crimes constituted a major proportion of the reports that you had to

3 deal with?

4 A. Do you mean in terms of the number of persons reported?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Well, on the whole, the largest number of persons reported were

7 reported for crimes against the armed forces. There were over 40

8 per cent -- they constitute over 40 per cent of the people concerned.

9 Then there were crimes that had to do with property, theft, aggravated

10 theft, burglary; they accounted for 15 to 20 per cent of all the criminal

11 reports. Then there were criminal reports that concerned crimes against

12 natural persons. For example, murder. And then there were various other

13 types of crimes from all the various fields.

14 Q. Briefly, if you can in a sentence, tell us what you mean when you

15 say, "There were crimes against the armed forces." What are those crimes?

16 A. Well, this concerned desertion, not obeying officers, not

17 responding to summonses, and the like.

18 Q. Now, in respect to crimes against property, could you just

19 elaborate on that a little bit. What did those crimes involve?

20 A. Theft, aggravated theft, burglary, deceit, et cetera.

21 Q. And the persons that were accused, did they generally speaking

22 belong to any particular organisation? Or may I put it this way: Did

23 they generally speaking belong to any particular unit or formation?

24 A. Yes. In 99 per cent of the cases, they were part of the BH army.

25 Q. The victims, with respect to the crimes against property, can you

1 remember if they were from any one or more ethnic group?

2 A. Well, they were members of various ethnic groups; although, I

3 would say that most of the victims, most of the injured persons were

4 Bosniaks. They belonged to the ethnic group of Bosniaks or the ethnic

5 group of Muslims.

6 Q. How about crimes against a person? Can you say anything about

7 the ethnic origin of the victims that you -- in respect to the reports

8 that you received?

9 A. Well, as far as crimes against persons are concerned, this

10 concerned Bosniaks mostly, with the exception of one or two cases. In

11 these cases, the persons concerned were Serbs or Croats. But in all the

12 other cases, the persons concerned were Bosniaks.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp, it would be best to

14 have the break now, since it is quarter to 4.00.

15 We'll have a 25-minute break and we will resume at ten past 4.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp.

19 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.

20 Q. The Travnik district military court you said was set up in

21 December 1992. For how long was it operational?

22 A. It was operational throughout the war, that is, until the

23 beginning of 1996, when it was abolished by a special law; that is, both

24 the district military court and district military prosecutors throughout

25 the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is, the area controlled by

1 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2 Q. Do you know where the records relating to matters that it had

3 dealt with were kept?

4 A. The legal successor of the district military court was the higher

5 court in Zenica, and then later, with the establishment of cantonal

6 prosecutor's offices and courts, these courts and prosecutor's offices

7 took all the records over. In the case of Travnik, it is the canton

8 district court and the canton prosecutor.

9 Q. Can you recall whether the Travnik district military court

10 prosecuted any ABiH soldiers for the burning of Croat houses during 1993,

11 1994, 1995, 1996?

12 A. As far as I can remember, it did not.

13 Q. Can you recall if you received any reports from ABiH military

14 units about ABiH soldiers being involved in burning Croat homes?

15 A. I never received any such report.

16 Q. Did the district military court prosecute any ABiH soldiers for

17 any war crimes or crimes against humanity, and did you receive any report

18 against any ABiH soldiers for those offences?

19 A. As far as I can recall, for such offences or crimes I did not

20 receive criminal reports from anyone.

21 Q. More specifically, did your office or the district military court

22 receive reports of crimes of murder committed against Croat civilians or

23 HVO soldiers by ABiH troops?

24 A. To the best of my recollection, I think that there were very few

25 such reports against members of soldiers of the ABiH because of killing

1 HVO soldiers, but I think we did receive a report against three soldiers

2 who killed a Croat civilian in the area of Turbe in the Travnik

3 municipality.

4 Q. Can you recall any report that you received in respect of ABiH

5 soldiers killing prisoners of war or any prisoner at all?

6 A. We never received any such report.

7 Q. Did you receive any report alleging that ABiH soldiers mistreated

8 HVO prisoners of war?

9 A. I never received any such report.

10 Q. And did you receive any reports of -- alleging that ABiH soldiers

11 mistreated civilian prisoners in custody in any particular place?

12 A. As far as I can recollect, I never received any such report, nor

13 am I aware of any civilians being held in any place within the territory

14 of the prosecutor's office for which we had authority.

15 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honours. I

16 have nothing further of this witness.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I now give the floor to the

18 Defence.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

20 Cross-examined by Ms. Residovic:

21 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Zeric.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in connection with

23 your oral ruling regarding the duration of the cross-examination, I should

24 kindly request that we be allowed longer time for this witness than used

25 by the Prosecution for this witness, as this is a witness who can provide

1 the Court with important information on measures taken, and those measures

2 taken are an essential element of command responsibility. So I think that

3 the Defence has a special interest in cross-examining this witness about

4 those matters.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you know, there are two

6 Defence teams plus -- which means that you have 50 per cent more than the

7 time envisaged. If you go beyond that, we will see. In any event, the

8 Judges may also have questions for this witness, but you may begin.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 Q. Mr. Zeric, my name is Edina Residovic, and I am Defence counsel

11 for General Hadzihasanovic. Let me start immediately with questions so

12 that we can make the best of the time that we have at our disposal.

13 In answer to a question from my learned friend you said that you

14 were prosecutor of the district military court in Travnik from the 22nd of

15 December, 1992; is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you held that position until those district prosecutor's

18 offices were abolished, and that was in February 1996; is that right?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. After the district military prosecutor's office was abolished in

21 1996, you performed the duties of municipal prosecutor; is that right?

22 A. No. After that, I was deputy of the higher prosecutor in Zenica,

23 until September -- or rather, until the end of 1996. And after that, I

24 was appointed Deputy Minister of Justice in the government of the Central

25 Bosnian canton in 1997 and 1998. As of 1999 until the end of 2003, I was

1 municipal prosecutor in Vitez.

2 Q. Thank you. For the record, as during the examination-in-chief it

3 was noted in the record that from 1995 until the beginning of the war you

4 performed various duties in Travnik. Would it be correct to say that it

5 was from 1985 until the beginning of the war that you held various duties?

6 A. Yes, roughly. That is the period I meant. I don't remember the

7 exact dates.

8 Q. I just made the correction because of the transcript, where the

9 year was incorrectly noted.

10 You said that you were elected deputy district prosecutor in

11 Banja Luka. Is it true, Mr. Zeric, that for the last two years a major

12 reform of the judicial system is underway so that all the personnel, both

13 prosecutors and judges, have been subject to detailed review?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The election to positions of prosecutors and judges was done by a

16 special commission; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Those commissions, in addition to domestic lawyers, international

19 lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and other prominent international experts

20 are members; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The presidents of the independent commissions are also

23 foreigners.

24 A. Yes, that's right too.

25 Q. Actually, you applied for the position of deputy prosecutor in

1 Banja Luka, and after the procedure you were nominated to that position;

2 is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You were appointed, rather.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. As for a number of years you were a prosecutor, I believe that

7 you are very familiar with criminal law and legal proceedings, so that I

8 have a few questions for you in that area.

9 Is it true to say that district military prosecutor's offices

10 were formed by a decree with a force of law in August 1992? That

11 decree --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.

14 Q. So these district prosecutor's offices were formed on the 13th of

15 August, 1992 but that decree did not envisage the existence of a military

16 prosecutor's office in Travnik, so that it was amended in November 1992

17 when this particular prosecutor's office was established; is that right?

