1 Monday, 29 November 2004
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
6 the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case number IT-01-47-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic Amir Kubura.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Could
10 we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
12 Your Honours, counsel and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the
13 Prosecution, Stefan Waespi, Daryl Mundis, and our case manager, Mr. Andres
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you could we have the
16 appearances for the Defence.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President; good day,
18 Your Honours. On behalf of General Hadzihasanovic, Edina Residovic,
19 counsel, Stefan Bourgon, co-counsel, and Muriel Cauvin, our legal
20 assistant. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. And the other
22 Defence team, please.
23 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honours. On
24 behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin
25 Mulalic, our legal assistant.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Trial Chamber
2 would like to greet every one present, the Prosecution, Defence counsel,
3 the accused, and everyone else either in or around the courtroom.
4 We have a witness scheduled for today, but before we call the
5 witness into the courtroom, could the Defence counsel tell me whether I've
6 understood you correctly. The witness scheduled for tomorrow was not
7 initially included in the official list, as you know, for witnesses, and
8 on official list, as a rule it's necessary to ask for leave to amend the
9 list in order to introduce a new witness. So could you clarify this
10 subject, please.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do apologise. We
12 made an error when we told you that the witness wasn't on the list on
13 Friday. He was on the list, but we hadn't obtained confirmation from him
14 that he would be appearing, that is to say that he would be testifying.
15 He confirmed he would be testifying on Saturday. We the informed
16 Prosecution of this. We informed them that the witness would be appearing
17 before the Trial Chamber tomorrow. He comes from a European country, one
18 of the European countries, and since he has requested certain protective
19 measures, we'll inform the Trial Chamber of the measures requested
20 tomorrow. But for the moment, I wouldn't like to mention his name.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. As far
22 as the witness who will be testifying is concerned, how much time do you
23 think you will need to examine this witness?
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Our examination should take an
25 hour and a half, but I think the examination-in-chief will last between an
1 hour and an hour and a half, no longer than that.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Very well. Let's go
3 into private session now.
4 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session,
16 Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now that we are back in open
18 session, let's call the witness into the courtroom. Could the usher bring
19 the witness into the courtroom, please.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would first
22 like to make sure you're receiving the interpretation of what I'm saying.
23 So please say so.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have been called here as a
1 witness for the Defence. Before you take the solemn declaration, I would
2 be grateful if you could tell me your first and last names, your date of
3 birth and your place of birth.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Redzib Begic. I was born
5 on the 23rd of February, 1956, in Zenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you currently employed, and
7 if so, what is your profession? What is your current profession?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a lawyer, and I work in a
9 company at the moment, a trade company.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1992 and 1993, did you hold a
11 position of any kind, and if so, what position did you hold and where.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I was the chief of the
13 security services centre in Zenica as part of the Ministry of the Interior
14 in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1992 and in 1993?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning of 1993, up until
17 February, I held that position.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And after February?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was appointed as a Judge of the
20 high court in Zenica.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you were a Judge until when
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until January of this year.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] January 2004?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Have you already
2 testified before an international or national court with regard to the
3 events that occurred in your country between 1992 and 1993 or is this the
4 first time?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read out the
7 solemn declaration.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.
11 WITNESS: REDZIB BEGIC
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the
14 Defence, I would like to provide you with some information about the
15 procedure that we'll be following here. As you were a Judge for over ten
16 years, you will not be surprised by what I tell you.
17 According to the procedure we follow here, you will first have to
18 answer the questions put to you by Defence counsel. You must have met
19 them this weekend. You must have seen them this weekend. They're to your
20 left. Their examination should take between an hour and an hour and a
21 half. They will be conducting what we call their examination-in-chief.
22 After they have concluded their examination-in-chief, the
23 Prosecution, who are to your right, will conduct their cross-examination.
24 This is a very common law procedure.
25 You will soon notice that the questions put to you by Defence
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 counsel and the questions put to you by the Prosecution are not quite the
3 After this stage has been completed, Defence counsel may
4 re-examine you. Then the three Judges who are sitting before you may also
5 ask you questions. The Rules allow the Judges to ask witnesses questions
6 at any point in time, but we prefer to ask witnesses questions after both
7 parties have finished asking witnesses their questions.
8 You will see that our questions will be somewhat different than
9 the questions put to you by the parties. As a rule, we ask witnesses
10 questions to obtain certain clarifications and to fill in any gaps in your
12 We will also have two breaks that will last between 25 and 30
13 minutes. We have these breaks for technical reasons and allow the
14 witnesses to have a rest. As a Judge, you're aware of the fact that it is
15 tiring for witnesses to answer questions, and this is why it is necessary
16 for the witnesses to have a rest.
17 As the procedure followed here is almost entirely oral, the
18 witness's answers are very important, because your answers will be
19 transcribed, and the transcription of your answers will be our evidence.
20 We don't have any documents, any written documents. When a question is
21 put to you, you may be shown a document and you may be asked to comment on
22 the document. The Judges might also show you the documents that they
23 have, since it these documents have already been admitted into evidence.
24 I would also like to draw your attention to other important
25 points. This won't surprise you, as you have taken the solemn
1 declaration, this means you should not give false testimony. False
2 testimony is an offence, and it is punishable. You could be given a fine
3 or a sentence of up to five -- seven years in prison.
4 Secondly, and this is characteristic of the common law system,
5 when a witness is answering a question, if the witness believes that the
6 information he provides might subsequently be used against him, the
7 witness can refuse to answer the question. These are rules that exist in
8 certain countries that follow the continental system. Nevertheless, the
9 Trial Chamber may obliged a witness to answer such a question, but the
10 witness is granted a form of immunity. In common law countries, it's the
11 Prosecution that grants this form of immunity. In this Tribunal, it's the
12 Chamber that grants this form of immunity.
13 If you fail to understand a question, ask the person putting it to
14 you to rephrase it. Sometimes the questions are complicated, and if
15 that's the case, you should ask the person putting the question to you to
16 rephrase it.
17 I'll now give the floor to the Defence, who will provide you with
18 additional information.
19 Examined by Ms. Residovic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Begic. As the Presiding Judge has
21 already said, I would like to ask you to try and pause before you answer
22 the questions I put to you, as we speak the same language. It is
23 important for my questions and your answers to be interpreted so that
24 everyone in the courtroom can follow our exchange. So please pause after
25 I have put a question to you so my question can be interpreted, and then
1 answer the question. Have you understood me?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Mr. Begic, can you tell me where you live now?
4 A. I live in Zenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
5 Q. In response to a question from the Chamber, you said that you were
6 a lawyer by profession. Could you tell me a little about your
7 professional background?
8 A. After I completed secondary school, I studied at the school of law
9 in Sarajevo, at the department in Zenica. I graduated in 1979. I then
10 took the bar examine. That was in 1982. I took the exam in Sarajevo, in
12 Q. In response to a question put to you by the Presiding Judge, you
13 said what position you held in 1992 and afterwards. Could you please tell
14 me what you did before the war.
15 A. Before the war, as soon as I graduated, I was a trainee in the
16 district court in Zenica, and I was preparing to take the bar exam. In
17 1982, I was elected as a Judge of what was then called the basic court in
18 Zenica, and I was there until 1989. I was then appointed as a Judge at
19 the high court in Zenica, and I worked as a Judge until July 1991, when I
20 was appointed as the chief of the security services centre in Zenica.
21 As I have already said, I held that position until the end of
22 February 1993, and then I returned to the court. I was appointed as a
23 Judge of the high court in Zenica again. And at the same time, I was a
24 Judge at the Supreme Court in Sarajevo. I was replacing someone, and that
25 was within the framework of the high court in Zenica.
1 Q. Mr. Begic, before the war did you serve in an army, and if so,
2 which army and when?
3 A. Yes. I served in the former JNA. That was in 1981, if I'm not
5 Q. After you served in the army, did you obtain a rank of any kind?
6 A. No.
7 Q. When telling us about the duties you performed, you said that in
8 April 1992, when the JNA and Serbian forces attacked the --
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, you said you were in the Zenica Security Services
10 Centre; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Within the framework of the duties that you had, were you also a
13 member of the armed forces?
14 A. The law on the armed forces or, rather, the decree law that
15 regulated those matters, well, as a member of the Ministry of the
16 Interior, I was considered a member of the armed forces as well, but this
17 was only at a time of war.
18 Q. Mr. Begic, since the army was also -- also represented the armed
19 forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could you tell me: What is the joint
20 command for the security services centre and the army?
21 A. The Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 Q. Tell me, who was your superior organ, and who was your superior?
23 A. The Ministry of the Interior in Bosnia and Herzegovina or, rather,
24 the Minister of the interior.
25 Q. As head of the security services centre, tell me, what area did
1 this centre cover?
2 A. It covered the Zenica region, as it was known then. That is the
3 region to the north, is a Vidovici, Zepca, Zenica, Kakanj, Vitez,
4 Busovaca, Travnik, Novi Travnik, Donji and Gornji Vakuf, and Bugojno.
5 Q. Which organisational unit of the Ministry of the Interior
6 insisted -- existed in those municipalities, and who were you superior to?
7 A. In each of these municipalities, there were public security
8 stations, and I was superior to the heads of those police stations.
9 Q. To be able to follow your answers as we go along, could you tell
10 us, as head of the security services centre, which aspect of security was
11 your centre responsible for?
12 A. The competencies of the Ministry of the Interior were regulated by
13 law on the organisation of the republican administration, and more
14 specifically, by the Law on Internal Affairs. This law stipulated that
15 the competencies of the Ministry of the Interior were primarily to protect
16 public law and order, personal and property safety of citizens, and also,
17 very importantly, to detect the perpetrators of crimes and submit criminal
19 This administrative/legal competence also included question of
20 citizenship, issuance of travel documents, keeping records and controlling
21 the movement of aliens, et cetera.
22 Q. Tell me, within the framework of the security services centre in
23 Zenica, were there separate security sectors or departments which
24 specialised in a particular aspect of security?
25 A. Within the framework of the Ministry of Interior, there was the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 administration for state security, and similarly within the centre for
2 security services there was a sector for state security which was directly
3 subordinated to the under-secretary for state security or the deputy
4 minister of internal affairs. So in addition to that sector, there was a
5 public security sector which covered the areas that I listed a moment ago.
6 Q. In answering my previous question, you said that organs of the
7 Ministry of the Interior or the civilian police, to put it briefly, and
8 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina had a joint superior command which was, in
9 fact, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell me, while you were head of the security services centre, and
12 later on when you worked as a Judge in a higher court of Zenica, was the
13 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina or, rather, the 3rd Corps superior to the
14 security services centre?
15 A. No, never.
16 Q. Can you tell me, please, Mr. Begic, whether in addition to the
17 regular police force that you had in peacetime, during the war were
18 additional forces organised and, if so, tell us which and how.
19 A. Even before the war, a unit or units of the reserve police force
20 were mobilised. This was not just during the war, but even before the war
21 these units had been mobilised, which means before April 1992.
22 Q. Mr. Begic, you said that the centre of the security services was
23 never subordinated or resubordinated to the 3rd Corps Bosnia-Herzegovina
24 or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. Tell me, did the law
25 envisage the possibility for certain parts of the security centre to be
1 placed under the command of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, if so,
2 will you please explain?
3 A. This referred to reserve units of the police who, by decision of
4 the Minister of the Interior, could be resubordinated to the army command.
5 Q. Tell me, please, was this on a permanent basis, a temporary basis,
6 or some other basis that these forces were resubordinated? And when the
7 requirement ceased what happened to those reserve forces?
8 A. These were occasionally resubordinated. And as soon as the need
9 for them ceased, they would go back to their regular duties within the
10 Ministry of Internal Affairs.
11 Q. Speaking about some duties within the terms of reference of the
12 Ministry of the Interior or, rather, the security services centre, you
13 said that some of its competencies were linked to the detection of
14 criminal offences and their perpetrators.
15 Tell me: In addition to the law you referred to a moment ago
16 regulating the competence of bodies of the Ministry of Interior, were
17 there any other laws regulating the conduct of the civilian police?
