1 Wednesday, 16 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

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

7 the case, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Case

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

10 Kubura.

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

12 Could we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning,

14 Your Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

15 Prosecution, Stefan Waespi, Matthias Neuner, and Daryl Mundis. We are

16 assisted, as usual, by our case manager, Andres Vatter.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have the appearances

18 for Defence counsel, please.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President.

20 Good morning, Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic,

21 Edina Residovic, counsel; Stephane Bourgon, lead counsel; and Alexis

22 Demirdjian, our legal assistant. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 And the other Defence team.

25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. On

1 behalf of Amir Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin

2 Mulalic, our legal assistant.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Today, the 16th of March, 2005,

4 the 198th day of the proceedings, I'd like to greet everyone present: The

5 three members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, who are all present,

6 and in particular Mr. Bourgon, who has returned from a trip abroad. I

7 greet the two accused, as well as the witness, who is present, and

8 everyone else in and around the courtroom.

9 Today General Kubura's -- Mr. Kubura's Defence will be conducting

10 its examination. Yesterday they said that they would need about 15

11 minutes. The Prosecution will then commence with its cross-examination,

12 and we hope that we will have sufficient time to deal with the schedule

13 for the coming days.

14 I'll now give the floor to Mr. Kubura's Defence.

15 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16 WITNESS: ZAIM MUJEZINOVIC [Resumed]

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 Cross-examined by Mr. Ibrisimovic:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mujezinovic, we only have a few questions

20 for you in relation to your testimony yesterday. I'd be grateful if you

21 could answer these questions.

22 In the course of your testimony, you mentioned the relationships

23 between the Military Police Battalion and the 3rd Corps. You mentioned

24 the relationships between the military police companies within the

25 operations group. You said that the Military Police Battalion didn't have

1 the right to issue orders to military police companies. For example,

2 operations groups or to military police platoons. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes, it is.

4 Q. Is it correct that military police companies, platoons, et

5 cetera, were obliged to send to the Military Police Battalion daily or,

6 rather, weekly reports? And you mentioned that there were numerous such

7 reports.

8 A. Yes. But by order from the security sector, which resulted from

9 a General Staff order, the military police units of a lower level had to

10 compile weekly, that is to say, daily reports, and they had to indicate

11 the number of measures taken as a result of the authority they had and

12 they had to provide this information to their superior command.

13 Q. This means that the reports were then forwarded to the security

14 sector.

15 A. And the Military Police Battalion was obliged to unify all the

16 reports from the units of the military police of the 3rd Corps and forward

17 them all to the chief of the security sector.

18 Q. One more thing: When selecting personnel for the military

19 police, for a battalion, for a company, for a platoon, it was the security

20 sector that had the final word; is that correct?

21 A. The superior organ for the military police was the security

22 sector. For platoons and companies, they are the assistants of security

23 and brigades. They were the people with most responsibility and it was

24 their right and duty to participate in selecting personnel for military

25 police units.

1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since I would

2 like to show some documents to the witness, documents shown to the witness

3 yesterday by General Hadzihasanovic's Defence, I'd be grateful if we could

4 go into private session very briefly.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Registrar,

6 let's go into private session.

7 [Private session]

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 17491 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

5 Mr. President.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution. We are

7 now in open session. You may take the floor.

8 MR. WAESPI: Yes, just to clear the record in connection with the

9 numbering. The document just discussed, tab 40, is DH1456, and I believe

10 the document discussed before, tab 26, appears to be DH161, if I read that

11 correctly.

12 Thank you, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.

14 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. My colleague is

15 quite right. The first document we showed is DH161/8.

16 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, we were just mentioning these criminal reports.

17 Could you have a look at the series of documents, at document number 70 in

18 this series of documents. It's Defence document DH1477.

19 Have you had a look at the document?

20 A. Document 1477.

21 Q. Criminal report against Ante Markanovic.

22 A. Yes, I'm familiar with this case. Someone of this name falsely

23 identified himself and then committed offences, and this report has

24 recorded the case and it was forwarded to the prosecutor's office.

25 Q. He represented himself as a member of the 7th Muslim Brigade. He

1 identified himself as such. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes. But he falsely identified himself. That was the crime he

3 committed.

4 Q. Mr. Markanovic, Ante, against whom this report was filed, was a

5 Croat.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Could you please have a look at page 2, the last paragraph in

8 this document. Could you just mention the sentence. Ante Markanovic by

9 the 7th Muslim Brigade.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Can you see that he was arrested by the military police of the

12 7th Muslim Brigade and was then handed over to the Military Police

13 Battalion of the 3rd Corps of the ABiH?

14 A. That's what you can see.

15 Q. As the commander of the Military Police Battalion, you cooperated

16 with the military police of the 7th Muslim Brigade.

17 A. Yes, just as I did with other units of the military police and

18 the 3rd Corps.

19 Q. What kind of cooperation did you have?

20 A. It was professional and good.

21 Q. I only have a few more questions for you about what you testified

22 about yesterday, about the territorial jurisdiction of local units when

23 carrying out military police duties. You said that units that have a --

24 that had a zone of responsibility in a given area had the duty and right

25 to perform military police duties there; is that correct?

1 A. [No audible response]

2 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's answer was not audible.

3 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. If in that zone of responsibility there was activity carried out

5 by local units and some other units were engaged with them, what sort of

6 authority did the locally based unit have that had the zone of

7 responsibility there?

8 A. The responsibility of a unit is defined by the order of a corps

9 commander. He defines who shall be in charge of certain activities or of

10 certain military duties that have to be carried out in that area. That

11 person in that position of responsibility is responsible for carrying out

12 activities in that area. All other duties that have to be performed by

13 the military police, the engagement of military police in other areas has

14 to be defined in an order, and it must be defined in terms of the relation

15 of subordination or resubordination.

16 Q. When combat is over, when the units who were in the zone of

17 responsibility withdraw, the locally based unit continues to perform

18 police duties in that zone.

19 A. On the basis of the assessment of the assistant for security in

20 the brigade or on the basis of an order from the commander for that unit,

21 the military police stays on there for as long as it is necessary to

22 establish full control over the unit until the unit withdraws from the

23 area.

24 Q. After the unit withdraws, they must continue to perform the

25 duties that they performed before.

1 A. It depends. If that's the area of deployment of the unit, that's

2 their duty. But if it's a civilian area that is then returned to the

3 population and civilian authority is established there, then the civilian

4 police had the authority and responsibility to take measures in that area.

5 Q. Afterwards, the civilian police has the duty to take measures for

6 the protection of property and people who have remained in that area and

7 they must take any other measures that they should take.

8 A. When the civilian authorities are established, local authority,

9 et cetera, then naturally the civilian police are part of that structure

10 and that's their duty.

11 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I

12 have no further questions.

13 On page 8 in the transcript, I think there is no response.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, there is an answer that

15 hasn't been recorded. Could you put the question to him that was on page

16 8.

17 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] I have to see what the question

18 was.

19 [Defence counsel confer]

20 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Yes. The question was about territorially based units. They

22 were responsible to carry out military police duties in their zone of

23 responsibility; is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 I will now give the floor to the Prosecution for their

3 cross-examination.