18 A. I can't confirm that with certainty, but I do know that the

19 district prosecutor's office -- military prosecutor's office and court was

20 formed in the autumn of 1992 and that I was appointed on the 22nd of

21 December. I know that for sure. Now, whether the actual wording of the

22 law envisaged this or was it through subsequent amendments, I'm not sure.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the

24 decree with the force of law on military prosecutor's offices. We have

25 copies.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is probably a copy that is

2 authentic and identical with the original, I assume.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. This decree, item 4, did not make provision for a district

5 military prosecutor's office in Travnik; is that right?

6 A. That is what the article says.

7 Q. However, the decree did regulate the main competencies of the

8 prosecutor and his legal position; is that right?

9 A. Yes, in items 5 and onwards -- Article 5 and onwards.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in view of the

11 fact that we haven't managed to translate the amended decree of the 10th

12 of November, 1992, which regulates the existence of the district court in

13 Travnik, we believe that it is of interest for these proceedings for the

14 B/C/S version to be shown to the witness, as it is brief. He can read it

15 out. And we will provide a translation of that decree subsequently.

16 Could the witness be handed a copy in the B/C/S language, that

17 is, the amended decree on the district military prosecutor's office, which

18 provides for the formation of a district prosecutor's office in Travnik.

19 Q. Mr. Zeric, would you be kind enough to read Article 1, as it only

20 has two articles, so that the amendment to the previous-mentioned decree

21 on district public prosecutor's office may be recorded.

22 A. "Decree with law of force are being added two paragraphs: The

23 district military court in Gorazde and Livno, as well as Travnik to cover

24 the territory of the district military court in Travnik."

25 Q. Mr. Zeric, do you recognise these decrees with the force of law

1 on the basis of which the public prosecutor's office, of which you were

2 the prosecutor, was formed?

3 A. Yes. Those are the decrees on the basis of which we operated.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as the witness is

5 familiar with these laws, and they were published in the Official Gazette,

6 I should like to tender both documents into evidence as Defence exhibits.

7 And the Defence promises to provide an English translation of the

8 amendment to the decree.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp, regarding this

10 document, which might have been tendered by the Prosecution as well, which

11 should have been tendered, actually, what are your remarks regarding the

12 Defence request for the admission of this document?

13 MR. STAMP: We have no objections.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

15 Mr. Registrar, will you give these documents exhibit numbers.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the decree on the law on military

17 prosecution -- military prosecutor's offices will have the exhibit number

18 DH115, and the English version DH115/E; and the exhibit titled, "Amended

19 decree on the military district prosecutor's office," dated 10th November

20 1992 will have exhibit numbers DH116 and the English version, when

21 tendered, will be DH116/E.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Mr. Zeric, is it true that the competencies of your prosecutor's

25 office covered the municipalities of Travnik, Gornji Vakuf, Jajce, Vitez,

1 Novi Travnik, Busovaca, Fojnica, and Kiseljak, which corresponded to the

2 competencies of the district military court in Travnik?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is it also true that already by the end of 1992 most of the

5 municipalities of Donji Vakuf and Jajce fell into the hands of the Serb

6 forces so that you were not able to perform your prosecutor's duties?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is it also true that at the beginning of 1993 and in accordance

9 with the request of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna on the

10 formation of parallel organs of authority, that courts and prosecutor's

11 offices of the HVO were formed which were operational in Travnik until

12 June 1993, upon which they moved to Vitez? Is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is it true that in the first half of 1993 there were two

15 prosecutor's bodies, that is, the district military prosecutor's office,

16 which you headed, and the prosecutor's office of the HVO?

17 A. Yes, that is true. But also there was the basic public

18 prosecutor's office for civilian affairs that was housed in the same

19 building.

20 Q. Is it true, Mr. Zeric, that by the spring of 1993 the HVO had

21 full control over the municipalities of Kiseljak, Busovaca, Vitez, and

22 most of the municipality of Novi Travnik, parts of municipality of Fojnica

23 so that you were not able to perform your prosecutor's duties in the

24 territories of these municipalities?

25 A. It is true that they had control over these -- parts of these

1 territories. To what extent, I really don't know. But wherever the HVO

2 had control, we were unable to perform the duties of prosecution.

3 Q. So you will agree with me, Mr. Zeric, if I say that the military

4 police and its security organs and the prosecutor's office, as a part of

5 this institution, could not undertake any measures in the territories

6 under the HVO?

7 A. No civilian or military body had any authority in territories

8 controlled by the HVO in that time period.

9 Q. You have already said, if I understood you correctly, that the

10 district military prosecutor's office and the military court in Travnik

11 had real competence for the prosecution of members of the army for all

12 kinds of criminal offences; is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. A moment ago, in answer to another question I put to you, you

15 said that there was also a basic prosecutor's office in Travnik as well as

16 a basic prosecutor's office in Bugojno; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Both these prosecutor's offices, in accordance with the law,

19 prosecuted perpetrators of criminal offences that envisaged a sentence up

20 to ten years; whereas for worse crimes, the higher prosecutor's office in

21 Zenica was responsible.

22 A. Yes, exclusively for civilians.

23 Q. Before the war, the basic and higher prosecutor's offices had

24 competencies over all persons but with the passing of this decree on

25 district public prosecutor's offices there was a separation of

1 competencies in view of the nature of the perpetrators; is that right?

2 A. As far as I can recall, yes. But before the war, there were also

3 military tribunals attached to the former Yugoslav army, and they were

4 competent for certain offences.

5 Q. Quite right. They were competent for military personnel who

6 committed acts against the armed forces; is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. However, the procedure in district military courts and the acts

9 of the prosecutor's offices were guided by the Law on Criminal Procedure

10 of the SFRY, which Bosnia and Herzegovina took over as its own in 1992.

11 A. Yes. We worked fully in accordance with the Criminal Code and

12 the Law on Criminal Procedure of the former SFRY.

13 Q. When talking about the Criminal Code, which regulated material

14 criminal offences, that is, stipulated the criminal offences for which

15 persons may be prosecuted, you applied the criminal law of the SFRY, which

16 was taken over by Bosnia and Herzegovina as its own, and which contained

17 certain general elements of responsibility and crimes and specific crimes,

18 and in addition, you applied the law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia

19 and Herzegovina, which regulated the remaining criminal offences; is that

20 right?

21 A. Yes. We acted in accordance with the laws you have mentioned,

22 which were taken over by decree and became the laws of Bosnia and

23 Herzegovina.

24 Q. In the course of 1992, the Presidency on a number of occasions,

25 as you noted a moment ago, took certain decisions to amend the existing

1 laws; however, not one of those amendments changed the position of the

2 prosecutor in the criminal proceedings. Is that right?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 Q. In that period of time, like the other judicial entities, you

5 were in a rather difficult situation because Sarajevo was under siege and

6 legal regulations and acts from Sarajevo and towards Sarajevo couldn't

7 really travel. It was not possible to deliver them.

8 A. This was partially true. But we managed using various channels

9 and fax machines to receive certain regulations with a great deal of

10 delay. That is true.

11 Q. However, to ensure the unhindered functioning of the judiciary,

12 in Zenica in mid-1993 a department of the Supreme Court was set up to deal

13 with appeals against rulings of courts outside Sarajevo; is that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In view of the fact that you already told me that military

16 prosecutor's offices had certain competencies, as stipulated by the Penal

17 Code and the decree on public prosecutor's offices, I should like to ask

18 you to assist the Chamber in a better understanding of your role to

19 confirm for me whether I am right in saying that your competencies were to

20 be an organ of the judiciary, rather than an organ of the armed forces.