18 A. Yes. There was the law on criminal proceedings which specified
19 more clearly the position and the role of the Ministry of the Interior in
20 discovering perpetrators, in investigating and collecting information upon
21 the request of the court or, rather, the prosecutor's office.
22 Q. You also mentioned that one of the competencies of the Ministry of
23 the Interior bodies had to do with the movement of aliens and registration
24 of aliens. Tell me, was there an organisational unit within the security
25 services centre in Zenica specially dealing with these issues?
1 A. Yes. This was the so-called department for foreigners.
2 Q. Are you aware of any legal provision or practice on the basis of
3 which some other state or military bodies might take over this
4 responsibility from the organs of internal affairs or, rather, are you
5 aware that that competence was ever taken away from bodies of internal
6 affairs before or during or after the war?
7 A. As far as I know, that never occurred.
8 Q. In view of the fact that you held an important position, that is
9 head of the security services centre at the beginning of the war, tell me,
10 did you encounter any problems when it -- when we're talking about
11 relations with foreigners, and of what kind?
12 A. Yes, there were problems, and it was very difficult for the
13 department or foreigners to fulfil its role in that area. This was
14 primarily due to the fact that at the very outset of the war, the borders
15 of Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be controlled by legal bodies so that
16 when foreigners entered, and that is the most important moment when you
17 want to monitor their movement, we didn't have information that a
18 foreigner had entered Bosnia and Herzegovina.
19 Q. But let me ask you, who controlled the borders of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 and 1993?
21 A. The borders were controlled by bodies within Republika Srpska or
22 bodies of the HVO.
23 Q. Did any entry into Bosnia-Herzegovina or frontier crossing -- was
24 any frontier crossing controlled by the legal MUP of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina at any point along the border?
1 A. I think not.
2 Q. I'm sorry for interrupting you. You said that there were many
3 problems, the first being the inability to control the entry and
4 registration of foreigners coming into the country. Could you mention the
5 others? I think you said there were several.
6 A. Yes. It was the duty of all entities, both legal and physical
7 entities, to report the arrival and sojourn of foreigners. Such reports
8 never reached us. Now, whether this was due to the fact that those
9 foreigners were not staying in hotels and information was most frequently
10 passed on from hotels, now, whether it was due to that or to some other
11 reason, I don't know.
12 Q. Mr. Begic, in 1992, when Bosnia and Herzegovina was confronted
13 with the war and the horrific consequences of that war, did foreigners
14 come, and who were those foreigners?
15 A. As a citizen, I am aware that there were foreigners. Later on, it
16 emerged that some of those foreigners were registered by humanitarian
17 organisations such as the association of citizens, Al Husamen [phoen] or
18 others. According to the law on the association of citizens, the
19 registration of associations was within the competence of courts. After
20 registration, within the framework of those associations, those foreigners
21 were free to act, too, quite legally.
22 Q. During that period of time, did foreign journalists come to the
23 area controlled by the security centre -- security services centre? Were
24 they registered with you?
25 A. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that no one registered with us,
1 so none the foreigners.
2 Q. Tell me, could one notice foreigners coming on an individual
3 basis, or was this a period when large numbers of foreigners arrived of
4 various origins?
5 A. In that period was a period of major fluctuation of people,
6 including people in uniform. In 1992, there would be times when hundreds
7 of people would come to Zenica. Among them were those in uniform who were
8 deserting their lines, fleeing from the war operations, and accompanying
9 their families. To what extent foreigners were present is something I'm
10 unable to say.
11 Q. You mentioned some humanitarian organisations. Could you tell us
12 approximately how many various international or national humanitarian
13 organisations were registered in Zenica at that year?
14 A. I'm really unable to tell you that, because I never had any such
15 information or data. There are data about that in the registers of
16 courts, but I know as a citizen that they were quite numerous.
17 Q. Speaking about the competencies of the security services centres,
18 you said that one of your competencies was linked to the identification,
19 personal documents, and the rest of the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
20 Tell me, in 1992 and 1993, did the composition of the population change,
21 and did people come to Zenica from various parts of Bosnia and
23 A. Certainly. One might say that it became the rule to move around
24 without any ID papers. There were so many persons who may not even have
25 had any such ID documents that we simply stopped checking people in that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
2 Q. In addition to the problems you have referred to that you had to
3 deal with, tell me: Did the security services centre at some point in
4 time have to deal with the collapse of a part of the system or, rather,
5 tell me, were you able to control the whole territory that you described
6 for us a moment ago?
7 A. Very soon after the beginning of the war, with the formation of
8 the Croatian Defence council, public security stations that were located
9 in areas where Croats had -- were in power even before the war, they in a
10 sense eschewed control of the security centre in Zenica.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown a
12 set of documents so that I can move on to my next question linked to one
13 of those documents. We have a sufficient number of copies for
14 Their Honours, the Prosecution, and our colleagues.
15 Q. Mr. Begic, could you please have a look at document number one.
16 The Defence number which you can see at the top of the document is 0449.
17 The date of the document is the 24th of August, 1992.
18 Mr. Begic, I assume that you haven't seen this document before,
19 but please tell me: Does this document show that areas under HVO control
20 prevented the civilian police of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from
21 carrying out their work, and they started doing this very early? Is this
22 something that you are familiar with? Was this the case in 1992 or 1993?
23 A. Well, this is the first time I've seen this order, but I knew that
24 members of the Ministry of the Interior or, rather, I knew that men who
25 were under me were not able to go to these areas, to areas under HVO
1 control, because very soon the legal authorities in the public security
2 stations soon merged with the HVO organisation. I could provide you with
3 an example, Busovaca. I could mention Vitez as well. And the building of
4 the public security station there was taken over by members either of the
5 HVO or of the HOS.
6 And then the same occurred in Zepca. Members of the MUP could not
7 go to those areas without taking risks.
8 Q. As of that time, Mr. Begic, did your inspectors and policemen --
9 were your inspectors and policemen able to perform their duties in those
10 areas? Could they carry out controls, conduct investigations, interview
11 individuals, and carry out other police work?
12 A. No. No, they doesn't.
13 Q. Mr. Begic, in other municipalities such as Travnik and Bugojno,
14 which were within the framework of your security services centre, were
15 parallel organs, parallel police organs established, and did this make it
16 difficult for the civilian police to perform all their duties?
17 A. Yes. As far as I know, there was such a problem in Bugojno.
18 Q. Mr. Begic, could you now tell me whether you know that at some
19 point in time in the territory where your civilian police operated the 3rd
20 Corps was formed and BH army units?
21 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, the 3rd Corps was formed towards
22 the end of 1992. It included units -- it was composed of units that
23 already existed at the time. In other words, it linked up units of BH
24 army -- from the BH army.
25 Q. As the 3rd Corps was founded and developed, do you know whether
1 certain police organs were formed within the corps?
2 A. Yes. As soon as the 3rd Corps was formed, as far as I can
3 remember, a military police battalion was formed too. It was part of the
4 3rd Corps.
5 Q. Mr. Begic, could you tell me what sort of staff your security
6 services centre had before the war and at the beginning of the war?
7 A. Well, I can claim with full responsibility that we had staff who
8 were capable of performing the duties they were supposed to perform in the
9 Zenica security services centre.
10 Q. Did the centre have the technical equipment they needed in order
11 to carry out their work?
12 A. Yes. There was the department for crime technology, and they had
13 the staff, and they had the equipment. They had sufficient equipment at
14 the beginning of war to carry out investigations that had to be done in
15 accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure, although a lot of this
16 equipment was damaged in the wartime.
17 Q. You said that after the formation of the 3rd Corps, a military
18 police battalion was formed within the 3rd Corps. Tell me, do you know
19 what sort of equipment and men the military police battalion had at the
21 A. The military police battalion wasn't adequately equipped, and it
22 didn't have an adequate staff to carry out its duties, and that's why
23 cooperation was established between the Ministry of the Interior and the
24 security -- or, rather, the security services centre in Zenica and the 3rd
25 Corps. And quite frequently, in addition to the training that our members
1 provided to members of the military police, our members would also become
2 directly engaged and perform tasks for military security.
3 Investigating judges from the district military court often
4 requested assistance or, rather, from the district military prosecutor's
5 office. So what the military police couldn't do would be done by members
6 of our centre.
7 Q. Mr. Begic, can you remember whether at any point in time, at the
8 beginning of 1993, a request was made by the 3rd Corps and by an
9 investigating judge for your organs to carry out some of the
10 investigations that concerned bringing in people who had been killed in
11 the village of Dusina?
12 A. Yes. I believe that was in January 1993 at the request of the
13 investigating judge from the district military court. We carried out
14 certain investigations that involved examining corpses and performing a
15 paraffin test on the bodies that were brought to the Zenica morgue.
16 Q. Mr. Begic, to the best of your recollection was the military
17 police battalion in a position to carry out those tasks since you said at
18 that time they lacked the necessary equipment and they didn't have
19 adequate staff?
20 A. Well, since the investigating judge from the military court
21 requested that we carry out these activities, you can see that the members
22 of the military police weren't in a position to do so.
23 Q. Have a look at documents five, six, and seven now, and document
24 number eight. Let's have a look at document number five first. The
25 document is P332, document number P332. And could you first tell me
1 whether this is a document from the security services centre of which you
2 were the chief.
3 A. Yes. This is a document that I signed as the chief of the
4 security services centre. And certain notes were attached to this
5 document, and certain findings. The findings from the paraffin test was
6 attached to the document, and a photo record was attached, a photo record
7 of unidentified bodies.
8 Q. Please have a look at document number six now, document P333.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Tell me, is this a document from your security services centre,
11 and do you know who drafted this document?
12 A. Yes. This is an official note. It's a document from the Zenica
13 security services centre and it was drafted by an employee of the crime
14 technology department. His name is Redzo Hadzic.
15 Q. Please have a look at document number seven. The number of the
16 document is P334. Tell me, is this a document from the security services
17 centre, and do you know the person who compiled this document?
18 A. Yes, I do. This document also comes from the security services
19 centre, and the note was compiled by Enes Saric, who also worked in the
20 department for crime technology.
21 Q. Have a look at document eight, document number P341, and tell me
22 whether this is a document compiled by the security services centre, and
23 do you know who signed this document?
24 A. Yes. This is a document from the Zenica Security Services Centre.
25 It is the paraffin test expert analysis. It was signed by Hadzic Redzo,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 an employee in the department for crime technology, and I also signed the
3 Q. Mr. Begic, could you tell me who actually carried out these
4 investigations in the security services centre? The men who carried these
5 investigations out, were they professionals? Were they ordinary
6 policemen? Could you tell us who carried out the investigations, and
7 could you tell us what sort of equipment was used to carry out such an
9 A. Well, I can say that the people who did this were competent, and
10 they had the adequate professional level and experience to carry out such
11 work. And in particular, as far as the paraffin test is concerned, this
12 test was done by someone who was a biologist by profession, and he had
13 done such work for a long time before making this analysis.
14 Q. Mr. Begic, in the document which you have examined, document
15 number P33 [as interpreted], it's document number six among the document
16 that you have before you. In this document it says that Turkic Faruk, a
17 pathologist, the Judges and the prosecutor of the Zenica military court
18 and the Zenica CSB forensic officer were members of the identification
19 team. Before I put my following question to you, could you tell me the
20 following: On the basis your answer -- well, you said that you worked as
21 a judge for most of your professional life. Which fields were you
22 involved in as a judge? What sort of cases did you work on as a judge?
23 What sort of cases did you try?
24 A. Well, on the whole, these cases were criminal cases, and for the
25 best part of my career as a Judge, I was involved in criminal cases. Only
1 for a short period of time was I involved in other kinds of cases. That
2 was while I was a Judge in the low court in Zenica.
3 Q. I apologise. On page 21, line 17, the Prosecution number hasn't
4 been correctly recorded. The number is 333 and not 33.