4 THE INTERPRETER: And could the witness please be asked to speak

5 up or could his second microphone be turned on. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Dixon.

7 MR. DIXON: Could I suggest that before the Prosecution

8 commences -- this is a witness to be cross-examined by -- by Mr. Waespi,

9 and he has indicated to us that there are no less than ten new documents

10 that he wishes to use. And in order to try and prevent lots of

11 interruptions when the witness is testifying, could I suggest that if the

12 witness is taken from the courtroom now, we address the issue of these ten

13 documents immediately, and then the witness can be brought back once

14 Your Honours' ruling is quite clear on the matter.

15 Thank you, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, will you please

17 escort the witness for a few minutes outside and then Mr. Waespi is going

18 to tell us about these ten new documents that I hear about now.

19 MR. WAESPI: [Previous translation continues] ... it's because

20 I'm not going to use, certainly not before the first break, these

21 documents.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If you're not going

23 to use them.

24 Mr. Dixon, the Prosecution tells us that they do not wish to use

25 those documents before the first break.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. DIXON: Perhaps then, Your Honours, I'll suggest that when we

2 come back after the first break we start, before the witness comes in, to

3 discuss that issue, so that it's clear. Then when he comes if there are

4 questions put about the new documents, there won't be lots of

5 interruptions, because your ruling would have been made then, Your Honour.

6 Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

8 The Prosecution has the floor. You may begin.

9 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:

11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Mujezinovic. I would just like to -- to

12 clarify a few issues you discussed yesterday going over a few documents

13 which you were shown by the Defence.

14 Let me first ask you: You told us that you were the commander of

15 the Military Police Battalion of the 3rd Corps since 1st December 1992; is

16 that correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And until when were you commander of the military police?

19 A. I was commander of the battalion until the middle of 1997, about.

20 Q. Now, can you tell us the names of the commanders of the military

21 police companies, your direct subordinates, and also that service platoon

22 during -- or for the time of, let's say, 1993.

23 A. According to the hierarchy, the most interesting in the chain of

24 command was my deputy, Mario Opacak; the assistant for personnel was

25 Branislav Tomas; the assistant for morale, Ismet Mudrov; assistant for

1 logistics, Dzilo Sead; and the official for combat readiness, Durmo Edin;

2 the commander of the military police platoon for investigations in 1993,

3 that is, as soon as the battalion was formed, was Bakir Alispahic; and

4 after that, Ruzmir Skopljak; the commander of the 1st Company was Nermin

5 Dzambegovic; the commander of the 2nd Company, Adnan Becakcic; commander

6 of the 3rd, Suad Fetic; commander of the traffic company, Mevludin

7 Mustafic; and the commander of the logistics platoon, Nino Vareslija.

8 Q. Thank you very much. Now, you stressed yesterday but also this

9 morning in response to a question by the Defence of Mr. Kubura the

10 importance of the assistant commander for security for the deployment of

11 the military police. Now, can you give me the name of the assistant

12 commander for security of the 7th Muslim -- Mountain Muslim Brigade in

13 1993?

14 A. I'm not quite sure, but I think it was Nesib Talic.

15 Q. Now, let me briefly talk a little bit about your role as the

16 battalion commander. Yesterday you mentioned in relation to Dusina, but

17 we will go to Dusina a little bit later -- but you told us that the person

18 in command of that military police investigations informed you that there

19 was nothing in particular to be pointed out with regard to the prisoners

20 of war. That's what -- what he told you.

21 Now, let me ask you: Was it usual in the course of business that

22 people who would interview suspects or witnesses would inform you about

23 the gist of -- of their interviews? Was that a standard practice?

24 A. No. The chain of command says that the commander commands

25 through subordinate commanders, and my contact along the chain began and

1 ended with the commander of the subordinate unit. He's the one who

2 carries out the deployment and engages his own subordinates on the basis

3 of his judgement of their abilities. He is the person who after

4 interviews were conducted filters the information through and provides the

5 full information to me on the basis of which I inform the chief of the

6 security sector.

7 Q. So is it fair to say that you had the general knowledge about the

8 investigations conducted within your battalion? Not the specific one, but

9 the general knowledge, which enabled you to inform your superiors.

10 A. "General knowledge" would imply a complete report from my

11 subordinate. If he assessed that he needed to inform me about certain

12 elements, then you could say that. But in view of the fact that he is my

13 subordinate and that I trust him fully, there's no reason to doubt that

14 the information he gives me is complete information, and that is how I

15 treat it.

16 Q. Yes. But my question was a different one: Did you, as the

17 commander of the battalion, were aware of the investigations which were

18 conducted by your battalion? Did you have a general knowledge about what

19 types of investigations were -- were conducted?

20 A. In principle, I did. However, if urgency called for certain

21 operative work, investigations and so on, and I was physically not

22 present, then that information would be presented.

23 Q. Now, in relation to the Dusina event, you were informed, I think

24 very quickly, about what was contained in these interview statements; is

25 that correct?

1 A. It depends what you imply by "quickly." But that was the

2 principle of work of the military police. In view of the fact that we had

3 twofold orders, to collect information about the event, it was my duty to

4 forward those reports to the judge and to the chief of the security

5 sector. So probably that was one of the main reasons why this was done

6 quickly.

7 Q. Let me ask you about the quality of these -- the work of your

8 interviewers. Were you generally satisfied about the work of the people

9 who interviewed witnesses or -- or suspects? Could you rely on these

10 witness interviews?

11 A. I didn't have too much chance of assessing whether it was of a

12 good quality or not so good. But for me it was mostly important that on

13 the basis of the security sector's assessment and my own insight up until

14 then, the commander of the investigation platoon or the persons conducting

15 the investigations have certain knowledge and qualifications. So I have

16 no other resources. I consider them to be competent and capable of

17 carrying out their duties.

18 Q. So can I just summarise that usually the witness statements being

19 produced by your unit or by members within your unit were considered

20 reliable?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. Now, let me go to the broader subject of crime prevention.

23 Yesterday you have given us the telling example of joint patrols between

24 military, military police, and MUP patrols. In order to avoid situations,

25 as you pointed out, that people would come and just say, "You know, I'm a

1 civilian, so the military police doesn't have jurisdiction over me." Do

2 you remember giving -- giving that example yesterday.

3 A. Yes, I do remember.

4 Q. And the reason for this smart move, I might add, is that there is

5 no hole in crime prevention and indeed in -- in investigation, that no

6 perpetrators can sort of walk away and say, "You know, that's not the

7 jurisdiction of anybody." That's the purpose behind that -- that

8 principle. Is that correct?

9 A. The aim of forming mixed patrols was prevention or, as you put

10 it, full respect of the law and implementation of measures to detect and

11 discover the perpetrators of the criminal offences.

12 Q. And it's important, would you agree with me that, no crime sort

13 of falls through the cracks on a given territory?

14 A. It was our duty, as well as of the civilian police, to do

15 everything, to have all crimes investigated, and to take as many

16 perpetrators to justice as possible.

17 Q. Now, let me briefly talk about the area of responsibility of --

18 of the 3rd Corps. You were shown one document yesterday. And perhaps we

19 can briefly look into that.