21 A. Yes. We were an organ of the judiciary, and this is corroborated

22 by the fact that regular courts at the second instance also prosecuted the

23 same crimes as we did.

24 Q. The material obligations toward the district military

25 prosecutor's office and the district court was in the hands of the

1 Ministry of Justice; whereas, administrative affairs were regulated by the

2 Ministry of Justice.

3 A. Nobody performed any -- had any financial obligations towards us,

4 though the decree with the law -- with the force of law did say that. But

5 organisationally we were directly linked to the Ministry of Justice.

6 Q. With regard to your main function of prosecution, your superior

7 body, though you were independent within the framework of the law, but the

8 superior body to you was the republic prosecutor's office. That could

9 give you instructions and assignments?

10 A. Yes, certainly. That is the system that was applied at the time.

11 Q. The competence of military prosecutor's offices was identical

12 with the competencies of public prosecutor's offices and was specified by

13 Article 45 of the Law on Legal Procedure and Article 5 of the decree on

14 district public prosecutor's offices.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Those duties and functions of public prosecutor's offices were to

17 prosecute perpetrators of criminal acts and within that framework the

18 prosecutor was duty-bound to take steps to discover crimes, find the

19 perpetrators, and to prosecute them; also, to request an investigation, to

20 issue indictments or proposals for indictments, and finally, to deal with

21 appeals against court decisions.

22 A. Yes. Everything that is stipulated in Article 5 of the decree

23 with the law on force -- with the force of law on public prosecutor's

24 offices.

25 Q. The military public prosecutor, like the public prosecutor, in

1 order to conduct these criminal proceedings, could start such proceedings

2 upon receiving a criminal report or upon discovering a crime; is that

3 right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You already told my learned friend that criminal reports could be

6 filed by various bodies, military bodies, then the civilian police, and

7 also by citizens directly. Is it true that in accordance with the law

8 such reports could be filed orally and in written form?

9 A. Yes, and also if the prosecutor should learn of such an act on

10 his own.

11 Q. You also said that according to your -- to the best of your

12 recollection in 1993 the most frequent bodies to file such reports were

13 the military police, brigades, the security bodies of brigades and

14 operational groups, and other military bodies; is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Is it true, Mr. Zeric, that when you receive a criminal report or

17 when you learn of the commission of a criminal act before instituting

18 criminal proceedings you needed to take certain preliminary steps

19 envisaged by Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code so as to

20 discover an unknown perpetrator or to collect elements or clues to

21 elucidate the existence of a criminal act?

22 A. Yes, we had the authority to undertake certain investigating

23 steps in the pre-trial proceedings and to provide additional information

24 attached to the criminal report itself.

25 Q. Actually, when you passed on such a request for verification to

1 the security body or to the military or civilian police, you were the

2 so-called dominus litis, and these bodies had to act in accordance with

3 your instructions; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Mr. Zeric, would it be correct to say that when you would find

6 out that a crime had been committed, and in particular a crime that

7 required the evidence in the field to be secured, in such cases the

8 investigative judge, before conducting the proceedings, had to take up

9 certain measures; for example, an on-site investigation, and after that it

10 was his duty to inform the prosecutor concerned?

11 A. Yes, of course. In particular cases, the police or the security

12 services would contact the investigative judge, who would carry out the

13 investigations for which he had authority in accordance with the law.

14 Q. Mr. Zeric, I will now show you a record of an on-site

15 investigation so as to demonstrate to the Trial Chamber the manner in

16 which the Prosecution and the court proceeded in accordance with the law.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we will be showing

18 the witness a number of documents. And to make it easier to follow this,

19 when we have a number of documents, the legal status of which is the same,

20 in such cases we will ask them to be given just one number. So for all

21 these documents, we have a list of the documents that we will be tendering

22 into evidence. In this case, it's -- we just have one document.

23 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated]

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

25 MR. STAMP: I'm sorry. May I just inquire from the Court if

1 these documents are related to the indictment. I see they're in B/C/S --

2 oh, there's a -- there's a question whether or not the documents are

3 related to the indictment or these are just some documents selected

4 randomly and proffered to us for whatever purpose my learned friend might

5 wish to use it.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. This record that we don't

7 have, is it being shown to the witness in order to illustrate his duties

8 as a military prosecutor, or does this document have to do with an element

9 contained in the indictment? I think that that is the first part of the

10 question. Could you answer the question, Mrs. Residovic.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, showing this

12 document to be witness has two purposes. Firstly, it's in order to have a

13 better understanding of the procedure that the witness was involved in, in

14 accordance with the law. But it's far more important to use this document

15 to show the measures that were taken when a crime had been discovered

16 during the time period referred to in the indictment. And this directly

17 concerns command responsibility.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So the first

19 document, what is it exactly, the document that you want to show the

20 witness? We don't have it.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have provided a

22 sufficient number of copies for the Trial Chamber too.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

24 Very well. Go ahead with your question.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Mr. Zeric, is this the situation that we have just discussed:

2 When an investigative judge, even before criminal proceedings were

3 instituted, went to the site of a crime given that a crime had been

4 perpetrated?

5 A. Yes, this is one of the numerous records of an on-site

6 investigation carried out, compiled by the investigative judge from the

7 district military court. And it was made before the criminal report was

8 filed, because usually the investigative judge would go to carry out an

9 on-site investigation when the police would request him to do so -- or

10 rather, when the Prosecution would request him to do so.

11 Q. Could you please have a look at the last sentence on the first

12 page, where reference -- where it is said that a person who had a military

13 identity card of the BH army participated in this action. It was issued

14 by the 17th Brigade, and it shows that this person was dismissed from the

15 unit on the 1st of April, 1994. With regard to this, my question to you

16 is: Was it quite frequent for certain crimes to be perpetrated by

17 people -- by persons who weren't members of the army -- or rather, by

18 persons who had deserted from the army or by persons who wore uniforms and

19 falsely claimed to be army members?

20 A. Well, there were such cases too. But I couldn't say that this

21 occurred frequently. Nevertheless, such cases did occur, and people who

22 weren't members of any units in the area under our control participated in

23 the commission of crimes.

24 Q. Thank you very much.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness didn't

1 draft this document, and in accordance with the practice of this Trial

2 Chamber to date I shouldn't tender this document into evidence. As a

3 result, I only suggest that this document be marked for identification.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution, do you

5 have any objections to raise? The Defence is requesting that the document

6 be marked for identification.

7 Mr. Stamp.

8 MR. STAMP: No objections at this point, Mr. President. However,

9 I have some reservation. I hope to read the document by the time the

10 re-examination -- the cross-examination is over. And when I do so, I

11 might have a submission to make.

12 Thank you very much, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But in any event, we will

14 mark the document for identification.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that document will be Defence

16 Exhibit DH117.1 ID, and the English version DH117.1/E ID.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown

18 Defence Exhibit DH55. This will enable me to put certain questions to the

19 witness.

20 Q. Mr. Zeric, you have before you a decree on the establishment of

21 district military courts. A while ago, in response to a question put to

22 you by my colleague from the Prosecution, you said that district military

23 courts and district military prosecutor's offices had jurisdiction to

24 prosecute perpetrators of crime if they were members of the army.

25 Mr. Zeric, would it be correct to say that in accordance with

1 Article 9 of that decree when military personnel committed crimes together

2 with civilians they couldn't be prosecuted by military courts? In such

3 cases, they would be prosecuted by the regular courts, rather -- or

4 rather, the regular prosecution offices would take over the prosecution?