5 I'll now go back to this document. Given your experience as a
6 judge in criminal cases, could you tell me, when a judge is involved in an
7 investigation who is in charge of the investigation? Who issues orders to
8 carry out certain investigative actions? Who is, in fact, in charge of
9 the entire situation?
10 A. Well, this is the exclusive responsibility of the investigative
12 Q. At the time the judge takes over that work, so to speak, either in
13 a pre-trial stage or either in an investigative stage, as the civilian
14 police and as the military police, were you able to establish certain
15 conditions? Were you able to conduct the investigation as you saw fit,
16 apart from the way in which the court said the investigations should be
18 A. No.
19 Q. Mr. Begic, after you -- after security services centre provided
20 all the documents on the investigations carried out, the investigations
21 that you were ordered to carry out by the court, and these were cases
22 which involved the pre-trial phase, what was the investigative judge
23 supposed to do with all the documents that were gathered at that point in
25 A. Well, all -- all the documents, all the evidence had to be
1 provided by the judge to the Prosecutor. It was necessary to assess
2 whether it was a crime. It was necessary to decide whose responsibility
3 the crime was. And then the results should be provided to the prosecutor.
4 Generally speaking, the investigative judge from the district
5 military court forwarded all the results of investigations to the district
6 military prosecutor.
7 Q. In this note signed by your employee Redzo Hadzic, the number of
8 which is P333, you can see that in addition to the judge, the prosecutor
9 of the district military court in Zenica was also present.
10 On the basis of your experience as a -- as a judge, could you tell
11 us to whom this document was provided by the judge who was involved in the
13 A. He would with only provide this to the district military
15 Q. Mr. Begic, once the prosecutor's office receives all the documents
16 established by the investigating judge, either by procuring them himself
17 or from the police and other bodies, who is then in charge of the
18 pre-trial and trial stages?
19 A. Once the preliminary results of the investigations are passed on
20 to the prosecutor, he is the only one who will decide whether he will file
21 a request for an investigation or whether he might request the necessary
22 information to be collected by the police, or if he finds that there's no
23 reasonable grounds to suspect a crime having been committed, then the case
24 will be filed.
25 Q. Thank you. Tell me, Mr. Begic, if the police, be it the military
1 or the civilian police, if in addition to the documents they were to file
2 a criminal report describing a particular act, was that prosecutor bound
3 by the legal assessment made by the police?
4 A. Of course not. The police, as a rule, would provide a legal
5 qualification of the act without consulting the prosecutor. And according
6 to the law, such a legal qualification, and even the description of the
7 act contained in that document, were not binding for the prosecutor.
8 Q. Mr. Begic, could you tell us whether all the documents and
9 information about an event were the only basis for the action of the
10 competent prosecutor, or did he have to consult the police before
12 A. As I have already said, the prosecutor, in line with the law, has
13 the right to request additional information to be collected by the police,
14 and all this with a view to check out in greater detail whether there is
15 any grounds to suspect that a criminal act had been committed.
16 Q. The decision of the prosecutor, should he find that there was no
17 act committed or if he asked for additional information or to continue
18 with the investigations, were these decisions his exclusive right or could
19 anyone else make that decision on his behalf?
20 A. No. That was something that only he could decide.
21 Q. When, at the request of the prosecutor, criminal proceedings are
22 instituted, tell me, was the court bound by the legal assessment given by
23 the prosecutor, and who establishes definitely how certain acts will be
24 qualified for which a person is charged?
25 A. There is specific provision in the Law on Criminal Procedure which
1 stipulated that the court was not bound in any sense by the qualifications
2 contained in the indictment. He was only bound by the acts and also by
3 the personal information about the accused.
4 Q. Let me ask you now about the situation that you confronted as
5 chief of the security services centre and also as a judge in Zenica in
6 1993. Tell me, please, this large fluctuation of refugees and others
7 passing through Zenica, was this a cause of problems and difficulties when
8 it came to finding suspects of offences? Was it difficult to identify
9 people? Did you encounter people providing false identification and so
10 on? Did you have this kind of problem, and to what extent was it -- did
11 it make your work more difficult?
12 A. Yes, there were such problems, and they did aggravate the
13 conditions for the work of the police. As I have already said, certain
14 parts of the region which formally and legally were the area of
15 responsibility of the security services centre were areas that we
16 physically could not go to.
17 Also, until the 3rd Corps was established, in particular, people
18 in town would move around town in uniform and carrying arms. And it was
19 very difficult to establish the identity of people because they didn't
20 have ID documents. And in view of these circumstances, it was very
21 difficult to file reports of offences as well as crimes under those
23 Q. Mr. Begic, you just mentioned certain other reports of offences.
24 Could you explain to Their Honours what forms of responsibility existed
25 within the legal system of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 A. Within the legal system of Bosnia-Herzegovina before the war - and
2 this applied during the war as well - there were three forms of
3 accountability for certain illegal acts. The first was a disciplinary
4 offence. The second was an infraction, and the third was criminal
6 Q. Tell me, please, which of these liabilities was established by the
7 courts or, rather, which court was responsible for which of those
8 offences? And more particularly, which were established before courts as
9 independent judicial bodies?
10 A. Disciplinary liability was established by disciplinary bodies
11 within organisations of associated labour or within state institutions or
12 administrative bodies. These would be violations of duties at work. Then
13 infractions were established before magistrates' courts, which were not
14 really courts in the proper sense of the word but more like administrative
15 bodies which would establish people's responsibilities at that level. And
16 finally, criminal liability was established before regular independent
17 courts, and this was regulated by the laws on regular courts.
18 Q. Mr. Begic, you said that offences were established by magistrates'
19 courts. Tell me ask you first: In which areas would such offences occur,
20 or, rather, which was the main responsibility of these magistrates'
22 A. The most frequent offences were disturbances of public law and
23 order, then traffic safety. And within the overall number of such
24 reports, these were the dominant ones.
25 Q. Tell me, where were these magistrate courts for misdemeanors
1 active? In which areas were they established?
2 A. They were established to cover a municipality, which meant that
3 every municipality had a magistrate's court. And then upon appeal there
4 was a council for misdemeanors which existed before the war at the level
5 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6 Q. Mr. Begic, are you aware whether these magistrate courts were
7 operating in Zenica in 1992 and 1993, and did they process or, rather, try
8 people for violations of public law and order and for other misdemeanors
9 as stipulated by the law?
10 A. Yes. In Zenica municipality, the magistrate court was operating
11 throughout. It never stopped working. There were no interruptions.
12 Q. You said that criminal acts and criminal liability were debated
13 and established before regular courts as independent judicial bodies.
14 Tell me, which courts existed in Zenica or, rather, what were the
15 competencies of those courts that existed in Zenica while you were a
17 A. Within the framework of regular courts before the war, there was a
18 basic court in Zenica and a higher court. The basic court in the areas of
19 crimes had to try criminal offences for which punishment of up to ten
20 years was envisaged. The higher court dealt with proceedings and charges
21 for which the sanction was more than ten years or even the death penalty.
22 At the beginning of the war, district military courts were also
23 formed, and in Zenica there was one such court, a district military court
24 and also the district military prosecutor's office.
25 Q. You were a judge of the higher court in Zenica, which means a
1 court which was part of the system of regular courts or, rather, it
2 continued acting in the way it did before the war. Did your courts try
3 individuals including members of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
4 A. Yes, as a rule, the court tried civilians. But should there be
5 co-perpetrators, if there were co-perpetrators, that is a civilian and a
6 military person, then we would also try the military persons.
7 Q. Tell me, finally, Mr. Begic, on the basis your own personal
8 experience as a judge and chief of the security services centre, are you
9 aware that members of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1993, were
10 charged in magistrate courts, district courts, and higher courts? Are you
11 aware of members of the army being tried in all these courts for various
12 acts which allegedly they had committed?
13 A. Yes. I know that they were taken to magistrate courts and regular
14 courts, and I personally tried certain members of the army and found them
15 guilty, in fact.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Begic.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that brings to an
18 end my examination-in-chief of this witness.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is half past
20 three. We will now have the so-called technical break, and we will resume
21 at five to four.
22 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 3.57 p.m.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do the Defence counsel of the
25 other team, do they have any questions?
1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Just
2 now we have no questions for this witness.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Would the
4 Prosecution be kind enough to begin with their cross-examination.
5 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis:
7 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
8 A. [In English] Good afternoon.
9 Q. My name is Daryl Mundis, and along with my colleagues here today
10 we represent the Prosecution in this case, and I have some questions that
11 we'd like to ask you. And as the Presiding Judge told you earlier, if any
12 of my questions are incomprehensible or you don't understand them, just
13 tell me that and I will be more than happy to rephrase the question. My
14 purpose here, as you're probably aware, is not in any way to confuse you
15 but simply to put some additional questions to you.
16 Let me turn first to the investigation, if you will, into the
17 events in Dusina. My learned colleague showed you four documents
18 including some that related to paraffin testing. I believe you actually
19 still have those documents in front of you.
20 Let me ask you this, sir: How was it that CSB Zenica became
21 involved in the events in Dusina or looking at the events in Dusina?
22 A. [Interpretation] As I said, this happened at the request of the
23 investigating judge of the district military court in Zenica. This was
24 also the result of the fact that military security bodies were not
25 properly equipped nor did they have the necessary manpower to perform
1 certain acts, certain tests.
2 Q. At the time, sir, when the investigating judge from the district
3 military court in Zenica -- I guess, did he approach you or phone you?
4 How did -- how was he first in contact with you?
5 A. Not with me in person as the chief of the centre, but I know that
6 the normal way to communicate was through the duty Operations Officer of
7 the security services centre. Now, if the duty officer was directly
8 called up by the judge of the military court or whether the call came from
9 a member of the military police is something I don't know.
10 Q. Sir, do you first recall approximately when you became aware of
11 these events in Dusina?
12 A. I learnt about them on the date of the funeral of these people.
13 As far as I can remember, this happened in the area of Zenica, that is a
14 locality called Cajdras. And this was a very specific event in the
15 security sense?
16 Q. Let me ask you, sir, other than the documents that you've looked
17 at which indicate paraffin tests being done, what other type of assistance
18 did CSB Zenica provide to the investigating judge of the district military
19 court of Zenica with respect to the events that occurred in Dusina?
20 A. Apart from this, I am not aware of any other kind of assistance.
21 Q. So you're not aware of or you don't recall any witness statements
22 being taken or any steps being taken to identify or interview eyewitnesses
23 to these events?
24 A. I really don't know. If this did happen, then it should have been
25 at the request of the investigating judge of the military court or at the
1 request of the military prosecutor.
2 Q. Let me ask you this, sir, based on your experience as a judge in
3 Zenica: Can you describe for us a little bit about any procedures that
4 your aware of with respect to amnesties or pardons for individuals
5 convicted of crimes who had served in the ABiH from 1992 through 1995?
6 A. I am aware that a law on amnesty was passed. I'm not able to tell
7 you when exactly this law was passed. And it generally amnestied all
8 perpetrators of crimes that were members of the army of Bosnia and
9 Herzegovina. I think that there were exceptions. The pardon could not
10 apply to all criminal acts, I don't think. Certainly not in the case of
11 war crimes.
12 Q. Can you perhaps enlighten us as to the legal effect of this type
13 of pardon in the sense of, did it eliminate the conviction? What was the
14 status of the pardon? What did it mean in practical terms?
15 A. If the criminal proceedings were undergoing and no effective
16 sentence had been passed, the proceedings would be stopped. If it was in
17 the sentencing stage, then a sentence would be passed whereby the charges
18 are rejected. If there was a sentence and a prison term was ruled, then
19 that would be withheld. The prison term would be stopped.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in view of the fact
21 that my learned friend is asking certain questions from an area that I did
22 not discuss with the witness during the examination-in-chief, in
23 accordance with the Rules of the cross-examination, the Prosecutor should
24 lay the grounds for embarking upon these questions and to indicate to what
25 extent that would be in contradiction with what the witness has said. I
1 am referring to the Rule 90(ii). The Rule is Rule 90(ii), paragraph (ii).