20 MR. WAESPI: That's, Your Honours, Defence tab 20.

21 Q. If you can look through your documents, number 20.

22 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, the number is DH0746.

23 Q. And, sir, this is a order by the commander of the 3rd Corps dated

24 17 February 1993, and it's addressed to the Military Police Battalion.

25 You talked about it yesterday. I am interested in just the last

1 paragraph, number 6, where it says: "Submit the order to all brigade

2 commands and the Municipal Defence Staff and publish it in modified form

3 in all local information media in the zone of responsibility of the 3rd

4 Corps."

5 Can you broadly tell the Trial Chamber the area of responsibility

6 of the 3rd Corps, as outlined in -- in this order? Just very, very

7 broadly.

8 A. I can't tell you with precision. It depended on the situation

9 and on the circumstances. The zone of responsibility was virtually where

10 the 3rd Corps was deployed, and the units under the command of the 3rd

11 Corps. What I do know is that there were certain changes when operative

12 groups were formed as provisional entities, when the need was reduced or

13 increased for the activity of the corps. So I can't tell you in general

14 terms what the borders of the zone of responsibility of the 3rd Corps

15 were.

16 Q. But it was an area which was defined by borders. There were no

17 islands inside the 3rd Corps area of responsibility which was controlled

18 by somebody else. Is that correct?

19 A. There were no pockets until the beginning of the conflict with

20 the HVO and the heightening of tensions in that area. Then pockets did

21 appear because the HVO controlled certain territories which, according to

22 the deployment, should have been covered by the 3rd Corps.

23 Q. Now, let's turn to the next document. That's at tab 47.

24 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, that's DH161/13. And it's also,

25 Mr. President, Prosecution Exhibit P158.

1 Q. You have discussed that document yesterday, Mr. Mujezinovic,

2 already. Here we see that the author, the command of the 3rd Corps,

3 is "concerned about the protection of houses and personal property of

4 Croat citizens." And I believe yesterday you also mentioned the attempts

5 to protect a monastery, and the name was Kraljeva Sutjeska. There is also

6 another document - and we don't need to go into that; that's tab 24 with

7 your bundle - which also talks about the protection of -- of houses and

8 property of Croat citizens.

9 Now, having read all these -- these documents, is it correct to

10 summarise that the 3rd Corps in its area of responsibility saw it as a

11 duty to protect the property of the residents of all nationalities?

12 A. In principle, that's right.

13 Q. And that not only extends to the property but also the physical

14 well-being of these people and indeed their -- their lives.

15 A. If the situation allowed, protection of property and lives

16 applied to the areas where combat activities were going on and areas

17 covered by 3rd Corps units. In other parts where there were no combat

18 activities and where the civilian authorities are functioning, then it

19 comes within the purview of the Ministry of the Interior.

20 Q. And when we talk about the protection against whom, then the

21 answer will be, "It doesn't really matter." It's whoever threatens the

22 property or -- or the life of these residents. Is -- is that correct?

23 Whoever is an alleged perpetrator?

24 A. In principle, yes. But our primary goal was to protect them from

25 irresponsible individuals and groups from the army but also from anyone

1 else who may threaten the property and lives of the residents there. Not

2 only of Serb and Croat ethnicity, but also of Bosniak ethnicity.

3 Q. Yes. And indeed, among the perpetrators - and you have listed

4 them in that report that - I think it covered about the year. You were

5 required to submit a report. And perhaps we can go later into that.

6 That's tab 80. You listed the investigations, and I think there were 200

7 or more against ABiH members. There were about 200 against HVO members.

8 There were about 200 against civilians. So it's -- it's fairly equal, the

9 alleged perpetrators. Do you remember that?

10 A. I don't really remember the details, but as for the fact that

11 they're roughly equal, it probably reflects the actual state of affairs on

12 the ground.

13 Q. Yes. And perhaps we can briefly go into tab 80. If you can have

14 a look.

15 MR. WAESPI: And, Mr. President, that's DH155/2, a document which

16 has been used many times before.

17 Q. And on page 1, you see -- Mr. Mujezinovic, you see these numbers.

18 I see your B/C/S copy is not very legible.

19 A. Yes, I can see it. The difference may be about 90. 206, 274,

20 and 295. This probably shows that all categories, particularly in crisis

21 situations, such as the shortage of basic means of livelihood, people tend

22 to resort to such acts and that is why we have these figures.

23 Q. And it's correct to say that also foreigners, people outside

24 countries from the former Yugoslavia, were among the people who threatened

25 the local population in the relevant areas?

1 A. If they were there and if their behaviour was criminal in nature,

2 then certainly they would have been a threat. If they were there.

3 Q. Because we heard testimony by a witness - in fact, he's a

4 protected witness - who told us that certain Arabs had torched buildings

5 in the area of -- of Guca Gora, and we have a corresponding exhibit in

6 relation to that. Does that correspond with -- with your knowledge as

7 well?

8 A. I don't have any particular knowledge about organised groups of

9 Arabs in that area, but there were various groups of individuals who

10 joined forces in order to gain unlawful profits or property. That is a

11 fact. And in the description of our duties, this is stated and we tried

12 to take measures and find evidence and submit criminal reports against

13 such people.

14 Q. Now, let me turn to the issue of civilian police and the

15 interaction with the military police. We already discussed the -- the

16 joint patrols. Can you confirm for us that the army could request the

17 assistance of the civilian police for certain operations.

18 A. Well, I can confirm that the army, in relation to the military

19 police -- I can confirm that the army requested assistance from the

20 civilian police at the very beginning in 1992, before the formation of the

21 corps. As an example, the Security Services Centre gave the military

22 police company, or placed at its disposal, two police motorcycles to

23 regulate military traffic. It wasn't a disgrace. It wasn't degrading.

24 And the ABiH, depending on the situation, in particular military police,

25 requested assistance from the Security Services Centre, given the

1 personnel that they had and the equipment that they had.

2 Q. And for such operations, it -- it occurred that civilian police

3 was subordinated, for instance, to the -- to a certain brigade. And I

4 believe we have seen an example from the commander of the 306th Brigade,

5 who, according to a document, commanded, in fact, the civilian police for

6 a certain action.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Defence.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my learned

10 colleague yesterday requested that whenever I put a question to the

11 witness, I should show the witness a certain document. My colleague has

12 been asking a number of questions now by paraphrasing some documents and

13 presenting the contents of the document to the witness. Since you

14 accepted the suggestion made by my learned colleague yesterday, I believe

15 that in the course of his cross-examination he should follow the same

16 procedure; he should show the witness the document in question and only

17 then put his question that concerns the document to the witness.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You must have the document.

19 All you have to do is show the witness the document immediately. You have

20 it? Otherwise, ask the registrar to find the document and show it to the

21 witness. Because Defence counsel believes that you might not correctly

22 present a document and they would prefer the witness to see the document.

23 You might not render the document accurately.

24 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I have no problem. There's a slight difference

25 between cross-examination and -- and examination-in-chief, but I have no

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 problem.

2 If the witness could be shown the Exhibit -- Prosecution Exhibit

3 204.

4 And, Mr. President, we have a bundle of documents, as indicated

5 by Mr. Dixon. And perhaps if tab 8 of my bundle could be shown to the

6 witness.