5 A. Yes. According to Article 9, paragraph 1, if civilians and

6 military personnel committed a crime, then it was the regular court that

7 had jurisdiction.

8 Q. In such cases, gathering evidence and investigations would be

9 carried out by the civilian police.

10 A. In certain cases, yes, the civilian police would be involved.

11 But sometimes the military police would get involved. It depended on

12 where the crime was committed, because quite frequently the crime was

13 committed in the vicinity of the lines and the civilian police couldn't

14 gain access to such a location.

15 Q. Mr. Zeric, would it also be correct to say that the military

16 prosecution and the courts in certain situations also had competence to

17 prosecute civilians if civilians committed crimes against the armed

18 forces?

19 A. Yes, that's correct. That is also contained in the decree.

20 Q. Thank you very much.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] You can return the document that

22 has already been admitted into evidence.

23 Q. Mr. Zeric, I'll now ask you some questions that have to do with

24 the conditions in which you worked and the organs for the detection of

25 crime, as they provided you with most of the criminal reports. Would it

1 be correct to say that the military prosecutor's office in Travnik and the

2 criminal organs from the BH army in 1993 were facing many problems when it

3 came to performing their duties?

4 A. Yes, absolutely. Because we didn't have conditions of any kind

5 which would allow us to work.

6 Q. You personally, as the district military prosecutor, addressed

7 the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the organs of the

8 Travnik municipality on a number of occasions in order to be provided with

9 the minimum conditions for your work.

10 A. Yes, that's correct. I addressed them both orally and in writing

11 on a number of occasions.

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll now ask for two documents to

13 be shown to you. We could have one number for these documents, because

14 they are of the same kind.

15 Q. Mr. Zeric, my first question is as follows: Would it be correct

16 to say that you signed document number 24 through 93, dated the 20th of

17 July, 1993 addressed to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Bosnia

18 and Herzegovina as well as a document dated the 14th of September, 1993,

19 number 34/93, which you addressed to the executive -- to the district of

20 Travnik, to the executive committee in Travnik?

21 A. Yes, to the Travnik district. It's true to say that I signed

22 these two documents, but it went to the district of Travnik, because at

23 the time in the canton the Travnik district was in function.

24 Q. Would it be correct to say that these are only some of the

25 numerous documents that you forwarded to these bodies in connection with

1 the same subject, given that your financial resources were almost

2 non-existent?

3 A. Yes, that's correct, because the conditions we lived in and

4 worked in together were almost impossible.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, given that the

6 witness himself has drafted these documents, he has recognised them as

7 such, I suggest that these two documents be given one number and that they

8 be admitted into evidence.

9 MR. STAMP: No objections. May it please you, Mr. President.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Registrar,

11 could we have an exhibit number, please.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Defence Exhibit

13 DH117.2; and the English version, DH117.2/E.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Zeric, would it be correct to say that in 1993 in the area

16 covered by your prosecution's office a large number of refugees who didn't

17 have a permanent place to live in and didn't have papers passed through

18 your area, and it was very difficult to determine who had committed

19 certain acts?

20 A. It's true to say that throughout the area of Krajina and the

21 municipality of Jajce many people passed through Travnik. There were many

22 refugees, and a lot of crimes were committed and the perpetrator of the

23 crime was not identified, was not known. I couldn't provide you with an

24 exact number.

25 Q. Would it also be correct to say that in many places where crimes

1 had allegedly been committed these places were quite far from the

2 prosecutor's office and it was very difficult to gain access to many of

3 the sites concerned because of the lie of the land on the one hand, but,

4 on the other hand, because of the fighting that was ongoing throughout

5 1993?

6 A. Yes, absolutely. It's true to say that we had very limited

7 access to various areas for security reasons, and the area of our

8 jurisdiction was affected by fighting. There were minefields in that

9 area, et cetera. And we and the investigative judge found it very

10 difficult to collect evidence of any kind. Although, in a larger number

11 of cases we actually had to go into the field, where we instigated

12 investigations. For example, in Bugojno and Vitez, we instigated

13 investigations in the immediate vicinity of the front line.

14 Q. Would it be correct if I said that the military police and

15 brigades and operative groups and the security bodies were -- consisted of

16 mobilised persons who didn't have the relevant professional experience in

17 many cases, so it was necessary to make a special effort in order to train

18 them and allow them to carry out their duties?

19 A. Yes, that is absolutely correct. Very few brigades and security

20 organs had professionally trained personnel and lawyers. All the other

21 persons were mobilised, and we gave them instructions and advice on a

22 daily basis in order to try and ensure that they could perform their

23 duties in accordance with the law and so that they could provide us with

24 the appropriate documents which would allow us to continue with the

25 criminal proceedings.

1 Q. Mr. Zeric, would it also be correct to say that given the

2 constant fighting in your area in the course of 1993 units of the military

3 police often had to participate in the fighting at the front line, so they

4 were not in a position to carry out their basic tasks?

5 A. Yes, that's absolutely correct. And that didn't only concern the

6 military police. The civilian police would also quite frequently

7 participate in the fighting.

8 Q. Would

9 Q. Would it also be correct to say that your duties had to be

10 performed in conditions that made it impossible to permanently control the

11 area, given that it was a vast mountainous region which had been abandoned

12 by property owners? So many of the buildings and facilities had been

13 abandoned. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes, that's absolutely correct. Because in most of the areas

15 over which we had jurisdiction, in most of these areas no one had control

16 over them. The lines changed on a daily basis. The battlefields changed

17 on a daily basis. And this was particularly evident in the area of Gornji

18 and Donji Vakuf, and in Fojnica, Kiseljak, et cetera. In Travnik, the

19 situation was somewhat better and to a large extent we were able to

20 control the situation, apart from areas where the Serbian army had its

21 units and where the HVO was present.

22 Q. Given the performance of your duties in the course of 1993,

23 Mr. Zeric, could you confirm that a large number of crimes perpetrated in

24 such a vast area were confirmed -- were perpetrated at night, so it was

25 very difficult to discover who the perpetrators of the crimes were?

1 A. Well, if those crimes had been committed during the daytime, we

2 would have continued to prosecute them. But most of the crimes were

3 committed at night, mostly crimes such as theft, et cetera, so that we

4 were not in a position to prosecute the perpetrators of those crimes, even

5 when we found out about them.

6 Q. Mr. Zeric, would it be correct to say that in 1993 there was

7 widespread hunger and this was quite frequently a reason for which various

8 individuals, civilians and members of the military, decided to turn to

9 crime and to steal other people's property?

10 A. Yes. What you have just said is absolutely correct, because most

11 of the population was starving, and there were very noticeable cases. For

12 example, for half a bag of flour we would give individuals a sentence of

13 four, five years in prison. So that year was extremely difficult,

14 especially when there was a direct conflict between the BH army and the

15 HVO.

16 Q. In response to a question put to you by my colleague from the

17 Prosecution, you said that you didn't receive certain criminal reports for

18 certain crimes. Could you tell me: Would it be correct to say that many

19 of the Croats who could have been injured by crimes left the area that you

20 controlled and you couldn't gain access to them in order to obtain

21 information or in order to check whether a crime had been committed in a

22 given location?

23 A. Yes, it's correct to say that most of the Croatian population

24 fled in the course of the conflict between the army and the HVO. They

25 fled to the area controlled by the HVO. So entire villages and entire

1 neighbourhoods in towns remained abandoned.