3 MR. MUNDIS: With all due respect to my colleague, the last set of
4 questions or question she put to the witness concerned whether or not any
5 soldiers had in fact been tried before the civilian courts, and his
6 testimony was there were cases where soldiers were tried and there were
7 cases where civilian and soldier co-perpetrators were tried, and of course
8 that is clearly, if you will, clearly opens the door for us to ask him
9 questions about this.
10 I should also alert the Trial Chamber or seek leave from the Trial
11 Chamber that we are planning on cross-examining this witness on a number
12 of issues relating to the use of the courts that he was familiar with for
13 the prosecution of such persons and such individuals, and it's
14 our view that although this specific question might not fall within the
15 Rule 90(ii), certainly the Defence asked him questions about whether
16 soldiers were in fact prosecuted before the courts, of which this witness
17 sat as a judge, and so and we believe that this line of questioning we're
18 about to embark on clearly fits within the proper scope of Prosecution
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. It appears that the
21 Defence asked the witness questions as a jurist whether soldiers were
22 prosecuted and judged, and the witness said "yes." So the Prosecution is
23 quite right to ask whether all persons were put on trial, and if not, why.
24 And they referred to the law on amnesty.
25 So, Mr. Mundis, please continue.
1 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Now, sir, you did tell us that there were cases where soldiers
3 were, in fact -- or ABiH members were in fact tried before the high court
4 in Zenica; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Are you aware, sir, of instances where soldiers had been tried by
7 that court but those judgements were subsequently quashed because the case
8 should have been before the district military court?
9 A. Yes, there was such cases.
10 Q. And I take it, sir, that those would have been cases where there
11 weren't civilian co-perpetrators involved? It was solely ABiH member or
12 members who were involved in the crimes?
13 A. Yes. The status of a military person could have been debatable,
14 and then the court that would rule on appeal, in our case the Supreme
15 Court, would rule that the status of the person had not been proven or,
16 rather, that he is a military man and that he should be tried by the
17 district military court.
18 Q. Now, sir, in the instance that you've just been telling us about
19 where we're -- where an issue is -- concerns the status of the person who
20 is accused or in cases where soldiers were granted some kind of pardon or
21 amnesty, how was the status of the individual established before the
22 courts in Zenica?
23 A. On the basis of evidence regarding that fact. And the evidence
24 could be and was, as a rule, a certificate from the administrative body,
25 the Secretariat of Defence, indicating that the man was a military person.
1 So all members of the army needed to be registered with those bodies, and
2 those bodies would issue such certificates. And they would inform the
3 court, at its request, about that if there was any dispute about it.
4 Q. Sir, do you know a person named Zajko Kozlic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Could you tell us who Mr. Kozlic is?
7 A. Zajko Kozlic is also a law graduate who, before the war was
8 employed as a military man, as an officer in the Yugoslav People's Army,
9 and he had a degree in law. Sometime during the war, I don't know exactly
10 when, he was elected to the position of judge of the basic court in
11 Zenica, and he remained in that position until this year, as far as I
13 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of Adil Smailagic?
14 A. Yes, I do. He's my colleague. He was a judge of the cantonal
15 court in Zenica. He's now retired, or, rather, he's now an attorney.
16 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of Safit Adrovic?
17 A. Yes. He was also a judge in the cantonal court. He's now
19 Q. Sir, at any time in the period 1992 through 1995, were you aware
20 of any cases involving an individual by the name of Ramo Durmis?
21 A. Yes. I knew that the case was tried at the higher court in
22 Zenica. It was against him and some other persons as co-perpetrators.
23 Q. Can you recall any of the specific instances or the specific facts
24 of that case that you have just mentioned?
25 A. I just know that the case was tried in court. I was not involved
1 in any sense as a judge in that case.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, we have some documents which fall into
3 the category of new documents which I would like to show to this witness.
4 We are in a position to answer the questions which the Trial Chamber
5 previously has directed us to answer with respect to any new documents.
6 In the event that this will lead to argumentation, we would respectfully
7 request that the witness be temporarily removed from the courtroom. These
8 documents were provided to the Defence prior to the commencement of
9 today's session and were disclosed previously, so the Defence was aware
10 that these documents would be shown to the witness. I don't know what the
11 position of the Defence is, but, again, if this will require
12 argumentation, I would respectfully ask that the witness be taken out the
13 courtroom, but perhaps the Defence can tell us what their position is, and
14 I'm, of course, in a position to answer the questions that the Trial
15 Chamber has with respect to these documents.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will ask the
17 witness to be escorted out the courtroom.
18 [Witness stands down]
19 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps while that's being done, Mr. President, for
20 the sake of Your Honours and of course for the Defence, at the time the
21 Chamber rendered its provisional decision with respect to the use of new
22 documents, we were directed to answer a few questions and allow me to do
23 that now. What we have, Mr. President, are four documents which come from
24 the high court in Zenica or the district military court in Zenica. The
25 source of these documents was, actually, what is now known as the Cantonal
1 Court in Zenica. The Office of the Prosecution submitted a request for
2 assistance to the Bosnian authorities on 9 September, 2004, which was
3 after the close of the Prosecution case requesting all court files and
4 materials relating to Mr. Ramo Durmis. We received two batches of such
5 material from the Bosnian authorities. The first batch on 13 October
6 2004, and the second batch on 11 November 2004.
7 The four documents in question were part of the material that was
8 received in the first batch, that is the Prosecution received it on 13
9 October 2004. That material was then processed internally. The original
10 Bosnian-language documents from the first batch were disclosed on the 15th
11 of November, 2004. The English translations of the four documents that we
12 are proposing to show to the witness was received from the translation
13 section on the 26th of November, 2004, and immediately disclosed to the
14 Defence on the 26th of November, 2004.
15 As I previously informed the Chamber a few moments ago, we
16 informed the Defence of our intention to show these documents to the
17 witness depending upon the answers to the questions put to him in
18 cross-examination prior to today's -- immediately prior to today's
19 session, and we did provide, again, copies of the four documents that we
20 are proposing to show to two Defence teams shortly before today's session
21 commenced, but we're talking here the four documents in total are
22 approximately 12 to 15 pages of material that is contained within this.
23 I should also alert the Chamber to the fact that of the material
24 in the two batches that we did receive, there is additional material which
25 is being -- currently being translated, and of course the English
1 translations will be disclosed to the Defence as soon as possible. These
2 four documents relate to -- one is a request for the commencement of an
3 investigation, two of them are judgements, and one of them is a ruling
4 terminating detention, and they all relate to Mr. Ramo Durmis.
5 Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. To summarise, there
7 are four documents that have to do with Mr. Ramo Durmis. One document is
8 a decision on terminating detention. There is one judgement, and there
9 are two requests. The Prosecution says that they requested they be
10 provided with these documents in September 2004, and the Prosecution
11 disclosed or has disclosed some of the documents to the Defence. This was
12 done on the 15th of November, 2004. And today, the Prosecution informed
13 Defence counsel of their intention to show this witness the documents
14 referred to.
15 The Chamber rendered a provisional decision. Tomorrow we will be
16 rendering our oral decision.
17 Mr. Bourgon, I'll give you the floor now.
18 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I will
19 give the floor to my colleague, and if necessary, I may add some comments.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Dixon.
21 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours, the position
22 of both Defence teams is that these documents should not be permitted to
23 be shown to the witness at this stage. As Your Honour has indicated,
24 Your Honour's decision on this matter is being rendered tomorrow, and we
25 would suggest that the proper course would be to consider the documents in
1 light of your decision and for us then to be able to, in light of that
2 decision, present what our objections might be to these very late
3 documents, and I underline that, very late documents being shown to the
4 witness at this stage.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I said that we
6 should be rendering our decision tomorrow, but we could do so immediately.
7 Mr. Bourgon -- yes, Mr. Dixon.
8 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours, I do think
9 that the proper course would be for that decision to be rendered first,
10 and I would ask that Your Honours then hear the Defence in relation to
11 these particular documents once Your Honours have rendered that decision.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, is there anything
13 you would like to add?
14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Not at
15 this point in time, if the Trial Chamber is about to render its decision.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will withdraw
18 --- Break taken at 4.23 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 4.36 p.m.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Given the issue
21 raised by the fact that the Prosecution presented four new documents,
22 given this fact, the Trial Chamber will now render its oral decision. We
23 were going to render a decision tomorrow, but we have to deal with the
24 issue immediately. I have provided the oral decision to the interpreters
25 who will interpret it. We could also provide a written copy to those who
1 want a copy after it has been read out. I'll read the decision out slowly
2 so that everyone can follow.
3 On the 9th of November, 2004, Defence counsel made an oral motion
4 and requested that the Trial Chamber forbid the Prosecution to use new
5 documents in the course of its cross-examination after the presentation of
6 its case. See pages 11467 to 11474 of the transcript.
7 Having heard this motion, the Trial Chamber, on the 10th of
8 November, 2004, granted the Prosecution 15 days to respond. See page
9 11484 of the transcript.
10 On the 10th of November, 2004, the Trial Chamber also requested
11 that the Prosecution inform it of the source of the documents, the date on
12 which the documents were obtained, and the circumstances under which the
13 Prosecution obtained these documents after the presentation of its case.
14 See page 11517 of the transcript.
15 On the 24th of November, 2004, the Prosecution responded orally to
16 the motion made by the Defence on the 9th of November, 2004, and the
17 Prosecution provided the information requested by the Trial Chamber on the
18 10th of November, 2004. See pages 12208 to 12218.
19 The Defence responded orally to the Prosecution's response on the
20 very same day. See pages 12218 to 12232.
21 The reason for this debate between the parties is that the
22 Prosecution produced documents that they hadn't requested to be tendered
23 into evidence when presenting their case, and they did this in the course
24 of examining witnesses for the Defence. Thus the Prosecution presented
25 new documents at hearings on the 26th of October, the 28th of October, the
1 5th of November, and the 9th of November, 2004. See pages 10616 to 10629,
2 10918 to 10923, 11235 to 11238, and 11466 to 11467 of the transcript.
3 First of all, the Trial Chamber would like to summarise the main
4 issues raised by the parties. The Prosecution claims that they provided
5 to the Defence the relevant documents that supported the allegations made
6 in the indictment. The Prosecution also says, or claims, that when the
7 Defence was presenting its evidence, the Defence raised certain issues
8 that hadn't been covered by the Prosecution. For example, there were
9 crimes committed by the HVO referred to. As a result, the Prosecution may
10 present documents that relate to questions put to witnesses by the Defence
11 that the Prosecution had not planned to present.
12 The Prosecution also adds that in the course of the trial, it is
13 continuing with investigations and thus it can add new documents that
14 might be admitted after the presentation of its case.
15 The Prosecution also referred to a decision rendered in the
16 Kupreskic case, IT-95-16-T on the 25th of June, 1999. The Defence
17 responded that the Prosecution had the burden of proof and that it should
18 not produce new documents in order to protect itself in the light of
19 arguments presented by the Defence.
20 Defence counsel admits that the Rules do not specifically refer to
21 the rules that would govern cross-examination, and the Defence believes
22 that the rights of the accused mean that one should not interpret these
23 rules in a manner that would be advantageous to the Prosecution. And the
24 Prosecution, pursuant to Rule 65 ter (iii), must disclose to the Defence
25 all the documents that it has. The Defence believes that if the
1 Prosecution has certain documents in its possession, it may only present
2 these documents in the course of its rebuttal. It is at this stage that
3 the Prosecution has the right to present new evidence. The Defence adds
4 that there are exceptions to this rule. Firstly, one is exempt from this
5 Rule if the Prosecution believes that the credibility of the witness could
6 be brought into question. And secondly -- the second exception concerns
7 cases where the Prosecution wants to present a document in order to
8 refresh the witness's memory.
9 The way in which evidence is presented pursuant to the Rule 89 of
10 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Chamber would also like to point
11 out that admitting a document into evidence does not amount to attaching
12 certain weight to this document. It does not amount to attaching a
13 definitive weight to the document at the end of the trial.