7 And perhaps you can take it apart, Mr. Usher, and only show the

8 witness tab 8 of the bundle.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, that would be

10 simpler -- it's better not to destroy your binder.

11 That's the document I had in mind, 204. We'll show it to the

12 witness immediately.

13 Mr. Registrar, you can take the English text back. I know it by

14 heart.

15 MR. WAESPI:

16 Q. Now, Mr. Mujezinovic, this document, a -- an order by the

17 commander of the 306th Brigade in paragraph 1 says that - and I

18 quote - "All MUP and military police units of all brigades in the area of

19 responsibility are resubordinated to the 306th Brigade." So that appears

20 to confirm what I said before, that for certain actions, operations there

21 was indeed a resubordination of -- of police units under the realm of

22 the -- the army.

23 A. According to the protocol signed by the Security Services Centre

24 and the 3rd Corps, it was possible to engage the civilian police, too, in

25 certain situations. The commander of the 306th, in accordance with an

1 order from the corps commander, availed himself of his right and units of

2 the military police which were in the zone of responsibility of the

3 brigade, together with the MUP, were placed under his command with that

4 objective, to prevent looting, to protect property and persons in that

5 area.

6 Q. Thank you for this answer. And we also had a witness who said

7 that even police stations, civilian police stations were subordinated to

8 the ABiH because the ABiH didn't have enough strength and also the

9 soldiers were -- were exhausted. Have you heard of instances like that

10 also?

11 A. I can't remember any such situation, but given the needs, if

12 certain territory was in the area of combat, if it was a matter of

13 defending the territory, then the local commander, in my belief, had the

14 right and duty to engage all the elements necessary for defence, including

15 the MUP -- or rather, the police station in the area.

16 Q. Thank you very much.

17 MR. WAESPI: The document can be returned.

18 Q. I briefly want to discuss the -- the Rules of Service. You told

19 us yesterday that you used them as a guideline. I believe you said they

20 were -- they were issued on the 8th of September, 1992. Do you remember

21 that?

22 A. I do, and that's when they were issued. On the cover, on the

23 blue cover, you could see the date, the 8th of September, 1992.

24 Q. Now, how important were these guidelines for you and the work of

25 your battalion?

1 A. The guidelines were very important because they defined the

2 relations in the chain of command. In terms of the Military Police

3 Battalion, it defined its subordination and other elements in the

4 organisation, in the structure, and also the norms according to which the

5 military police had to act.

6 Q. Now, I have a copy available, but perhaps we don't need to show

7 it to you, but you can -- you can request it if you don't know the answer

8 for the next question, because in paragraphs 63 to 66 it always talks

9 about an authorised official who is authorised to conduct certain powers,

10 like detention and so on, in the absence of the military investigative

11 judge. Can you tell us what and who this authorised official of the MP

12 is?

13 MR. WAESPI: If the Exhibit P328 could be shown to the witness.

14 Again, I would have a copy, but perhaps Your Honours prefer that we get

15 the official copy from the registry.

16 A. An authorised official -- can I answer that question? An

17 authorised official in the military police was someone to whom the

18 military security service had issued a certain document -- or rather, the

19 appropriate form of identification whereby he was authorised to be an

20 official -- an authorised official. These people had been professionally

21 trained. They were from military police platoons for investigations and

22 they were in charge of conducting investigations and recording certain

23 cases in order to file the relevant reports. Apart from the authorisation

24 that they would receive, on the basis of the identity cards, they were

25 guided by the Law on Criminal Procedure -- or rather, on the Law on

1 District Military Courts.

2 Q. Yes. Thank you very much for the answer, sir. That's all I

3 wanted to know about the Rules of Service.

4 Let me go back to a document we discussed before. That's tab 39

5 in -- in your bundle. We've --

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To save time, perhaps it would

7 be good to ask the witness who, pursuant to Article 63, et cetera, would

8 be appointed to this position. Was someone appointed? Was it just

9 anyone? Who was this person referred to in item 63? Was it the witness

10 himself or someone else?

11 MR. WAESPI: Yes, thank you very much for this question,

12 Mr. President.

13 Q. Who would appoint this official? Was it you or somebody else?

14 And was it always the same person who would be conducting these functions?

15 A. It wasn't always the same person. It concerned a number of

16 individuals from the Military Police Battalion. And as I said, as a rule

17 they were proposed by the battalion of the military police and they were

18 authorised and received identity cards from the security sector confirming

19 that they were authorised officials. These were primarily officers from

20 the military police investigations sector, and they were involved in

21 detective work, in operative work, and in finding perpetrators of crime.

22 And there were certain persons within the chain of command who could

23 take -- make use of this authorisation and seize objects, detain

24 individuals for 72 hours. That was allowed according to the Law on

25 Criminal Procedure at the time, et cetera. Basically these were

1 authorised officials from the military police platoon for military police

2 investigations.

3 Q. Thank you very much for your answer, Mr. Mujezinovic.

4 Let me return to document number 39. And I see you have found it

5 already. Is it true that except for very few examples, you -- you never

6 received an order to investigate crimes labeled as "war crimes" which

7 involved members of the ABiH?

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that on

9 a number of occasions the witness explained the type of orders he had. He

10 had to investigate all crimes. And I don't know what the basis of this

11 question is from my learned colleague.

12 MR. WAESPI: I'm just interested in -- in this aspect, which is a

13 very important aspect of this trial, whether he was ever ordered by

14 anybody to investigate any war crimes committed by members of the ABiH. I

15 don't know what's wrong with this question. He can say "yes," he can

16 say "no," he can explain.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Rephrase the

18 question.

19 MR. WAESPI:

20 Q. Were you ever ordered by anybody to investigate into war crimes

21 labeled as "war crimes" where the alleged perpetrators were soldiers or

22 officers of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

23 A. We received orders to carry out investigations either by the

24 security sector or by the judge, and it depended on the situation. When

25 an order was issued to conduct an investigation, initially the type of

1 crime wasn't defined or qualified. It was on the basis of the evidence

2 that was gathered at the scene of the crime that a description of the

3 crime was suggested and punishment for the perpetrators was suggested on

4 that basis.

5 As far as war crimes are concerned and other categories of crimes

6 from that period, the sentences for such crimes were the same and would go

7 up to the death penalty. So the description of the crime that we

8 suggested to the court was in fact not binding on the court.

9 Q. Well, let me turn, then, to this document which you discussed

10 yesterday, tab 39.

11 MR. WAESPI: And, Mr. President, that's DH155, number 3.

12 Q. On page 2 in the English version and also in your language, we

13 have a heading "Four criminal disciplinary reports." And the second

14 paragraph talks about several crimes which were discussed here.

15 The first one was that a criminal report -- or two criminal

16 reports were submitted against two individuals for the commission of a war

17 crime against the civilian population under Article 142.

18 And then the second -- the next paragraph talks about another war

19 crime, pursuant to Article 119 of the SFRY Code, and it refers

20 to "incitement to commit genocide and war crimes."

21 Now, can you tell us, since you authored this report, what these

22 two cases are about? Do you remember what it was about?