2 Q. In spite of the problems that I have mentioned, would it be

3 correct to say that the police, the military police and you as the

4 prosecutor, paid particular attention to the policies implemented when

5 prosecuting perpetrators of crimes against ethnic minorities and

6 perpetrators of crimes when this involved abandoned facilities?

7 A. Well, I don't know what you mean when you say, "Particular

8 attention." To the extent that this was possible for us, we tried to

9 prosecute all the perpetrators of crimes. But as far as the courts and

10 the prosecutor's offices are concerned -- well, I can confirm this. But

11 as far as the police and the security organs participated in this, in

12 abandoned parts of towns and villages, I really couldn't say. I wasn't

13 there. And we didn't receive regular and daily reports about the

14 situation in such places.

15 Q. In accordance with the decree on district military prosecutor's

16 offices, you together with the BH army -- or rather, its police force, you

17 worked together; you cooperated. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Could you say -- could you tell the Trial Chamber what the nature

20 of this cooperation was. Would you say that you cooperated successfully

21 when carrying out a task?

22 A. On the whole, I would say that the cooperation was good,

23 especially when these units became, so to speak, serious units. At the

24 beginning, there were grave problems because certain units were not under

25 anyone's control. But when the corps and brigades had been established --

1 or rather, when the security organs were established, I think that the

2 cooperation we had was quite good, in view of our real possibilities and

3 in view of the personnel we had at our disposal.

4 Q. Given everything that you have just said, the numerous problems

5 that you faced when performing your duties and because it was impossible

6 to determine who the perpetrators of certain crimes were, in many cases

7 all you had were criminal reports against unidentified persons; is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes. There were a lot of criminal reports, but I couldn't tell

10 you how many exactly because I don't have such information.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would now like

12 to show the witness a few examples of criminal reports filed against

13 unidentified perpetrators. They were forwarded to the witness's office,

14 to the prosecution's office. So could these criminal reports be shown to

15 the witness.

16 Mr. President, from the archives of the cantonal court in

17 Travnik, which is where these reports were found, we have only taken four

18 reports. And if the witness recognises the reports, we suggest that only

19 one number be given to them when admitting them into evidence.

20 Q. Mr. Zeric, as you can see, there are four criminal reports here.

21 They were filed against unknown perpetrators. Two are filed for the crime

22 of aggravated theft; one for the crime of armed robbery; and one for

23 aggravated robbery. My question is: Are these criminal reports that we

24 have just spoken about, reports filed against unidentified perpetrators,

25 because in spite of all the efforts made by the police forces it was not

1 possible to determine who the perpetrators of these crimes were?

2 A. Are you asking me whether these reports were filed with the

3 prosecutor's office? Yes, these reports were filed with our office, and

4 we took certain measures in accordance with the law. But we weren't able

5 to perform all our duties because we weren't even able to prosecute the

6 perpetrators of crime who were known, given the conditions we were working

7 in.

8 Q. If you have a look at the names of the injured parties, you will

9 see that in all these cases these criminal reports concerned the damage

10 done to ethnic minorities. On the whole, this concerns Croats.

11 A. Yes, on the whole, it concerns villages inhabited by Croats.

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since the witness

13 has recognised the criminal reports forwarded to the prosecutor's office

14 and on the basis of which he took certain actions, I suggest that one

15 number be given to these four criminal reports and that they be admitted

16 into evidence.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Microphone not activated] [In English]

18 Mr. Stamp, no objections?

19 MR. STAMP: No objections, subject to the previous reservations

20 that we need to have a good look at these documents.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let us have a number, please.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this would be Defence

23 Exhibit DH118.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. DH118, and a number

25 for the English translation, as we have copies in B/C/S and in English.

1 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, Your Honours. The English version

2 would be marked DH118/E.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation].

5 Q. Mr. Zeric, answering questions from the Prosecution, you already

6 said that in this time period you received a large number of criminal

7 reports against a large number of perpetrators. True enough, you were

8 unable to give a precise number. You said it was between 700 and 900. Is

9 it true that every year you drafted an annual report which you submitted

10 to the republic prosecutor's office and the defence ministry, indicating

11 all the acts undertaken by the prosecutor's office?

12 A. Yes, we did. Like all the other public and military prosecutor's

13 offices.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the witness

15 to be shown the annual report for the year 1993.

16 Q. Mr. Zeric, is this an annual report that you filed for 1993?

17 A. Yes, it is the report that we sent to the competent body.

18 Q. On page 2, under paragraph 2 you will find that in this period,

19 that is, 1993, you received a total of 823 criminal reports against 1.000

20 persons.

21 A. Yes, the figure is correct.

22 Q. Under paragraph 3, it says that you filed 83 requests for

23 collecting necessary information. Is that true that that means that out

24 of the total of 823 criminal reports 83 did not provide sufficient grounds

25 for a decision so you requested additional information from the entities

1 who filed the reports to amend those reports or to check out the

2 information they had provided you with?

3 A. What is written in this report is correct.

4 Q. In paragraph 5, the structure of the perpetrators, you have said

5 that out of the total number 627 members of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and

6 Herzegovina were charged; is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since the witness

9 has recognised this report as being his own and since the report contains

10 all the activities undertaken by the prosecutor's office in 1993, under

11 conditions described by the witness, and they are significant for taking

12 steps against members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I would like

13 to tender this document into evidence as a Defence exhibit.

14 MR. STAMP: No objections.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Registrar, can

16 we have an exhibit number, please.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document will be Defence

18 Exhibit DH119, and the English version, DH119/E.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Zeric, is it true that you also sent to the Ministry of

21 Defence and other bodies monthly information on the activities of the

22 military prosecutor's office and that every six months you filed a

23 semi-annual report?

24 A. We did send those reports, but remember -- but please believe I

25 can't remember whether this was every six months or at larger intervals,

1 but I really can't remember exactly what was happening in that time

2 period.

3 Q. To remind you, I should like to give you a number of monthly

4 reports and a semi-annual report for 1994, which covers some activities

5 for 1993, so as to be able to ask you a few more questions.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] There are six documents in this

7 pile, Mr. President. And if the witness recognises these documents, we

8 would like to tender them as a single exhibit.

9 A. Yes, these are brief reports that we sent to competent bodies

10 regularly. I've just remembered that we did this every month in

11 abbreviated form simply to have -- for those competent bodies to have

12 insight into the situation.

13 Q. You signed all these documents, didn't you?

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. These monthly reports contain the number of measures that you

16 took on the basis of reports received, requests for investigation, the

17 number of indicted persons, and other acts undertaken by the prosecutor

18 during that month.

19 A. All the acts that we undertook in that month were contained in

20 the report.

21 Q. The report also contains a breakdown of the criminal offences for

22 which certain persons were indicted for that month; is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In view of the fact that the

25 witness has confirmed that these are his reports and that these reports

1 have a breakdown of the indicted persons, members of the Army of Bosnia

2 and Herzegovina and their number, as well as the breakdown of the offences

3 for which those persons were charged, I would like to tender these reports

4 into evidence as an exhibit.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp.

6 MR. STAMP: No objection.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. A number, please,

8 Mr. Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit

10 DH11 -- 120, and the English version, DH120/E.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Zeric, is it true that in our criminal proceedings certain

14 acts are reported that are significant for the offence; whereas the legal

15 assessment of those acts is actually made by the court?

16 A. Yes, that's true. The court is not bound by the legal

17 qualification given by the author of the report.