14 The Trial Chamber would like to indicate that there is a principle
15 which is fundamental and which must be respected by the Prosecution, and
16 that is that the Prosecution must present all its evidence in the course
17 of its case. This is a rule that is present in the jurisprudence of the
18 Tribunal. See, for example, paragraph 14 of the decision rendered on the
19 31st of October, 2000 by the Trial Chamber in the Kunarac case, and
20 paragraph 5 of the decision dated the 10th of September, 2004, rendered by
21 the Trial Chamber in the Strugar case.
22 As a result of this principle, the Prosecution can only present in
23 the course of its cross-examination of a witness new documents that have
24 not been admitted -- it may present new documents only if it wants to
25 reinforce evidence that it has presented already or if it wants to
1 introduce new elements that concern the criminal responsibility of the
3 In particular, the Trial Chamber rejects the arguments of the
4 Prosecution, according to which the Prosecution should be granted more
5 freedom to produce documents that have not already been admitted into
6 evidence because the Prosecution claims that they could not wait for the
7 Defence to present its evidence that concerns the interpretation of the
8 historical context, the political and the military context, for example,
9 the crimes committed by the HVO.
10 The Trial Chamber would like to draw the Prosecution's attention
11 to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the pre-trial brief for Mr. Amir Kubura, dated
12 the 3rd of November, 2003, and also to paragraph 17 and 24 of the
13 pre-trial brief of Mr. Enver Hadzihasanovic, dated the 3rd of November,
14 2003. Reference in these pre-trial briefs is made to the military and
15 political context of this specific case.
16 In addition, the Trial Chamber would like to point out that the
17 documents mentioned above produced by the Prosecution on the 26th of
18 October, the 28th of October, and the 5th of November, and the 9th of
19 November, 2004, do not relate to the general context of the case.
20 Nevertheless, there are two matters in which the Prosecution may request
21 that new evidence be admitted after the presentation of its case.
22 Firstly, the Prosecution may make such request in the rebuttal
23 stage, and pursuant to Rule 85(A)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure and
24 Evidence, and also in accordance with the manner for tendering such
25 documents into evidence described in paragraph 273 of the Celebici
1 judgement dated the 20th of February, 2001.
2 Secondly, it may request that its case be reopened under the
3 conditions provided for in paragraph 283 of the Celebici judgement, and
4 paragraph 12 of the decision of the 4th of May, 2001, rendered by the
5 Trial Chamber in the Krstic case.
6 The Trial Chamber would like to point out that the scope of
7 cross-examination is limited by Rule 90(H)(i) of the Rules of Procedure
8 and Evidence. According to this Rule, cross-examination should be limited
9 to the following points unless otherwise decided by the Chamber. It must
10 be limited to issues raised in the course of the examination-in-chief, or
11 it must be limited to issues that have to do with the credibility of the
12 witness, or it must be limited to points that are part of the case of the
13 party that is conducting the cross-examination.
14 In addition, Article 90(H)(ii) says that in the cross-examination
15 a witness who is able to give evidence for the cross-examining party,
16 counsel shall put to that witness the nature of the case for the party for
17 whom that counsel appears.
18 The scope of cross-examination of a witness by the Prosecution is
19 thus limited to the points referred to in Rule 90(H) of the Rules. In the
20 course of such cross-examination, the Prosecution may naturally confront
21 the witness or may present to the witness any documents that have already
22 been admitted into evidence. The Prosecution may present and request that
23 certain documents be tendered into evidence, if these documents have not
24 already been admitted into evidence, in the course of cross-examination,
25 but the conditions will be much more restricted and will be governed by
1 the principles that have already been referred to.
2 In the opinion of the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution may present,
3 in the course of its cross-examination, any documents that have not
4 already been admitted in order to test the credibility of a witness or to
5 refresh such a witness's memory. In each of these two cases, the
6 Prosecution may present a document that has not already been admitted and
7 which it had in its possession before or after the presentation of its
9 The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that when the Prosecution
10 plans to present such a document in the course of its preparatory work,
11 that it must disclose such a document to the Defence, and it must inform
12 the Defence of its intention to present such a document at least 24 hours
13 before a Defence witness appears, unless the Defence has provided the
14 Prosecution with the information they need to prepare their
15 cross-examination a little too late.
16 The Prosecution may request the admission into evidence of a
17 document that it has disclosed provided that it is in order to establish
18 the credibility of a witness or to refresh a witness's memory. And such a
19 document can only be admitted in a limited manner and can only be used to
20 establish the credibility of the oral testimony of the witness or to
21 refresh the witness's memory.
22 The Trial Chamber would like to draw the parties' attention to
23 documents P103 and P106, which admitted in this limited manner following a
24 decision rendered on the 16th of July, 2004. With regard to this matter,
25 the Trial Chamber would like to point out that document P931 was tendered
1 into evidence on the 27th of October, 2004, at the request of the
2 Prosecution when cross-examining the Defence witness Siljak Remzija. This
3 is what is stated on page 10618 of the transcript. The Prosecution
4 present this had document to establish the credibility of the witness
5 Siljak. As a result, the Trial Chamber confirms the admission of this
6 document but would like to point out that this document is being admitted
7 only in order to determine the credibility of the oral testimony of
8 Witness Siljak.
9 The Trial Chamber would also like to point out that document
10 P935 -- P935 was presented on the 5th of November, 2004, at the request of
11 the Prosecution when cross-examining the Defence witness Haris Jusic. As
12 we can see on pages 11235 and 11238 of the transcript, the Prosecution
13 presented this document in order to refresh the witness's memory. As a
14 result, the Trial Chamber would like to confirm that this document is
15 being admitted into evidence, but we would like to point out that it is
16 being admitted in order to refresh the memory of the witness Jusic.
17 So that's our four-page decision, and having read the decision
18 out, in the light of this decision is there anything the Prosecution would
19 like to say? Would the Prosecution like to show its documents to the
20 witness? Mr. Mundis, if you have understood the decision, if not, you may
21 take the time to examine it.
22 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I believe we have understood the
23 decision, although certainly some additional time to read and reflect on
24 the full extent of the Chamber's order might be helpful. In light of,
25 however, what the witness has said with respect to -- what he's testified
1 here concerning Mr. Ramo Durmis and the case involving him, it would
2 certainly be our position that the documents which we were proposing to
3 show to him would certainly be of assistance in refreshing his
4 recollection with respect to these events in question. And our
5 preliminary view, again without having time to reflect and re-read the
6 transcript with respect to the Trial Chamber's decision, our position
7 would be that the four documents we were planning on showing to this
8 witness would certainly fall within the scope of refreshing recollection
9 with respect to his testimony and the fact that he said he was aware that
10 Mr. Durmis had been prosecuted but didn't recall the specifics.
11 So that would be our preliminary position with respect to showing
12 this witness these four documents. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Bourgon.
14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Contrary
15 to what my learned friend from the Prosecution says, we oppose this
16 position in conformity with the decision of the Chamber. The decision of
17 the Chamber does not allow the Prosecution to show a document to the
18 witness to refresh his memory, but the witness has already answered
19 questions and said what he knows about the event. He said he was not
20 implicated in it, so there's no other subject remaining in doubt regarding
21 the memory of this witness regarding this event.
22 For these reasons, Mr. President, I think that these four
23 documents cannot be shown to this witness. The question posed by the
24 Prosecution within the framework of these documents, in my view, the
25 subject is closed.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.
2 MR. DIXON: I agree with my learned friend Mr. Bourgon that these
3 documents come nowhere near falling into the category of memory refreshing
4 and it would be pushing Your Honours' judgement to the limit to try to
5 introduce them on that basis. I refer Your Honours to page 34, line 25,
6 of the transcript where the witness said quite clearly that all he knows
7 is that there was this case tried in court, and he says, "I was not
8 involved in any sense as a judge in that case."
9 So in our submission, there would be no point showing these
10 documents to the witness to refresh his memory as he have not involved in
11 the case. There is nothing to refresh, Your Honours.
12 If one of the persons who he mentioned, namely the investigating
13 judge or the prosecutor were here as a witness, well, that might be a
14 different matter altogether, that those persons might remember the matter.
15 They might need to have their memories refreshed. But this particular
16 judge was not involved and is not somebody who could comment on these
17 documents in any way whatsoever.
18 Thank you, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber is going to withdraw
20 to deliberate. The question is quite simple, and it is as follows: The
21 Prosecution, pursuant to our ruling, believes that it can produce these
22 four documents to refresh the witness's memory. The Defence tells us
23 there's no reason to refresh the witness's memory as the case referred to
24 by the documents was not a case that was addressed by this witness, and
25 consequently, there's no -- nothing to refresh his memory about, because
1 the witness on page 34, line 24, said that he was not aware of this case.
2 So we will withdraw. It will not take long. We will be back in a
3 few minutes.
4 --- Break taken at 5.04 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 5.05 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber is rendering another
7 oral decision in answer to the question whether the Prosecution is allowed
8 to produce four new documents and to show them to the witness to refresh
9 his memory.
10 In view of the observations made by the Defence, it is the opinion
11 of the Chamber that in view of the fact that this witness was not familiar
12 with the case of Mr. Ramo Durmis, he cannot -- his memory cannot be
13 refreshed. Otherwise, this would have been possible if he was involved.
14 So there's no possibility of refreshing his memory and, therefore, the
15 Prosecution cannot show him these documents.
16 We're going to bring the witness back in to continue with the
17 cross-examination. If we don't finish today, we can continue tomorrow.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, the hearing continues. We
20 had to have an interruption, and we had to ask you to leave the courtroom
21 because we had to address a procedural matter, and we rendered two oral
22 decisions, and now I will give the floor again to the Prosecution to
23 continue their cross-examination.
24 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. Sir, in response to some questions put to you by the Defence, you
1 told us about foreigners who were in the area of Zenica in 1992 and 1993,
2 and you told us about the difficulties because these persons weren't
3 registered with CSB. Do you recall talking about that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. To the best of your recollection in the period of 1992 up until
6 the time in February 1993 when you left CSB Zenica to become a high court
7 judge, do you recall any instances in which CSB Zenica was involved in
8 investigating any crimes committed by such foreigners?
9 A. Just now I do not recollect any such cases.
10 Q. Let's go back, then, sir, to the subject or -- or let's turn now
11 to the subject of the cooperation between CSB Zenica and the 3rd Corps.
12 You told us that due to the lack of proper equipment and some of the lack
13 of training of military police within the 3rd Corps, CSB actively
14 cooperated with units of the 3rd Corps. Is that a fair summary of your
16 A. Cooperation with a view to carrying out our duties. If you mean
17 that, then that is my answer, yes.
18 Q. That's what I mean, sir. The cooperation, as you put it, with a
19 view to carrying out your duties.
20 Can you tell us a little bit about how this cooperation worked in
21 practice, what types of crimes or what types of investigative work you
22 would be doing in cooperation with the 3rd Corps?
23 A. It was mostly or exclusively engaging our department for crime
24 technology. If an act came under the competence of the military court,
25 the operative procedures were carried out by the military security body.
1 Q. When you say this cooperation was mostly or exclusively engaging
2 your department for crime technology, I take it then from that that you
3 weren't providing the type of assistance such as interviewing witnesses or
4 interviewing victims or anything like that? It was more related to
5 technical assistance?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you recall, sir, any of the specific units of the 3rd Corps
8 that you provided this type of technical assistance to?
9 A. I've already said that we cooperated with the military police
10 battalion, which was operating within the framework of the 3rd Corps.
11 Q. Other than the 3rd Corps military police battalion, did you have
12 any involvement with 3rd Corps security department or with any other units
13 of the 3rd Corps?
14 A. I think not.
15 Q. Do you recall the types -- or first of all, approximately on how
16 many instances of the formation of the 3rd Corps until you departed CSB
17 Zenica in February 1993, on how many occasions do you recall providing the
18 3rd Corps military police battalion with technical assistance?