23 A. Since the report is from 1993, I really can't remember the

24 details. About the criminal reports. This is a report for the specific

25 period, for the month of August 1993. And the first part -- well, as far

1 as the first part is concerned, I'm not sure. But the second case I

2 believe concerns someone who served in the enemy army, and it was on that

3 basis, service in the enemy army, a war crime against the civilian

4 population was committed and there was incitement to committing genocide

5 and war crimes and it was on that basis that this -- that a criminal

6 report was filed against this individual. And we had good evidence for

7 this in that certain documents had been compiled in the field. But as for

8 the first case, I can't remember that because it's difficult to remember

9 such reports, given that 11 or 12 years have passed since then.

10 Q. Is it possible that one of these war crimes concerned crimes

11 occurring in the Balkovici camp? Do you remember that there was a

12 perpetrator who was accused of crimes? He may have been the camp

13 commander or warden. Do you remember that this might have been connected?

14 A. I'm not familiar with that. I can't remember.

15 Q. Yes. You said it's a long time since 1993. I agree with you.

16 But apart from these crimes labeled "war crimes," do you remember any

17 other war crimes which were investigated by your battalion?

18 A. No, I don't remember.

19 Q. Let me talk about the plan Golub - "pigeon," I understand from --

20 from yesterday - of January 1994. And this is tab 79.

21 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, I have got a draft translation of

22 this plan, which perhaps could be distributed to the members in the

23 courtroom. It even has holes, so you can put it into your binder.

24 A. Which number?

25 Q. 79.

1 A. 79.

2 Q. Now, I understand that you were among the three military

3 commanders who were supposed to coordinate this -- this action. Is that

4 correct?

5 A. Yes, I was one of them, given the position I had. It was quite

6 logical for me to be part of that team.

7 Q. Now, how good was the intelligence you had on these 12 - I

8 believe there are 12 people who were mentioned as alleged perpetrators -

9 before you initiated that action which, I believe, started at 4.30 hours

10 on 13 January 1994 in the morning? How much did you know about the --

11 these -- these 12 people?

12 A. The operative activities to prepare this action had three

13 aspects: Firstly, one had to go to the site and record all the situations

14 in which these individuals perpetrated certain crimes, depending on the

15 seriousness of the crime, and preparations had to be made to file criminal

16 reports. At the same time, the military police security sector together

17 with members of the Military Police Battalion and the assistant for

18 security of the 314th gathered sufficient evidence -- sufficient

19 information on their movement, on their joint activities, on their

20 coordination in order to commit crimes and gathered other information that

21 might be of use when arresting them. The operative work and the

22 activities carried out to record everything and gather evidence to file

23 reports against these 12 individuals lasted for a long time, six or seven

24 months, I think. It was coordinated by the security sector and via the

25 battalion and the assistant for security in the 314th.

1 When complete information had been obtained and when the evidence

2 was sufficiently good, in order to file criminal reports that would be

3 accepted by the prosecutor, and after having consulted the prosecutor,

4 these individuals were arrested. The information gathered was quite good

5 because these individuals were army members, and on that basis the

6 assistant for security in the units that they were parts of -- that they

7 were part of could provide information on their movement, on where they

8 were staying, et cetera.

9 Our operative work involved supplementing this information. Then

10 the security sector processed everything. And then we could proceed with

11 their arrest, handing them over to the military prison, and to having the

12 prosecutor state that they should be placed in detention.

13 Q. And you had information, as we see in the report, the English

14 version on -- on page 2, that - and I quote - "All persons encompassed by

15 this plan are armed with pistols, automatic rifles, and hand grenades.

16 They are very aggressive and inclined to offering active resistance using

17 all available means."

18 That's the information you had about -- among other information,

19 about these alleged perpetrators?

20 A. Yes, among other things, that's the information that we had about

21 them. There was only the minimum information stated with regard to the

22 operation because we wanted to make sure that the level of security was

23 sufficiently high for implementing this plan.

24 Q. Was the operation successful?

25 A. Yes, it was very successful because very rapidly, in spite of the

1 difficult circumstances at the time, in spite of the lack of equipment,

2 the lack of vehicles and fuel and communications equipment, in spite of

3 all of this, we successfully carried out the plan.

4 Q. Let me talk about a comment you made yesterday that -- what you

5 called "a brief period in which" - and I quote you - "the practice that

6 was followed was bad, so to speak, but the Chief of Staff tried to take

7 over actions taken by the corps commander." In relation to your

8 battalion, you said you don't remember the brief period, but can you place

9 it somewhat into 1993, for instance? And please tell us more about what

10 happened.

11 A. I'm not sure of the date. I may be wrong. But this was indeed

12 for 1993 but for a very short period, three or four weeks on the outside.

13 What I said was that this was not the result of a wish for somebody to

14 become more powerful in the hierarchy. It was the result of needs or the

15 wish to relieve the commander of certain duties, because all the other

16 units, and in addition to the Military Police Battalion there were others

17 attached to the staffs, so all the units were linked directly to the Chief

18 of Staff. I mentioned the Engineers Battalion, the Logistics Battalion,

19 the Communications Battalion or Company, I'm not sure. The

20 Anti-Electronic Struggle Unit. All these were directly linked to the

21 Chief of Staff, with the exception of the Military Police Battalion. So

22 in the aim of uniform activity in accordance with certain military rules,

23 for a brief time the Military Battalion was within that group. There were

24 no problems and very quickly on the basis of the proposal of the chief of

25 the security sector and the decision of the commander, the old decision

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 was restored, the only proper way of commanding the military police.

2 Q. But even during that brief period of time, the authority of the

3 corps commander - commanded the 3rd Corps over his asset, the Military

4 Police Battalion - wasn't put in question.

5 A. No, absolutely not. The authority of the commander was never

6 called in question.

7 Q. Let's stay with the commander of the 3rd Corps for -- for a

8 moment. I believe you said yesterday that you regarded the actions of the

9 command of the 3rd Corps in relation to your battalion as -- as very

10 professional. Is that correct?

11 A. Absolutely so.

12 Q. And we have seen a number of documents shown to you by the

13 Defence where the commander of the 3rd Corps directly ordered the military

14 police for -- for specific action.

15 A. That's right. Depending on the need and the situation, the

16 commander would give direct orders, and on the basis of his own judgement,

17 and it was my duty to respect that judgement.

18 Q. Listening to you and also reading the document, it appears to me

19 that the command of the 3rd Corps displayed a very good understanding into

20 how the military police were operating. Do you share that?

21 A. I was an active participant in the events of the time. Not only

22 do I share your opinion, but I'm absolutely certain that that is right.

23 Q. Now, perhaps that could be linked to the fact -- and I want to

24 ask you whether you were aware of that -- that the command of the 3rd

25 Corps at that time, General Hadzihasanovic, was himself the commander of a

1 Military Police Battalion in the former JNA for four years. Were you

2 aware of that?

3 A. Yes, I was. And it was an honour and pleasure for me to listen

4 to advice and suggestions regarding the proper way to command the military

5 police. But my impression is - that you referred to a moment ago - that

6 not only did the military police have absolute support in their

7 organisation and work, but I think that the other 3rd Corps units also

8 enjoyed such support and that the commander was a commander in the real

9 sense of the word, and he sought not to separate the military police from

10 other segments, and it was my good fortune that I was able to get advice

11 from a person who had such experience with respect to commanding of

12 military police units.