18 Q. So you as the district prosecutor or your deputies, once you

19 received a criminal report from military security organs or the military

20 police, you were bound only by the description of the act and not by the

21 legal assessment given of that act; is that right?

22 A. We just studied the act committed by the perpetrator without

23 attaching much significance to the way they qualified it.

24 Q. So you've just said that, and we have provided the Trial Chamber

25 with abstracts from the law on criminal proceedings. Article 346 clearly

1 says that the court was not bound by the legal assessment given by the

2 prosecutor in his indictment. Even that was not binding.

3 A. Yes, that was the rule that was always in force.

4 Q. Actually, the court was bound only by the factual description,

5 the facts, and the facts relating to the perpetrator; is that right?

6 A. Yes, that is absolutely correct.

7 Q. Answering questions from my learned friend as to whether you had

8 received any reports of war crimes, your answer was no for 1993. Is it

9 true that criminal acts against international law were stipulated by the

10 Criminal Code of SFRY, which our state took over as its own?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is it true that the war crime against the civilian population

13 included ordering killing, inhuman treatment, a violation of a body of

14 integrity, looting of property, arbitrary destruction of property, or

15 appropriation of such property on a large scale? Does this remind you of

16 some of the basic characteristics of war crimes against the civilian

17 population?

18 A. As you are quoting from the provisions of that law, as far as I

19 can remember that is quite correct.

20 Q. In answer to a question from the Prosecutor, you said that you

21 had criminal reports for killings, theft, and burglary. Is it true to say

22 that on the basis of a preliminary assessment of such a report you did not

23 feel that such an act could be qualified as a war crime against civilians

24 because the circumstances of such an offence were specific acts such as

25 murder, theft, burglary, et cetera?

1 A. Yes, that is quite right. I've already said that we could not

2 qualify such descriptions as being such criminal offences, as far as I can

3 recall.

4 Q. Similarly, criminal reports -- or rather, your indictments for

5 thefts from abandoned Croat homes, burglary or armed robbery against

6 Croats, aggravated robbery or murder of Croats were not qualified even by

7 courts as war crimes against civilians, even though all those acts were

8 described in your indictments.

9 A. What -- are you talking about crimes against civilians or about

10 killing or about robbery with injury of body and limb? I didn't quite

11 understand the context of the question.

12 Q. I apologise. I'll repeat myself. A moment ago you told me that

13 stealing private property can be part of a criminal offence. And if a

14 certain military person stole a piece of property, a fridge or a horse or

15 something like that, from the house of a Croat inhabitant who had

16 abandoned the area, that description of an act was not qualified by you as

17 a war crime but as an aggravated theft. And when you indicted somebody

18 for this aggravated theft, as the court is not bound by your

19 qualification, even the court never qualified such an act as a war crime.

20 A. There wasn't a single element that would justify being qualified

21 as a war crime in those reports or those that were processed by the

22 prosecutor's office.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps now would

24 be a good time for the break. And I wish to inform you that my learned

25 friends from Mr. Kubura's Defence have told me that they will have no

1 questions for this witness, so I would like to ask you kindly to give me

2 some additional time for this witness, to whom I should like to show some

3 more documents.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. After the break, we only

5 have three-quarters of an hour left. How much more time do you need?

6 Because Judges have questions too, and I think that the Prosecution will

7 have some re-examination. So how much time do you need?

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have about ten

9 questions, but I have a number of documents too, four groups of documents

10 which I should like the witness to look at, and that would be the end of

11 my cross-examination. So I don't have many questions, ten on the outside.

12 MR. STAMP: In any case, Mr. President, it is probable that we

13 might request the benefit of a long break or the overnight break before we

14 re-examine, having regard to the quantity of documents which the Defence

15 is putting to the witness. It's very difficult to make any comments upon

16 them, even to formulate an objection if one is appropriate, because of the

17 amount of documents that we're receiving. But may I just say that we

18 probably might not have any questions in re-examination in regard to what

19 has happened, but we need to have a look at these documents a little bit

20 more carefully.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You wish to look at the

22 documents straight away, during the break, or afterwards, overnight?

23 MR. STAMP: We'll go as far as we can during the break; however,

24 I see that there are quite a number of other documents that would be

25 coming after the break.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Residovic, you told us

2 you had four sets of documents. To gain time, during the break couldn't

3 you communicate your documents to the Prosecution, which would certainly

4 save time.

5 Very well. So we'll resume work at five to 6.00.

6 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 5.58 p.m.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before giving the floor again

9 to Defence counsel, the Chamber would like to indicate the following: In

10 view of the number of documents produced and in view of the fact that the

11 Prosecution has also asked for time to study them, we believe that in the

12 40 minutes left to us the Defence will complete their cross-examination

13 and that the hearing of the witness will be continued tomorrow with the

14 re-examination and the questions of the Judges. So the witness will stay

15 until tomorrow. Therefore, the Defence has another 40 minutes, because we

16 will adjourn in about 45 minutes' time, so continue with your questions

17 and take your time, especially in view of the documents that you have.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

19 Q. Mr. Zeric, you just said that the military police and the

20 security organs of the army, the law enforcement organs, in their criminal

21 reports described the acts committed. And I would now like some documents

22 to be shown to you, a number of criminal reports that you received. Of

23 the more than 900, we have selected only a few so that we could assist the

24 Trial Chamber in seeing the kinds of acts reported by the Army of Bosnia

25 and Herzegovina to the district prosecutor's office in Travnik.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown these

2 documents, that is, eight criminal reports, together with attachments

3 given to the military prosecutor's office by the security organs of the

4 ABiH.

5 After asking the witness some questions, I should like to ask all

6 these documents to be given a single exhibit number as a Defence exhibit.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before giving an exhibit

8 number, we will hear your questions and then the position of the

9 Prosecution and then we can give the documents an exhibit number.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Mr. Zeric, the best idea would be to follow the same order as the

12 documents. The first you have is the report of the military police of the

13 312th Motorised Brigade against an army member for the criminal act of

14 murder; is that right? This report was sent to your office, and your

15 office received this report; is that right?

16 A. Yes, it is.

17 MR. STAMP: Just -- not to interrupt, but just to keep the thing

18 properly recorded. This is a report of the 23rd of March, 1993? So if we

19 could just get the date of the document so we know exactly what we're

20 talking of.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Madam Residovic, give the

22 Chamber a moment to read the document before putting the question to the

23 witness. The witness must also read through the report. As this was more

24 than ten years ago, he can hardly be expected to remember.

25 A. I remember --

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember this first report. I

2 also know the person involved. The person is from Travnik, so I remember

3 it very well.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation].

5 Q. Will you now look at the second criminal report, number

6 03/580-16, dated the 6th of September, 1993, addressed to the district

7 military prosecutor's office. The report is against two members of the

8 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, members of the 306th Brigade for the

9 criminal offence of theft. Did you receive this criminal report and was

10 this one of the ways in which the military police described the acts it

11 reported to the military prosecutor?

12 A. Yes. I can't remember this document, but I think that it was

13 received. I can't see why it wouldn't have been received. Actually, yes,

14 I see my handwriting on the bottom.

15 Q. The third criminal report I wish to show you is dated the 13th of

16 July, 1993. It has the number 09/6-1/KU-4/93. It is a report against

17 three members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the criminal

18 offence of aggravated theft. It describes the theft of a washing machine

19 and a refrigerator from an abandoned house in Dolac.