19 A. I really don't know. I would sign certain documents coming from
20 the CSB and going towards other bodies, because I represented that centre
21 of security service. As for the contents of those documents, I didn't go
22 into that.
23 Q. So, sir, I take it, then, from your last answer that you can't
24 help us with respect to any specific crimes or alleged crimes that CSB
25 Zenica provided assistance to 3rd Corps other than Dusina, which we've
1 spoken about?
2 A. In concrete terms, no.
3 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about any problems that CSB Zenica
4 might have encountered in its relations or cooperation with the 3rd Corps?
5 Do you recall any instances where there was difficulties or where the
6 cooperation wasn't operating smoothly?
7 A. I don't recollect any particular case or any particular instance.
8 Q. Do you recall receiving any documents from the Ministry of the
9 Interior concerning cooperation or attempts to improve cooperation between
10 CSB Zenica and the 3rd Corps?
11 A. I think there were documents that spoke in general terms about the
12 relationship between the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Ministry
13 of the Interior, but something specific about the Zenica CSB and the 3rd
14 Corps, I don't recollect that.
15 Q. Now, sir, earlier in response to a question from my learned
16 colleague from the Defence, you told us a little bit about how the reserve
17 police could be resubordinated to the army during wartime on certain
18 occasions. Can you describe for us the -- whether it was possible for the
19 Ministry of the Interior as a whole to be subordinated to the military
20 during wartime?
21 A. According to the law on defence or, rather, on service of the
22 armed forces, the Presidency was the Supreme Commander. Now, whether the
23 Presidency could have passed such a decision is something I cannot tell
25 Q. But you're not aware of any specific order of the Presidency doing
1 such a thing during the war in 1993?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. Do you recall any specific instances where you had -- you
4 experienced any difficulties concerning issues that might be considered
5 jurisdictional issues between CSB Zenica and the 3rd Corps or any of its
6 subordinates units?
7 A. At this point in time, I cannot recollect any particular instance.
8 MR. MUNDIS: Just a moment, please, Mr. President.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 MR. MUNDIS:
11 Q. Sir, you told us earlier, again in response to a question from my
12 learned colleague from the Defence, that there were certain areas within
13 the region that CSB Zenica covered to which you did not have access. Can
14 you be more specific in terms of what area or areas that fell within the
15 jurisdiction of CSB Zenica that you did not have access to?
16 A. I have already listed some areas, and I will repeat. That was the
17 case with respect to Busovaca, in the first place, also Vitez, Zepca. I
18 think also Donji Vakuf, Gornji -- no, Donji, Donji Vakuf, from the
19 beginning, yes. From the very beginning of the war. And some other
21 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with the leave of the Trial Chamber,
22 the Prosecution would respectfully ask to be permitted to address a couple
23 of questions to the witness that fall outside the scope of the direct
24 examination concerning the Islamic centre in Zenica.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before the Chamber renders its
2 decision, the Prosecution wishes to ask the witness questions about the
3 Islamic centre of Zenica. This centre has cropped up on a number of
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all, we
6 would like to know why the Prosecutor wishes to put these questions to the
7 witness, because he said himself that this was not covered by the
8 examination-in-chief. And secondly, according to the personal data of
9 this witness, I see no link between then witness and such questions. So
10 we have to know why he wishes to put these questions to the witness.
11 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we fully support
12 what Mrs. Residovic has said, and we have nothing more to add. We don't
13 understand why our learned friend wishes to ask those questions at all.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber can
15 always allow all questions if they feel that these questions are of
16 interest. So tell us, what is the interest of this question, noting that
17 the Defence has said that nothing in the CV or the answers or the status
18 of this witness allows us to suppose that he can produce any useful
19 answers about this Islamic centre. Perhaps the Prosecutor, however, can
20 enlighten us.
21 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, during the course of the searches that
22 we do on the witnesses, there is a document that we have from a later
23 period in time which contains a reference to a person with the same name
24 as this witness, and I don't know if it is in fact the same person or
25 perhaps someone with the same name. And again, the document is dated
1 from, I believe, 1996, and we would simply like to ask the witness a
2 couple of questions to determine if, in fact, there is any link
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to retreat again
5 for a few minutes.
6 --- Break taken at 5.20 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 5.21 p.m.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber is going to render
9 another oral decision regarding allowing the Prosecution to put a question
10 to the witness that was not within the scope of the examination-in-chief.
11 The Prosecution tells us that they have a document in their
12 possession bearing the first and last name of the witness, a document
13 about this Islamic centre. The Chamber notes that this Islamic centre has
14 already been referred to during several testimonies, and in view of that,
15 it is in the interest of justice to check the correspondence between the
16 Islamic centre and the witness.
17 So, Mr. Mundis, you have the floor to ask your question.
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Sir, during the period from 1992 through 1993, were you affiliated
20 in any way with the Islamic centre in Zenica in terms of being an
21 official, on the board of directors, or in any way affiliated with the
22 Islamic centre?
23 A. As far as I can remember, I was not.
24 Q. Thank you, sir.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution has no further
1 questions for the witness at this time.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
3 Re-examination, please. I'm looking at the Defence.
4 Re-Examined by Ms. Residovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Begic, relating to the questions put you by
6 my learned friend in connection with the question of amnesty or pardon,
7 tell me, please, is an amnesty an act of the court or is it something
8 regulated by law?
9 A. Amnesty is granted exclusively on the basis of a law adopted by
10 the Assembly. Or in wartime, this was done by the Presidency with the
11 force of law.
12 Q. Mr. Begic, is an amnesty an act of mercy or does it annul court
13 decisions that had previously established responsibility of a certain
14 accused who was properly tried and sentenced?
15 A. Without entering into the reasons for an amnesty, generally
16 speaking it can be described as an act of mercy.
17 Q. Thank you. Speaking about cooperation with the military police
18 battalion and the CSB, you can speak about that cooperation for the time
19 period when you were in the CSB, or do you know anything about it also as
20 a judge of the high court in Zenica?
21 A. I can speak about it while I performed both those duties.
22 Q. Referring to the period when you were in the CSB, tell us, what
23 kinds of crimes did you come across as the security services centre as
24 well as the military police, and were those acts that required the kind of
25 cooperation that you have described?
1 A. Of course. That cooperation through the involvement of the
2 criminal technology department mainly -- was mainly developed in the case
3 of manslaughter, when certain technologies were required. Also in
4 forensic studies of fingerprints in the case of thefts and burglaries.
5 Q. If you can remember that time period, can you tell us what was the
6 name of those crimes? What types of crimes did you cooperate on with the
7 military police?
8 A. In the case of manslaughter, murder, then in the case of serious
9 burglaries, theft. In the case of the crime of rape our assistance again
10 was indispensable for forensic examination of traces that are required in
11 such instances.
12 Q. You also said that you could recall such cooperation while you
13 were a judge of the high court. Tell me, were you ever in a situation
14 when a military police battalion -- when the military battalion of the 3rd
15 Corps rejected a request that you or any colleague of yours may have made
16 with respect to the military police?
17 A. I don't remember any such instance.
18 Q. Mr. Begic, can you recall the number of members of the army that
19 appeared before the relevant courts in the course of 1993?
20 A. I am not -- I don't know the number.
21 Q. My learned friend asked you about various types of crimes. You
22 have just now mentioned murder, rape, burglaries, thefts, et cetera.
23 Earlier on, you said that the legal qualification depended on the court.
24 Tell me, as a judge confronting such crimes, did you give thought
25 to whether those crimes contained any elements of a war crime against the
1 civilian population? And if you did not, tell me, on what grounds would
2 you decide that an act was one of the crimes you have listed?
3 A. I can tell you that in my experience, there were no cases when I
4 had any such dilemmas. These were mostly individual instances of
5 violence, so that I never had any thoughts that this might be a war crime.
6 My answer is a very general one without referring to any particular case.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Just a moment, please.
8 Mr. Mundis.
9 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the last question, in our respectful
10 view, is beyond the scope of the cross-examination, but the witness has
11 since answered the question, so I'll withdraw any objection that we may
12 have had.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Let me ask you just one more question. In answer to a question
16 from my learned friend, you said that a judge could have some hesitation
17 as to the status of a suspect. Tell me, in such a situation, would the
18 judge produce evidence in support of this?
19 A. I think I have already answered that question when I said that the
20 court would seek additional information from the defence secretariat who
21 had information about members of the army.
22 Q. And my last question --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If it's the last.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Begic, let me ask you this: As chief of the CSB and later as
1 a judge, you did cooperate with the military police battalion. Do you
2 know whether that battalion investigated and filed criminal reports for
3 all these various crimes, also with regard to other units of the 3rd
5 A. I do know that it did, because I acted in certain cases when the
6 military police battalion submitted a report. These were cases on appeal
7 with respect to rulings of the district military court, and this belonged
8 to the Supreme Court.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have no
10 further questions.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're now going to
12 have the break, and when we resume at 6.00 p.m., I will ask the other
13 Defence team whether they have any additional questions, after which the
14 Judges will have their questions.
15 --- Recess taken at 5.33 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 5.57 p.m.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does the other Defence team have
18 any questions?
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Ibrisimovic:
20 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] We have only two questions in
21 order to clarify something.
22 Q. Mr. Begic, when you mentioned the crimes covered by the amnesty,
23 you said that not all crimes were covered by this amnesty, and you said
24 that crimes of war were not covered by the amnesty.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And murder, rape, and aggravated theft were also not covered by
2 the amnesty?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And my second question is: When you mentioned crimes in which
5 there was an amnesty, you said that in cases when there was a sentence,
6 you said in such a case the accused was not to serve the sentence. The
7 sentence remained, though. It wasn't amended; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have a few
10 questions and then the other Judges will also ask you some questions.
11 Questioned by the Court:
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You told us that you were the
13 chief of the police, of the civilian police, in Zenica. Can you confirm
14 that up until February, at least, you were in charge of the civilian
15 police that was under the Ministry of the Interior.
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: How many policemen did you have? You were in
18 charge of how many policemen in Zenica?
19 A. Only in Zenica or in all the public security stations.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In Zenica and in the entire
22 A. I don't know the exact number, but perhaps there were up to 5.000
23 men. These were staff members who were authorised and who didn't have
24 authority [as interpreted].
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you had 5.000 men. And what
1 about the men who were capable of carrying out judicial investigations?
2 Out of the 5.000 men, how many such men were there?
3 A. Let me clarify something. Not all the policemen could carry out
4 judicial investigations. Only those who were assigned to certain
5 departments for crime detection could get involved in such investigations.
6 Most of the policemen were in uniform and, in fact, their task was to
7 maintain public law and order. They didn't have the authority to carry
8 out investigations into crimes that had been perpetrated.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, sir. The department
10 are responsibility for identifying crimes and misdemeanors, how many men
11 were there in that department?
12 A. Well, I don't know the exact number, but perhaps there were up to
13 about ten of them. Up to about ten men.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there were ten of them who
15 covered the entire region. Let's take a simple example. A crime is
16 committed. Someone is found dead in their house. Someone was killed in
17 their house. Who carries out the investigation? Are you informed of the
18 crime as the chief? And who will go to carry out the initial on-site
20 A. Well, the operations officer in the CSB is informed of the crime.
21 He then forms a team to carry out an on-site investigation if this is
22 necessary. And the operations officer informs the investigating judge and
23 the prosecutor. It is the investigating judge who is in charge of the
24 investigation. The investigating judge is in charge of it.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's imagine that a number of
1 individuals who have been killed are found. The duty officer -- does the
2 duty officer submit a report to you as the chief of the civilian police?
3 Aren't you informed of the fact that at a certain site a certain number of
4 bodies were found? Were you not personally informed of such cases?
5 A. Well, I was informed of such cases by means of bulletins that I as
6 the chief of the centre received on a daily basis, but I wasn't
7 immediately informed of the crimes committed. I wasn't informed of the
8 fact in order to decide how a team to carry out an on-site investigation
9 would be formed.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But when the
11 investigating judge carries out the investigation, he is not able to do
12 everything himself. He has to ask the police to help him to identify the
13 individuals, carry out paraffin tests, autopsies, et cetera.