13 Q. Now, perhaps before the break we can touch upon a few brief

14 issues. One relates to the Defence document in tab 11.

15 MR. WAESPI: And, Mr. President, that's DH156/1, tab 11.

16 Q. This is, again, an order by the commander of the 3rd Corps, dated

17 11th May 1993. And paragraph 1 correlates with something you testified

18 yesterday about teams, inspection teams, which would be formed and touring

19 the -- the area.

20 I see that you are among the recipients of this order, the

21 Military Police Battalion BVP. Now, do you remember, did that inspection

22 occur? Did it happen, in relation to your own unit?

23 A. I do remember, and the inspection did occur. I think that after

24 this inspection we had some problems -- or rather, prior to the

25 inspection, certain problems with logistics. That is, we needed to

1 improve the organisation. And I remember in particular Rajko Velaga

2 [phoen], I think he was a member of this team, he explained certain

3 elements of logistics, because my assistant for logistics in those days

4 had absolutely no -- no knowledge about the military hierarchy, the chain

5 of command, and so on. And I remember the proposals that were made, and

6 then there were an official proposal in the operations and teaching body

7 that the situation as we had it was not satisfactory and that the proposal

8 was made that an assistant for security be built into the structure so as

9 to be able to cover this segment, and some other things that resulted from

10 this inspection and direct assistance was given to the unit. All this is

11 within the context of what I said a moment ago, that is, not only the

12 Military Police Battalion but other units in the 3rd Corps enjoyed the

13 same level and the same kind of treatment.

14 Q. Now, just before the break - we have about five minutes - let me

15 turn to tab 21, again from your binder.

16 MR. WAESPI: And Mr. President, this is DH160/1.

17 Q. This is a document dated 27th March 1993, and it comes from the

18 assistant commander for security of the 3rd Corps.

19 I'm interested in the second page, item 3, "Formation of special

20 purpose MUP units."

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if I may be of

22 assistance to my learned friend. In our language, the translation

23 was "document 25" and I'm afraid the witness will not be able to find the

24 document. Actually we are talking about tab 21. So as to avoid any

25 confusion, I thought I'd say this.

1 MR. WAESPI: I appreciate your help. Thank you very much.

2 Q. Document 21, item -- item number 3, on the -- on the second

3 page, "Formation of special purpose MUP units." And it says, 3

4 subparagraphs: "The 3rd Corps commander and the centre CSB Chief of Staff

5 are to agree on the location for accommodation of the centre CSB special

6 purpose units." It talks about replenishment in relation to the BH army,

7 weapons, and equipment.

8 Do you know something about this special purpose MUP units?

9 A. I do. And on the basis of this information and as a result of an

10 agreement between the Security Services Centre and representatives of

11 senior commanders of the 3rd Corps, lead to further activities to set up

12 special purpose units in the CSB of Zenica. I know that in the area of

13 Zenica specifically the MUP formed a detachment called "Manoeuvre," and

14 that its involvement in combat operations depended on agreements between

15 the corps commander and the chief of the Security Services Centre that the

16 principle of replenishment was also agreed at the level of this commission

17 so that there wouldn't be any undesirable situations.

18 For example, somebody from the BH army because of more favourable

19 conditions in this unit might leave his original unit with his weapons,

20 and that is why these points were agreed on, that is, that the

21 replenishment and supply of weapons should be carried out in coordination

22 with the 3rd Corps command, which again implied that in the future their

23 involvement would be decided between the corps command and the centre of

24 the security services.

25 Q. Now, why would the BH army -- some BH army members favour these

1 special units? Did they have better weaponry, better conditions, better

2 uniforms, paid better? What was favourable?

3 A. You've listed most of it: A better uniform, better conditions,

4 shorter working hours, better pay, and the like.

5 Q. And would you consider these units to be elite units?

6 A. Objectively, it's difficult to say what an elite unit is. Apart

7 from the human potential, for someone to be elite, he would have to have

8 the necessary materiel and equipment. I can't say that they were an elite

9 unit but that they were better equipped that many other BH army units.

10 That I can claim.

11 Q. And were they also better trained and in that sense better to be

12 used for specific operations?

13 A. They were better trained in the classical police sense, as these

14 were mostly members of the active-duty policemen or reserve policemen,

15 which meant that in the previous period they had undergone training

16 lasting from six months to one year. So in the classical police sense,

17 they were certainly better trained than members of the army.

18 As for combat, I'm not quite sure because I don't know what

19 tactical training they had to be better equipped for that type of

20 activity.

21 Q. Would they have been suitable to be used for the action Golub in

22 January 1994?

23 A. We never really thought about that. These were members of the BH

24 army. These were activities within the jurisdiction of the district

25 military court. And these were jurisdictions belonging to the military

1 police. The chief of the sector and I personally felt that we had

2 qualified people and that we were capable of carrying out that plan.

3 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Perhaps it's a

4 good moment to have a break.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. We're going to have a

6 break. And we will resume at about five to 11.00. And when we do, I

7 shall give the floor to the Prosecution for them to tell us about the 10

8 documents, if they intend to use them later.

9 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

10 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

12 I shall give the floor to the Prosecution to address the question

13 of new documents. But I wish to point out that we have ruled on these

14 matters on a number of occasions.

15 The Prosecution, you have the floor.

16 MR. WAESPI: Yes. Mr. President, I have the bundle available,

17 except for my friend Mr. Dixon was -- received a complimentary copy

18 yesterday. I believe nobody has it. But I can start talking and briefly

19 explaining what I intend. And perhaps if you want to see the documents,

20 that's fine.

21 But let me first point out: As you said, Mr. President, I might

22 not use these documents. If the witness remembers the -- the incident,

23 then that's fine. And if I think it's credible what he's saying then --

24 or -- it's not always credibility but also, you know, other issues, then I

25 might not use it. So having said that, I intended to use five documents

1 which are labeled "new."

2 There is one exception or one document which is different because

3 that one document we obtained only in -- on the 23rd October 2004, which

4 was after the Prosecution closed its case. So I believe that for that

5 document we -- we have different rules. So it could be used as evidence,

6 understand, for its full purpose, not just credibility and memory

7 refreshing, as far as I recall your ruling.

8 So these are the -- the five documents. I can go through them

9 one by one, if you wish me to do. But it might perhaps be easier to -- to

10 do it when I intend to use it. But I'm in your hands, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.

12 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Your Honours are absolutely correct. The rulings have been clear

14 in the past.

15 There is just a -- a new matter that has arisen in respect of --

16 of three of the documents. And perhaps my -- my learned friend can

17 indicate whether or not those three documents are to be used. Because if

18 they're not, then there's no need for me to address Your Honours further.

19 And those are documents 16, 17, and 18. They are three

20 statements taken by the 3rd Corps military police from witnesses,

21 witnesses who have not appeared here before Your Honours. And in my

22 submission, that is an entirely new matter, whether or not these

23 statements can be used with this witness. If the witness who made the

24 statement is not and has not been called by -- by the Prosecution, made

25 available for us to cross-examine that witness.