20 A. Yes, yes, I received this criminal report.

21 Q. Please look at the criminal report dated the 12th of July, 1993,

22 09/6-1KU/93. It is a report against a member of the 312th Motorised

23 Brigade of the BH army for committing a theft from the house of an unknown

24 owner, and this report has also been qualified as a criminal offence of

25 theft. Is that right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, please look at a criminal report of the 8th of July, 1993,

3 09/404/3, against two members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina for

4 the criminal offence of aggravated theft and for provoking a general

5 danger, public -- causing public danger. You said a moment ago that you

6 don't remember having any reports of burning houses. Is it true that

7 actually you qualified such reports as the criminal act of causing public

8 danger? Is this one such criminal report?

9 A. I remember this case well. Proceedings were instituted against

10 this person who died later on, Mujicic Serif [phoen]. I think it was

11 proven that he was not a member of the armed forces and that we passed on

12 this report to the civilian prosecution. If there were burning of houses,

13 we qualified such acts as causing public danger.

14 Q. In connection with this criminal report --

15 A. I really cannot specify how we qualified this, because there's no

16 prosecution file except for the criminal report sent to the prosecutor's

17 office. How we qualified it, I really cannot remember from this document,

18 nor how we described this act, because from what I have here it doesn't

19 follow what measures we undertook and how we undertook them.

20 Q. Within the framework of this criminal report, under the date of

21 the 28th of August, there's a decision on the extension of detention. Is

22 it true that in such and similar cases you also proposed remand on

23 custody? Is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. If the court should, as it did in its decision of the 28th of

1 July, 1993, pass -- take a decision on release from detention, you could

2 appeal such a decision and should your appeal be accepted, the person

3 would be sent back to detention; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Will you please look at the criminal report dated the 21st of

6 November, 1993.

7 MR. STAMP: [Previous translation continues] ... If I may just

8 indicate, just -- not an objection, just to make sure that we're

9 proceeding together in an orderly way. The last one that was just

10 referred to, is there another document at the back of it that -- should

11 that document be a part of it or should that document be removed from the

12 batch? It's a document dated the 30th of September, 1993.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This document is a criminal

14 report against two persons, and it consists of two parts, 5A and 5B. 5A

15 is the actual criminal report, and 5B is the decision to return the

16 reported person to detention on the basis of the prosecutor's decision.

17 So this is all one document.

18 MR. STAMP: Can I ask: Do you -- through the Court, of course:

19 Among that batch, is there a document dated the 30th of September, 1993?

20 It seems -- may I just hand it to counsel. This is what I have. It seems

21 to relate to the same parties, but the witness was not asked about that

22 one.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the same person who

24 was arrested. I haven't put my question yet to the witness about it. So

25 under 5B, there are two documents. One is a court decision accepting the

1 appeal of the prosecutor, and the second is the order to arrest this

2 person immediately. I think the witness has already answered the question

3 that on the basis of his appeal the person was sent back to detention. I

4 have no further questions about that.

5 Q. Now, please look at the criminal report of the 21st of November,

6 1993 against the three army members. In this criminal report, acts are

7 described committed to the detriment of a member of the Croat people, and

8 the -- it has been qualified as aggravated robbery and armed robbery. Is

9 that what -- is that the report that you received?

10 A. Yes. Now, how we qualified it, I am not sure. I think that we

11 kept the same qualification of the act.

12 Q. Will you now look at the report of the 14th of July, 1993. This

13 is a criminal report against a member of the army for aggravated theft and

14 theft of a motor vehicle, committed in the period from the 3rd to the 10th

15 of June, 1993. You received this report too, and there's a qualification

16 of the act contained in the criminal report which you were bound by.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. The next criminal report is dated the 26th of November, 1993,

19 against five members of the army for committing the criminal act of

20 aggravated theft. And in the report itself, the crime is described and

21 qualified as aggravated theft. This was also at the expense of a member

22 of the Croat people, that is, the damaged party was a Croat. Thank you.

23 In addition to this criminal report, can you confirm that if the

24 court was unable to find the reported person, he would -- the court would

25 issue a search, a wanted warrant, and on the basis of that warrant the

1 military police would act, and should they detect the perpetrator, he

2 would be surrendered to the court. Is that right?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in view of the

5 fact that the witness has confirmed that these are all criminal reports

6 that he received in the prosecutor's office and that they contain a

7 description of the offences for which criminal reports were filed against

8 members of the army, I would tender these documents into evidence as

9 Defence exhibit, as one Defence exhibit.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp.

11 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated] No objections with the --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

13 MR. STAMP: I'm so sorry. No objection, with the usual

14 reservations.

15 May I just inquire though -- and again, this is just an inquiry,

16 not an objection. The last document my friend asked about was a

17 document dated the 26th of November, 1993. In the batch I have here, the

18 last document is a document dated the 7th of December, 1993. So I just

19 ask so that the matter could be clarified from now that what my friend

20 proposes to put in evidence is exactly what the registrar has as evidence.

21 It will not do if the registrar has more than the witness is asked about.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Residovic.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. The registrar has all the

24 documents that Their Honours have and the Prosecutor. This is a criminal

25 report of the 26th of November. It is under number 8, and it consists of

1 8A and 8B. Under 8A is the criminal report with the description of the

2 offences, and other documents filed by the military police and attached to

3 the criminal report; and under number B is the second group of questions,

4 and that is when a person reported is not accessible to the court, the

5 court issues a wanted notice. So 8B relates to two reported persons that

6 are not to be found, and the court issued a wanted notice and the military

7 police acted on the basis of that notice and took into custody the

8 reported persons. So these are all one set of documents under 8A and 8B.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we have a number, please.

10 Yes. But, witness -- Witness, you heard the lawyer who said that

11 8A is a document relating to several persons. Among those there were two

12 that were not found, and there was a wanted notice under 8B. Are you

13 confirming that that is how it was?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is how things happened in

15 practice. Persons who were not accessible and they committed a crime and

16 especially if they were accomplices, some were taken into custody and

17 others were sought after through a wanted notice.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

19 Mr. Registrar, can we have an exhibit number please.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, all the documents are -- number 1

21 to 8 are in my possession and they will be given Defence Exhibit number

22 DH121, and the English version is DH121/E.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. You said earlier on that once you receive a critical report from

25 grave offences you had to ask for investigation.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like the witness to be

2 shown a number of these requests for an investigation which he submitted

3 to the investigative judge for an investigation to be carried out against

4 the suspected persons. These documents we also intend to tender as a

5 single exhibit, as they refer to the same kind of documents; that is, they

6 were all requests for an investigation.

7 Q. Witness, will you please now look at the documents to see whether

8 you or one of your deputies signed them, and then I will ask you a couple

9 of questions related to all these documents together, because there's no

10 need for us to go document by document.

11 Have you had time to look through these documents, Mr. Zeric?

12 A. Just a moment, please.

13 Yes, these are documents that I or my deputy signed and we sent

14 to the court as requests for an investigation or as proposed indictments.

15 Q. Is it true that in all those requests you provided detailed

16 information about the perpetrators who were members of the Army of Bosnia

17 and Herzegovina?

18 A. Yes. That was our duty.

19 Q. Is it true that in each of these requests you described the acts

20 that you considered contained elements of a criminal offence?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Is it true that among these 14 requests some acts were qualified

23 as aggravated thefts, others as robberies, aggravated robberies, murder,

24 manslaughter, abuse of official position, and other acts as stated in each

25 of these individual requests?

1 A. Everything that emanated from the description of a criminal

2 offence was qualified as such.

3 Q. Your qualifications could not be affected by the qualifications

4 contained in the criminal reports.