14 When the phase of the department for carry investigation of crimes
15 is completed and the documents are forwarded to judges, do you sign
16 documents, do you submit anything to the judges stating that in the course
17 of the investigation such-and-such things were done?
18 A. Well, there's the chief of the CSB. I signed all of the documents
19 that were forwarded to other individuals, other bodies.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I will now show you
21 a document -- a document shown to you by the Defence. We will have a look
22 at P332. It's dated the 1st of February, and it's a document that you
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This document was sent to the
1 district military court. Why doesn't it contain the name of the
2 prosecutor or the judge? Why does the document only refer to the district
3 military court? Why are the judge and prosecutor not mentioned? Why did
4 you just note down "District military court" in the heading?
5 A. Well, this is a letter from the CSB to the military court.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But when signing
7 this document, you didn't know who would read the document, who would
8 receive it.
9 A. Well, the president of the court decides about this. He knows
10 which judges will be assigned to a particular case.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You were a judge; you are a
12 lawyer. When one has a look at this document, does this document contain
13 reference to an investigation of any kind? Because this document has to
14 do with identification. It's a note on identification. But a body may be
15 identified without there being a crime. Somebody may die of natural
16 causes, and this will not result in an investigation. So how would you
17 describe this document, the letter that you sent to the military court?
18 Did this concern an investigation or is it just an administrative document
19 that was forwarded at your level? When you signed such a document what
20 did you have in mind at the time of signing the document? What did you
21 think about it?
22 A. Well, I wanted the document to be forwarded that referred to the
23 work carried out by CSB members, and this was at the request of the
24 authorised investigating judge, the chief of the centre. If was not
25 necessary for me to know which investigating judge had made such a
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said at the request of the
3 authorise the investigating judge. A minute ago you said that a judge had
4 made the request. But how is it that in this document no reference is
5 made to an investigating judge? I can't see the reference to someone's
6 request or someone's instructions. There's no such reference in the
8 A. Well, I think you can see this in the documents that were attached
9 to this document. This is an additional document. But the annexes listed
10 here are attached to the document.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have a look at as
12 annex P341, which is the paraffin test, dated the 29th of January. The
13 document number is 19102233.
14 When you signed such a document -- or when you sign such a
15 document, do you first read the document on the paraffin test? This
16 paraffin test document was signed by the expert Adzic and by yourself.
17 You signed the document. Did you read the document on the paraffin test?
18 Did you read the entire document? If you didn't read it, you can read it
20 A. No, I didn't read the document, nor did I read such documents. I
21 didn't concern myself with the contents of the documents that were
22 presented to me. As a rule, I did not read them.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you would sign such documents
24 without reading them.
25 A. Yes, because the expert report, the analysis was carried out by an
1 authorised worker.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. When we read through
3 the paraffin analysis, we won't go into all the details, you're a
4 professional, we the Judges are aware of the fact. We could discuss the
5 matter, but I don't want to go into the technical details.
6 But in this document and with regard to the bodies that were
7 identified, for most of the bodies the test was positive. So particles
8 were found either on the left land -- on their left hand or their right
9 hands. But there is someone calls Pero Ljubicic, and apparently his left
10 hand and his right hand were both negative.
11 As chief of the police, you weren't familiar with this problem?
12 Because if the test was negative, one can conclude that he didn't shoot.
13 If he didn't shoot, why was he dead? Didn't this idea occur to you?
14 A. Well, I said I didn't read the contents of the document.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you are telling us that you
16 didn't read the documents you signed without reading the document.
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because in your opinion, it's
19 the investigating judge or the prosecutor who should take action on the
20 basis of the document, and as far as you were concerned, it wasn't for you
21 to express your particular opinion.
22 A. Yes, exactly.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As chief of the police, did you
24 ever go to the hospital? Did you ever go to the morgue in the hospital to
25 see the corpses there? Did you ever go to see the corpses, you as the
1 chief of the police?
2 A. No. I never went there as the chief of police. My duties were
3 such that I couldn't get involved in such operations. There were
4 authorised officials who were responsible for such things.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In document P333 -- P334 -- have
6 a look at it. It's signed by Enes Saric. The date is the 29th of
7 January. And he describes the body identified. We can see there is Faruk
8 Turkic, a pathologist. There's the HVO, who were also present,
9 represented by Mr. Enver Nesirovic. There's a security officer from the
10 hospital, Mr. Bektas. There are family members. Some names are listed
12 When you read such a document, didn't you wonder how it -- why the
13 HVO was interested in this case? Wouldn't you have reacted in this way as
14 chief of the police? Because this document states that the HVO was
15 present in an official capacity. Didn't this show that there might have
16 been a slight problem.
17 A. If I had paid attention to the document, if I had read through it,
18 perhaps that would have occurred it me.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But you didn't read
20 the document.
21 Similarly, document P333, dated the 29th of January, which
22 concerns the identification of certain individuals. Well, we can see who
23 was in the identification team. There was Dr. Turkic, and there was --
24 there were the judges and the prosecutor.
25 When the prosecutor goes to the morgue, it means it's an important
1 case, unless the prosecutor of the district military court went to the
2 morgue whenever someone died. How would you explain the fact that he was
3 present at the morgue, especially since your subordinate was present?
4 Because it says that an officer from your centre was present.
5 If the prosecutor is there, how come the chief of the police is
6 not there too? Could you explain this fact?
7 A. No, I couldn't explain that, but all I can say is that I was never
8 present in such cases as the chief of the CSB.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We know that there
10 was a war, and naturally there were a lot of people who had been killed,
11 but was it customary to have in the Zenica hospital's morgue, well, eight
12 bodies listed here. Eight persons were killed. Were there that many
13 people who were killed every day as a result of the conflict or was this
14 an exceptional case? You who were present in the era, what is your
15 opinion of that? Were about ten people killed every day in Zenica or was
16 this an exceptional case?
17 A. Well, at the time as a result of the fighting, there would be far
18 more individuals killed. They would then be transported -- transferred to
19 the hospital before they prepared -- before their funerals were prepared.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In response to a question awhile
21 ago, you said that you found out that the individuals who were buried at
22 Fafalas [phoen], you said that you found out that an interrogation was
23 carried out into the cause of death. Could you confirm that when you
24 found out about this, you felt that perhaps there was something that
25 should be investigated, that is to say that the circumstances in which
1 these people died should be investigated.
2 Do you remember how this case was presented to you, and did you
3 think, "Well, I signed a document about these individuals." Do you
4 remember when this issue was raised with you again?
5 A. Well, I don't know this exact period. I don't know when I found
6 out about the exact burial, and I can't say when these things were signed.
7 I can't say exactly. But I found out about the burial -- I remember that
8 because I was informed by the chief of the public security station that
9 this would be taking place and that certain preparations had been made for
10 security to ensure that the funeral ran smoothly.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you found out that there was
12 this burial and that it was necessary to take measures to ensure that
13 there were no problems when these people were buried. But when there is a
14 burial, does the police always take measures? Why in the case of this
15 particular burial was it necessary to take certain measures?
16 A. Well, whenever there is a burial, certain measures must be taken.
17 You have to control the traffic if it's necessary to transport the
18 deceased to the cemetery. But in this case, tension had already risen.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying that tension
20 had risen. Since you are aware of this fact, didn't you personally have
21 the power to ask the department responsible for identifying crimes and
22 misdemeanors to re-examine the entire case? Wasn't it your responsibility
23 to ask this department to examine all the elements and to try and
24 determine the conditions in which these individuals died? Didn't it occur
25 to you that you should proceed in this manner?
1 A. All I can say is that I didn't think along those lines. If I had,
2 I would have remembered. Now, why I didn't have such thoughts, I can't
3 tell you now. Maybe this was already the period of time when I was
4 leaving the CSB. I would like to mention that as of the 20th of February
5 already I was on annual leave, and I was waiting for a decision to be made
6 regarding the election to the post of judge. I had been proposed by the
7 high court of Zenica.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. You took your position
9 as judge. But the month that followed, and the years that followed, in
10 fact, there wasn't a commission of inquiry? You were never interviewed?
11 No questions were put to you as to the way in which you managed this case?
12 A. I was not.
13 JUDGE SWART: Good afternoon, Witness. I also have a few
14 questions on the four documents that have been shown to you. You told us
15 that you were found by an investigating judge from the military court, and
16 that was the beginning of your involvement as a service with this matter.
17 You said also that you could not remember the name of that judge. And
18 you, therefore, directed a letter to the military Tribunal, military
20 I have a similar question. In one of these documents, that is
21 P333, 333, there is mention of judges and a prosecutor that has "already
22 been sent by my colleague, who are doing together with a pathologist,
23 Faruk Turkic, in the Zenica CSB forensic office an identification
24 procedure." Please have a look at that document, P333.
25 My question would be -- this would be the first question I would
1 like to put to you: Do you recall or do you not recall who were these
2 judges and who was this prosecutor? Are you still looking for the
4 A. This is what I can say: I said that I was not informed directly
5 but that the communication, I assume, went between the investigating judge
6 and the operations duty officer in the CSB who was there to receive
7 requests and forward them on to persons who had to carry out certain
9 JUDGE SWART: And then we have --
10 A. So that I needn't have had the name of the judge.
11 JUDGE SWART: I was interrupting you. Sorry. So this has been
12 received via your operations officer. It comes on your desk, or you give
13 the organisation the -- you ask your organisation to cooperate with this
15 Now we see on P333 if you have it -- do you have it now, the
16 document, before you?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE SWART: Well, if you see -- if you look at that document,
19 P333, on the second linea, you can see that an identification team is
20 working there. One is a pathologist. That may be someone of your
21 department. There are judges, and there is a prosecutor and a Zenica CSB
22 forensic officer.
23 My question is: Do you remember who these judges were and who the
24 prosecutor was, or don't you remember?
25 A. I don't. It is the person who signed this note who should be able
1 to remember.
2 JUDGE SWART: All right. Continue with the next linea. We read
3 that, "During the identification procedure, a description of the body was
4 taken, the body photographed, and a print of the right index finger
6 In an identification procedure, the whole thing is turning about a
7 question, who is this person that we have found, or who is this person
8 whose body is in here. You take a print of the right index finger. You
9 may do a description of the body. You may also photograph the body.
10 My question to you is: What is the normal standard procedure in
11 such a case? There is a body of an unknown person somewhere in some
12 hospital, and everybody wants to determine who he or she is. You take an
13 index finger. You invite the family if you have an idea who whose family
14 it might be. You take a description of the body. Is photographing a body
15 also part of a standard procedure in your organisation?
16 A. Yes. If -- unless a family member recognises the dead person.
17 And in this case, photographs were taken to provide documentary evidence
18 of the external appearance of the body.
19 JUDGE SWART: But most of the ten have been recognised by other
20 people. That is evident from the other document, P334. So in that sense
21 there would be no necessity to take a picture, I think, or do the two go
22 together sometimes?
23 A. I said that taking a photograph was done to document the external
24 appearance of the body, and this was done by the pathologist, Dr. Faruk.
25 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ... pathologist. I
1 take it he is from the hospital probably. Is he or --
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 JUDGE SWART: He is from the hospital? How would he do that as a
4 pathologist? How would he take photos?
5 A. He makes a report regarding the examination of the body, and our
6 employees were present to prepare the photos, because they had the
7 equipment to be able to do that. So as a rule, the pathologist does not
8 prepare the photo documents. At least that is our practice.
9 JUDGE SWART: So your employees take these photographs at the
10 request of this pathologist. Is that the situation?
11 A. Now, whether it was at the request of the pathologist or the
12 judge -- I assume it would have been at the request of the judge, and to
13 complement the report on the external appearance of the body.
14 JUDGE SWART: And the whole setting suggests within -- in the
15 presence of a pathologist that these are photographs of people who are
16 naked, so to speak, who have no clothes on the body; is that right?