1 So perhaps my learned friend could indicate if those statements

2 are going to be used. If they're not, then I'm not going to seek to

3 address Your Honours any further. If they are, then I would wish to

4 address Your Honours in order to clarify what is the status of those

5 statements.

6 Thank you, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon, who is a specialist

8 for new documents, tells us that he has noted that there's a new case now

9 which was never raised until now, and that is document 16, 17, and 18 are

10 statements of witnesses taken apparently by military police officers, and

11 the problem, according to the Defence, is that it is difficult to show

12 documents to somebody who did not take those statements himself and is not

13 familiar with those statements. That is what the Defence is saying.

14 So if you don't intend to use those documents, the matter is

15 resolved. If you do intend to use them, please respond to the remarks

16 made by the Defence.

17 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I intend to use just

18 one out of these three ones. That's number 17. Although --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which one? Seventeen. I see.

20 Could you tell us what is this document? What is its date? Who

21 is the author, et cetera. Because we shall have to deliberate on the

22 matter. So give us some information, when you obtained that document,

23 where does it come from, and all the other necessary information.

24 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. That's a record of a witness or

25 suspect interview done by the Military Police Battalion. The commander is

1 testifying today. And it dates 7th March 1994. We have received these

2 documents in a -- I understand a search operation, I believe, consensual.

3 It's, I think, in the CSB archives, and we accepted it in March --

4 February and March of 2004. So that's clearly within your ruling;

5 meaning, I can use it to refresh the memory of this gentleman or in

6 relation to his credibility.

7 And, Mr. President, I don't need -- I don't want to use it as

8 such, as evidence, the interview. That's very important for you to

9 realise that. We don't want to sneak in a witness statement. We're just

10 going to the information which is provided in the statement. I will ask

11 him. Because it's very specific. He talks about people coming from

12 Turkey, being interviewed by members of the military police. And perhaps

13 this gentleman, being the commander of the Military Police Battalion and

14 having said this morning that he was generally appraised, as he should be

15 as the commander, of what his people were doing, he might give you some

16 knowledge about these interviews with these people who came to Bosnia

17 as -- under disguise of humanitarian assistance.

18 I think if the witness can say something about that, that would

19 be for -- of your assistance.

20 And just one correction: These documents don't come from the CSB

21 archive but from the ABiH security archive.

22 Yes, and perhaps a second point: I believe the Defence also

23 showed the statement of Ramo Durmis to -- presented to one of the, I

24 think, Prosecution witnesses, one of the judges -- Defence witnesses. So

25 there is a precedent for using witness statements. And there shouldn't be

1 any difference between -- in cross-examination, between using information

2 stemming from a document or stemming from a witness statement. The

3 underlying information, that's the important thing, and not the form.

4 Thank you, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand your position

6 properly - I would like to summarise it - and that is that you would like

7 to use this document simply to refresh the memory of the witness. But

8 before refreshing his memory, you have to ask him questions without using

9 the document. That's quite normal. And if his replies remain vague or

10 evasive, then you can say, "Here I have a document which says," so and

11 so, "what does it say to you?"

12 Mr. Dixon, to refresh the Judges now, what can you tell us?

13 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours are entirely

14 correct that my learned friend is entitled to use these documents to seek

15 to refresh the memory of the witness. My only concern, as Your Honours

16 pointed out, is that he should lay a proper foundation first, to ask

17 whether or not he snows anything about these particular incidents. And

18 only if the witness says, "Yes, but I can't remember," then may he take

19 the next step of saying, "Well, would a document assist you?" Bearing in

20 mind that this witness's name does not appear on this document at all,

21 though my learned friend said very clearly yesterday when Mrs. Residovic

22 tried to show a document to the witness that he hadn't signed that -- he

23 objected to that, because there's no worth, he said. "It's not helpful,"

24 were his words "in trying to lead document that he had nothing to do

25 with."

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 So that's the first point, Your Honours. But the second and the

2 most important is that if my learned friend wishes to use this document to

3 make assertions about the information contained in the witness statement,

4 he's free to do that because he has a good-faith basis, as he said many

5 times before, that's all he needs, a good-faith basis for doing that. But

6 our objection is that this document cannot come into evidence unless the

7 particular witness who made the statement is to be call by the

8 Prosecution. They haven't done that up until now.

9 He's free to make assertions based on the statement and to see

10 what the witness says. But if the witness says that he disagrees with

11 those assertions, then in our submission, that is the end of the matter.

12 The statement itself cannot be introduced into evidence. The only way

13 that can happen is if the witness comes or 92 bis is used or if there's

14 89(F) as well, but for that reason the witness has to be here to attest to

15 the statement.

16 Your Honours, I also do wish to draw your attention to a decision

17 in the Milosevic case, which I cite in support of my submission, where

18 there as well the Prosecution tried to introduce statements of other

19 witnesses through a witness in court who hadn't signed that statement. So

20 it was another witness in court. And he was shown a statement of a third

21 or fourth witness. And there Judge Robinson ruled very clearly - and it

22 was on the 28th of February, 2005, at page 36814 - that "These statements

23 have not proceeded beyond the level of being mere assertions. At no time

24 did the witness agree with any of the propositions advanced by the

25 Prosecution in relation to the information in these documents, so they are

1 not admitted."

2 That was the ruling of -- of the Trial Chamber in respect of the

3 witness statement, saying it cannot be admitted for the truth of its

4 contents. The only way that can happen is if the witness himself is

5 called.

6 And I point this out because I accept what my learned colleagues

7 said, that they're not trying to sneak something in. But if he is to make

8 assertions about what is contained in the statement, then the statement

9 itself cannot be introduced, unless, of course, the -- if the witness

10 adopts the statement as true. That's different. But it cannot be

11 introduced unless the Prosecution seek to call the -- the witness himself.

12 Your Honour, finally, I did just want to point out that in

13 respect of the document for Mr. Durmis, that was a new document that the

14 Prosecution themselves sought to introduce. And we were then, once it was

15 in evidence for a limited purpose, putting it to further witnesses that

16 were called. That is also a different document in the sense that it was

17 taken formally in court proceedings under oath; whereas, this statement is

18 one taken not under oath, without caution. It's simply a statement taken

19 by the military police as part of their investigations. So it's a very

20 different situation. The one is a court record; this is in the form of a

21 witness statement, and it cannot come into evidence, in our submission,

22 unless the witness is actually called to testify and we are given the

23 right to cross-examine the witness about what is in this statement.

24 Your Honour, those are our submissions. We don't have any

25 objection to the document being used in the way that has been described by

1 my learned friend, to seek to refresh his memory. But it cannot be shown

2 unless he actually needs it, if he actually does forget and say, "I want a

3 document." And in addition to that, it can't be used as evidence. It

4 can't be used to strengthen the Prosecution case in any way.

5 Thank you, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps the Prosecution would

7 like to respond, but in our decision dated the 29th of November, 2004 we

8 dealt with this issue and we settled the matter. We said that the

9 Prosecution can refresh a witness's memory, just as the Defence has said.

10 It's not a new exhibit, a new piece of evidence. But if the Prosecution

11 is requesting that this document be admitted into evidence, it can only be

12 admitted in a limited sense and can only be used to establish the

13 witness's credibility or to refresh a witness's memory. It's not a new

14 exhibit. This document can only be used to refresh a witness's memory.