5 A. Certainly not.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Since the witness has recognised

7 all these documents as being documents of the military prosecutor's

8 office, some of which were signed by him and others by his deputies, and

9 that all of them contained acts committed by members of the army and who

10 because of that were prosecuted and the damaged party were members of the

11 Croat people, I would like to tender all these documents as a single

12 Defence exhibit.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp.

14 MR. STAMP: No objections, subject to reservations.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, an exhibit

16 number for 14 documents, please.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit DH122,

18 and the English version DH122/E.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 Please continue.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown

22 the last document that the Defence wishes to show this witness as part of

23 its cross-examination so that I can ask him some questions about it.

24 Q. Mr. Zeric, in connection with this document, I have a few

25 questions for you. Is it true that every case that you receive in the

1 prosecutor's office, that is, every criminal report, is numbered according

2 to the year when the report was given to the prosecutor's office?

3 A. Yes, that was the rule.

4 Q. And this prosecution number doesn't change, regardless of when

5 the proceedings will be terminated on that case.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is it true that because of all these circumstances that you have

8 testified before this Honourable Court, it would happen sometimes that the

9 investigation would last for quite a long time so that the indictment may

10 be issued the next year or even the following year after a request for an

11 investigation was filed?

12 A. Yes, there were cases when the investigation took a year and even

13 two years.

14 Q. Is it also true that due to all these difficulties the judgement

15 may be passed several years after the event? Is that right?

16 A. Yes, there were such cases, so that some persons would be held

17 accountable for certain criminal acts after the end of the war even.

18 Q. On page 2 now, it's the first sentence after the word, "Statement

19 of reasons."

20 A. Yes. The indictment -- or rather, the prosecution was taken

21 charge of by --

22 Q. No, it's on page 2. It's on page 2. It says: "The district

23 military prosecutor's office in Travnik issued the indictment KT -- number

24 490/93." This number, 490/93, does this number mean that you received the

25 criminal report in 1993?

1 A. Yes. And that is when we issued the indictment too.

2 Q. In fact, as it says here, you issued the indictment on the 28th

3 of January, 1994; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. As you have already said, after the war there were numerous

6 changes, as far as the competence of the judicial bodies were concerned,

7 so that this document of yours was sent to the higher court in Zenica; is

8 that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Is it correct to say that the judgement in this case was issued

11 on the 21st of February, 1997 and no sooner?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So this judgement shows that it was sometimes very difficult to

14 conduct a case and that a number of years could pass until the judgement

15 was actually rendered?

16 A. Yes, that's correct.

17 Q. Have a look again at this first paragraph.

18 A. The question of qualification.

19 Q. You qualified these acts as aggravated crimes. Would it be

20 correct to say that?

21 A. Yes. Pursuant to Article 148, paragraph 1.

22 Q. The court that dealt with this case determined that this was a

23 crime of wilful action according to Article 209, and this is a far less

24 serious crime than the one that you had qualified; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Is this judgement proof that the court wasn't bound by the legal

2 description of the act that you provided?

3 A. No, they were never bound by our legal description.

4 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Zeric.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I suggest that this document be

6 admitted into evidence.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp.

8 MR. STAMP: No objections.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Defence Exhibit

11 DH123, and the English version, DH123/E.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Zeric, given that throughout the year 1993 you were a law

15 enforcement organ and you performed the duties of the district military

16 prosecutor, on the basis of your personal experience and work would you

17 accept my assessment in those conditions that were very difficult for all

18 the law enforcement bodies and all the prosecution bodies, the organs of

19 the law enforcement bodies and all the prosecution bodies, organs of the

20 civilian police and the military prosecution, they did all they could and

21 they reported all persons if they had any information according to which

22 they committed crimes [as interpreted]?

23 A. In my personal opinion, and as far as we were aware, I think that

24 on the whole we found out who the perpetrators of the crimes were and we

25 prosecuted them when we knew about their identity. But given the overall

1 situation and the fact that two or three parties were involved in a

2 conflict, many cases weren't processed and many perpetrators of various

3 crimes weren't discovered.

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zeric.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further

6 questions for this witness.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And the other

8 Defence team?

9 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We

10 don't have any questions for this witness.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We said that we would continue

12 tomorrow once we had reached this stage.

13 Mr. Stamp, are there any issues you would like to address now, or

14 would you prefer to wait until tomorrow? Are there any questions you

15 would like to ask now?

16 MR. STAMP: I'd prefer, with your leave, Mr. President, to wait

17 until tomorrow, because it doesn't appear as if we could have a good look

18 at the documents before then.

19 But before I sit, may I just inquire through the Court of my

20 friend if this batch of documents that I received, if it was dealt with

21 and if there is an intention to deal with it.

22 Mr. Usher, if you could hand this -- it might have been dealt

23 with, but there were just so many of them we didn't put a number of that

24 one.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. If we will be

1 continuing tomorrow -- well, there's a batch of documents that I haven't

2 shown the witness yet. So the decision on conducting an investigation on

3 the basis of a request as submitted by the prosecutor. That's the

4 document concerned. But I think we have shown the Trial Chamber a

5 sufficient number of documents so that I won't insist on this additional

6 document being shown to the witness.

7 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.

8 May I just ask the witness one question?

9 Re-examined by Mr. Stamp:

10 Q. The documents that you have been shown, where are they stored or

11 kept?

12 A. In the high prosecutor's office in the course of 1996. They took

13 over the documents in an official capacity in 1996. But throughout the

14 year 1996, these documents remained in Travnik in the building where they

15 had previously been kept. Afterwards, all the documents, the archives,

16 were taken over by the cantonal prosecutor's office in Travnik, which

17 still exists to this very day.

18 Q. Very well. And when was the last time before today that you saw

19 any -- any one of those documents?

20 A. When I received them in 1993 or 1994, and then as it says at the

21 top of the document, on the date that the document contains.

22 MR. STAMP: We will, with your leave, Mr. President, continue

23 tomorrow.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Witness, you will

25 return tomorrow. The hearing will start at 2.15 p.m. tomorrow. It won't

1 be in this courtroom; it will take place in Courtroom number I, as this

2 courtroom is needed for other purposes. So tomorrow we will be in

3 Courtroom I.

4 I'll now ask the usher to escort the witness out of the

5 courtroom, and we will see the witness again tomorrow afternoon.

6 [The witness stands down]

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to

8 Mr. Withopf, I'd like to say that we will be seeing the same witness again

9 tomorrow. Mr. Stamp will certainly have further questions to ask the

10 witness, and this will also be the case for the Judges. Perhaps the

11 Defence will also have other questions to ask. So we should expect the

12 hearing to last until at least 15.15 in order to finish hearing this

13 witness.

14 Mr. Withopf, the witness who has been scheduled for tomorrow,

15 will he be appearing before the Trial Chamber tomorrow?

16 MR. WITHOPF: Mr. President, Your Honours, the witness who is

17 scheduled for tomorrow will be made available tomorrow.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will start

19 hearing the witness scheduled for tomorrow tomorrow, and we will continue

20 hearing this witness on Wednesday.

21 Mr. Dixon.

22 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, if we could go into private session so

23 that I could address one matter relating to the witness for tomorrow.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, let's go into

25 private session, please.

1 [Private session]

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 5577 redacted, private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 5578 redacted, private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 [Open session]

25 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As we are now in open session,

2 this hearing is now adjourned. We will resume tomorrow at 2.15 p.m.

3 Thank you.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.50 p.m.,

5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 6th day of

6 April, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25