17 A. The examination is done when bodies are in that condition, that
18 is, without clothes. The bodies are turned around in various positions,
19 and then photographs are taken so as that this should provide evidence as
20 to the cause of death.
21 JUDGE SWART: So that the photographs would show the wounds of the
22 other things that are present on the exterior of the body. The state of
23 the body would be visible from the photographs. That is my question. Is
24 that a correct conclusion?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE SWART: You said already before that you did not read the
2 reports. I take it that you did not look at the photographs in this case
3 either. Is that correct also, or are you seen these pictures of these ten
5 A. As a rule, I didn't look at the photographs. I didn't have time
6 for that as chief of the CSB. I would simply forward the material to the
7 competent official and who was meant to take steps following this stage of
8 the proceedings.
9 JUDGE SWART: Has there ever been, and maybe you don't know any
10 more because you left the service, but has there been a follow-up request
11 to perform an autopsy? Is this also something you do in your service?
12 A. I don't know with respect to this case. However, as a rule, an
13 autopsy is done if there is suspicion that a crime has been committed.
14 Now, whether an autopsy should be done or not, this is a decision made by
15 the investigating judge.
16 JUDGE SWART: I understand that, but you said at the beginning
17 that the investigating judge asks you for an investigation, and since this
18 is an investigation judge, a military investigation judge in this case, I
19 take it that he has reasons to do that and that reason is that he sees the
20 possibility of a crime, and he wants to elucidate the matter further.
21 So --
22 A. The investigating judge does not undertake such steps only when
23 crimes are committed. The investigating judge will do this also to remove
24 any suspicion of the possibility of a crime, simply to establish the cause
25 of death, and then on that basis to deduce whether it was caused by
1 violence or how it was caused, under which circumstances. These are all
2 things that the investigating judge has to look into.
3 JUDGE SWART: And to what conclusion would that lead in this case?
4 Would you say these are -- have been requests of an investigating judge
5 who thought of the possibility that a crime had been committed or would it
6 be an investigating judge who just wanted to make sure what the cause of
7 the death was?
8 A. I am really unable to comment on that, as to what the
9 investigating judge wanted in this particular case.
10 JUDGE SWART: I note that he has requested a paraffin test, which
11 is already important, of course.
12 So as far as you remember, there has been no further request for
13 an autopsy. Have you -- have other requests from a military investigating
14 judge at that time or don't you remember?
15 A. While I was chief of the CSB, there were no such requests.
16 Afterwards, I don't know.
17 JUDGE SWART: Okay. Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have another question for you,
19 which is linked to what has just been said.
20 In your country at the time, when someone dies, before the burial
21 would it be done as in most -- or several European countries, would there
22 be authorisation for burial but with a medical certificate stating death?
23 Is there someone who comes, according to your laws, to establish death
24 today or before? When someone dies, does the administrative authority
25 issue a death certificate? How does this happen in practice?
1 A. Yes. These are so -- coroners, doctors who examine the person and
2 sign a certificate approving, permitting burial. This is not the case
3 when somebody dies surrounded by family members. Even today, and
4 especially not then did the doctor come to establish death.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in this case, the doctor who
7 needs to issue this certificate, would it not be Dr. Faruk Turkic? He
8 should have issued that, such a certificate?
9 A. Faruk Turkic was employed and still is in the cantonal hospital in
10 Zenica, in the pathology department. And if Faruk Turkic examined the
11 bodies, after his examination, he was authorised to issue permission for
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And as far as you know, did he
14 do that or not?
15 A. I don't know.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Following the
17 Judges' questions, Mr. Mundis, any additional questions?
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The Prosecution does have
19 a few questions in light of those put to the witness by the Chamber.
20 Further cross-examined by Mr. Mundis:
21 Q. Could I ask you to look at Prosecution Exhibit P332 which, I
22 believe, is still before you. This is the official note that you signed
23 on the 1st of February, 1993. 1993. Do you have it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, sir, to the best of your recollection, had there been an
1 autopsy, would you have attached it as one of the annexes to this document
2 that you forwarded to the district military court?
3 A. A report on the autopsy in those days was not drafted by the
4 investigating judge who should do that according to the law on criminal
5 proceedings but, rather, the forensic pathologist would do that. If there
6 was an autopsy, then there should be a record of that autopsy prepared by
7 the forensic pathologist. And if such a report was made, it should have
8 been forwarded to the investigating judge directly by the forensic expert.
9 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you about the photographs or photo records
10 documenting the appearance of the unidentified persons. You told us that
11 the photos were taken to provide documentary evidence of the external
12 appearance of the body, and my question is: Was that a routine practice
13 or was that done for some particular reason in this specific case?
14 A. In all cases when an external description of the body was done,
15 then there had to be photo documents as well.
16 Q. Okay. Sir, you told us, with respect to the funeral of these
17 persons, that CSB was involved in terms of providing police and security
18 for the funerals because, as you put it, tensions had risen. I'm
19 wondering if you can elaborate on what you mean by "tensions had risen."
20 A. One has to bear in mind the period when this was happening, that
21 conflicts between the army and the HVO had already started and that these
22 persons, as far as I know, had lost their lives in such conflicts. The
23 events on the front would be reflected in the town of Zenica itself, and
24 an event of that kind naturally required heightened security measures.
25 Q. Sir, can you be a little more specific, or do you recall -- you
1 just told us, "As far as I know, they had lost their lives in such
2 conflicts." Do you recall any specifics of this incident?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Finally, sir, in response to one of the first questions put to you
5 by the Presiding Judge, you told us that there were 5.000 men within the
6 public security stations in the region covered by CSB Zenica. Is that
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How many of those 5.000 persons within CSB Zenica were what one
10 might consider to be armed police officers compared with persons doing
11 other types of work for CSB?
12 A. I would say at least about 70 per cent.
13 Q. 70 per cent would be armed police officers?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And those police officers would be deployed throughout the
16 municipalities that was covered by CSB Zenica?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you, sir.
19 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel.
22 Further Re-Examined by Ms. Residovic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Begic, in response to a question put to you
24 by the Presiding Judge, you said that among those 5.000 men some of them
25 had authority and others did not. Some were authorised and some were not.
1 Could you tell me what the ratio was among all those employed in the area
2 covered by the CSB? What was the ratio between the authorised men and the
3 unauthorised men?
4 A. I think there was 70 per cent of the men who were in uniform, that
5 is to say who had authority, who were authorised.
6 Q. In response to a question put to you by the Chamber, you said that
7 you drafted the letter from the CS -- that was sent from the CSB to the
8 district military court. Tell me, were there any rules for those who were
9 to carry out certain professional tasks in the CSB? Was there a
10 department or were there any authorised officials who were responsible for
11 such tasks?
12 A. Well, naturally. As I have already said, we had a department
13 within the CSB, and there was this department for crime technology, or,
14 rather, the forensic department. It was subordinated to the chief of the
15 public security sector.
16 Q. In response to a question about confirming the death of
17 individuals in order to bury these individuals, you said that this was
18 done by coroners, corners would issue certificates, death certificates if
19 a coroner or anyone else believed for any reason that death wasn't caused
20 by natural causes, in such cases was the coroner obliged to inform the
21 police or some other organs?
22 A. Yes. It was his duty to inform the police, and the police would
23 then inform the investigating judge.
24 Q. If you did not inform the judge of a military court or, rather,
25 the investigating judge of the military court and the prosecutor, and
1 awhile ago you said that you thought these individuals who died in
2 combat -- you mentioned these individuals who died in combat, do you
3 remember the prosecutor receiving such information from the military
5 A. I don't know for sure, but I assume that that was the case.
6 Q. In response to a number of questions from the Judges, you told us
7 how you carried out certain tasks. To clarify what you said, could you
8 tell us whether the police ever carried out investigations or was it some
9 other body that carried out investigations and, if so, which body?
10 A. Officially speaking -- formally speaking, the police never carries
11 out investigations. This is the responsibility of the investigating
12 judge. But the policeman at the request of an investigating judge could
13 carry out certain investigations.
14 Q. If I have understood you correctly, the investigating judge is the
15 person who orders a certain body to carry out some of the necessary tasks;
16 is that correct?
17 A. Yes, exactly.
18 Q. In this particular case, and since it wasn't possible for the
19 military police to do this, he requested -- the investigating judge
20 requested that you carry out certain investigations because he could not
21 transfer his duties to other organs, according to the law.
22 A. Well, yes. He could transfer those duties to the military police,
23 but as I have said, at the time the military police did not have the
24 equipment necessary to carry out these tasks.
25 Q. Similarly in response to certain questions, you said that you
1 carried out the actions referred to in the letter or, rather, the
2 documents attached to the letter. Did the investigating judge at the time
3 request that you carry out investigations and take statements from certain
5 A. While I was the CSB chief, as far as I can remember I never
6 received any such request.
7 Q. Without having received a request from an investigating judge,
8 could you, in that particular case, carry out such tasks on your own or
9 was it necessary for the investigating judge to make such a request or
10 request a certain organ, you or the military police, to carry out such
12 A. The investigating judge had to make such a request.
13 Q. As far as the doctor's examination is concerned and as far as the
14 request issued to the pathologist is concerned, which body instructs a
15 doctor to provide a detailed description of a corpse or to perform an
16 autopsy or to assist the judge in any other way? Who is in a position to
17 issue or to make such a request?
18 A. Only the investigating judge.
19 Q. The Chamber also asked you about the assessment of the material.
20 Where is all the material -- from whom is all the material collected that
21 various agents collected at the request of the investigating judge?
22 A. Well, it's obtained from the prosecutor.
23 Q. Which organ on the basis of all of the material collected assesses
24 whether the event in question is, in fact, a crime, and assesses whether
25 it is necessary to carry out further checks or, rather, whether it's
1 necessary to terminate the case because there's no suspicion of a crime
2 having been perpetrated?
3 A. The prosecutor decides about this.
4 Q. Given these legal provisions, on the basis of the documents or,
5 rather, your involvement in that part of the case, would the investigating
6 judge, or did the investigating judge act in accordance with the law and
7 in accordance with the authority he has?
8 A. Yes. The investigating judge did act in accordance with the law.
9 As to whether he did everything that was necessary to be done -- to be
10 done, this is something that one should assess.
11 Q. You said that towards the end of February you went on holiday
12 because the president of the high court in Zenica suggested that you be
13 appointed as a judge. Could you tell me who the president of the Zenica
14 high court was at the time?
15 A. It was Mr. Djuro Globlek.
16 Q. Tell me whether he was president throughout 1993.
17 A. Not only through the 1993, but right up until 1995, when he left
18 to work as an assistant in the Ombudsman office in Zenica.
19 Q. And finally, could you tell me the nationality of the presiding
21 A. He was a Croat.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Does the Defence
23 team have any other questions?
24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this concludes your
1 testimony. You've answered all the questions put to you by both the
2 parties and by the Judges. We would like to thank you for your
3 contribution to the truth, and we wish you a good trip home, and we wish
4 you all the best in your new professional career.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will now ask the usher to
7 escort you out of the courtroom.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have a few more minutes. I
10 have had a look at the list of documents. Apparently there are two that
11 may be the subject of a request that you may -- that you might be
12 requesting to be admitted into evidence.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, document
14 number 1, 0449, and document number 2, 0544, we would like these documents
15 to be admitted into evidence.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis. Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] These documents will be admitted
18 into evidence under the following numbers: DH449, the English version
19 will be DH449/E, and the second document, DH544, the English version will
20 be DH544/E.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'd like to thank
22 Defence counsel who adhered to the time allocated to them. This enabled
23 us to finish in time. Let's hope that things will proceed similarly
24 tomorrow. Tomorrow we have a witness who will be available for the
25 Chamber, as you know. We'll be sitting in the morning on Tuesday,
1 Wednesday, and Thursday. Unfortunately, on Friday the hearing will be in
2 the afternoon. So on Friday, we will be sitting in the afternoon. If
3 there are any changes, you will be informed of them.
4 Thank you, and I will see everyone tomorrow at the hearing at
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.56 p.m., to
7 be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day of November,
8 2004, at 9.00 a.m.