15 This is what Mr. Dixon has said and he has supported his arguments with

16 reference to the Milosevic case.

17 Would the Prosecution like to respond before the Judges

18 deliberate?

19 MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President. We agree with what you said and

20 most of what my learned friend said, and I've said in my first submission,

21 we don't want to use it as evidence -- submit it as evidence. It's only

22 evidence what comes out of the mouth of this witness and not what -- what

23 I'm saying or what's in this document.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, quite right. You don't

25 want to use it as evidence, but we shouldn't exclude the following

1 hypothesis: When refreshing the witness's memory, you might say that --

2 or you might at the end say that you are requesting that this exhibit be

3 admitted into evidence in conformity with your decision on refreshing a

4 witness's memory. Is that what you are stating?

5 Yes, very well. We will withdraw now and we will return in a few

6 minutes.

7 --- Break taken at 11.18 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.20 a.m.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With regard to this procedural

10 issue, the Trial Chamber notes that there is more or less agreement

11 between the parties. In accordance with our decision, on page 12.526, the

12 Prosecution may refresh a witness's memory by using a new document but

13 provided that before refreshing the witness's memory the Prosecution

14 establishes the grounds by putting a series of questions that will lead up

15 to presenting the document shown to the witness to refresh the witness's

16 memory, and it's sufficient at that point to show the witness the

17 document, but it's necessary to establish the grounds. And it's only if

18 the witness answers the question in relation, which doesn't seem to tally

19 with the document, that you can refresh the witness's memory by using the

20 document. But as we said in our decision on page 12.526, the document can

21 only be admitted in a very limited sense.

22 We'll now call the witness back into the courtroom.

23 Mr. Registrar, could you just check to see that if we are unable

24 to finish the examination of this witness today, we could continue

25 tomorrow.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing will now resume,

3 and the Prosecution may continue with its cross-examination.

4 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

5 I would first ask your leave, Mr. President, to ask him a few

6 questions about Mr. Ramo Durmis. You remember that a subordinate of

7 Mr. Durmis, Mr. Semir Saric came on Monday and testified and he was

8 allowed to answer a few questions about Mr. Durmis. And he said that he

9 was aware of an investigation which was connected by colleagues of -- of

10 his; meaning, members of the military police, who investigated that

11 matters. And that relates to an incident towards the end of 1992 in the

12 clashes in the territory of Visoko, attempts to deblockade the city of

13 Sarajevo.

14 And just to correct the record, the transcript, the witness

15 Mr. Saric, Semir Saric, he was a subordinate of today's witness,

16 Mr. Mujezinovic, and of course not Mr. Ramo Durmis.

17 So there are no new documents involved. I would just like to ask

18 him a few questions, if he knows anything about this incident to which the

19 witness on Monday alluded to on page 65, lines 10 to 14.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you're saying

21 that the subordinate of the witness, who is present, Mr. Semir Saric,

22 mentioned the existence of an investigation into events that took place in

23 the territory of Visoko and you want to know whether the witness here

24 today is familiar with this.

25 Defence counsel.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this witness has

2 said that he had between 250 and 400 subordinates in the Military Police

3 Battalion. The witness Semir Saric was here, and the Prosecutor asked

4 Semir Saric everything that he could ask Semir Saric at the time. I'm

5 sure of that. And I, in the course of the examination-in-chief, didn't

6 mention any events in the area of Visoko, nor do I mention -- nor did I

7 mention Ramo Durmis. I think that there's no legal basis -- or the

8 testimony of a previous witness can't form a legal basis for putting such

9 a question to this witness, and for this reason I object.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution.

11 MR. WAESPI: Yes. We had this debate about the ambit of Rule

12 90(H), I think it is, a couple of times, and that's why I ask leave,

13 Mr. President, just to ask a few questions about Ramo Durmis. And you

14 granted leave to my colleague Mr. Neuner on -- on Monday to ask a few

15 questions about Mr. Durmis.

16 Now, Mr. Durmis is quite a prominent figure, as -- as you know.

17 And perhaps the commander of the military police whose subordinates, you

18 know, were able, despite the fact that he was not involved - the witness

19 on Monday - was still able to talk a little bit about Ramo Durmis. So

20 perhaps this gentleman can -- can do the same.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll withdraw for a few

22 minutes.

23 --- Break taken at 11.26 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 11.27 a.m.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will now

1 render a second decision today, with regard to whether the Prosecution may

2 ask the witness a question.

3 The Chamber believes that the name of this witness has already

4 appeared in the course of the proceedings and that the document refers to

5 this witness. And, in addition, a subordinate of this witness has already

6 answered a question about Mr. Durmis, and it would be in the interest of

7 justice to put a question to the witness. He will either answer the

8 question or he won't answer the question.

9 So please go ahead and put your question to the witness.

10 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 Q. Now, I'm sure you remember the -- the person Semir Saric as one

12 of your former subordinates?

13 A. Of course I do.

14 Q. Now, he told us on Monday that in relation to Ramo Durmis, "That

15 he was often searched by our services."

16 Now, can you tell us, if you know anything about this gentleman.

17 A. You said that he was well known. I wouldn't say that he was a

18 particularly well-known person to me. As far as I know, thanks to some

19 postwar events - and that's what I know about - a criminal report was

20 filed against Mr. Durmis, perhaps together with the Security Services

21 Centre or perhaps they acted on their own. It had to do with the abuse or

22 the seizure of motor vehicles. I'm not certain of the proceedings, the

23 nature of the proceedings, or of the sentence at the court.

24 After the war, I became familiar with Mr. Durmis -- or rather, I

25 came to know him and he took advantage of the opportunity to say that he

1 was the person concerned, that he was Ramo Durmis.

2 Q. Can you tell us in -- in what setting you became familiar with

3 Mr. Durmis after the war.

4 A. He lived in the same building that I lived in. He was a

5 neighbour.

6 Q. Let me go back to 1992 Visoko. We heard from your subordinate

7 that there were -- was some incident in December, I believe, 1992 around

8 Visoko. Have you heard about that, that incident?

9 A. I'm not aware of such an incident.

10 Q. We have an exhibit, but perhaps it's no need to show it to you,

11 where Mr. Durmis reports about the operation of the 1st Company in the

12 Visoko-Buci-Rakovci-Visegrad elevation sector. You don't know anything

13 about that?

14 A. I don't know why Ramo Durmis would report to me.

15 Q. It's not to you. It's just basically he was asked to make a

16 report about these events.

17 MR. WAESPI: And Your Honours, just for the record, but we won't

18 go into that, that would be P514.

19 Q. But since you haven't heard anything about that event, Visoko,

20 Ramo Durmis, we won't go into that.

21 A. I agree.

22 Q. Let's talking about Dusina, Mr. Mujezinovic.

23 Now, I'm not entirely sure whether I understood your testimony

24 yesterday. I believe you said that an on-site inspection was carried out

25 in Dusina. And I quote you. You said: "A team was formed and sent,"

1 page 62 -- 76, of LiveNote of yesterday. What do you know about this team

2 that was formed and sent, and do you know whether it appeared at Dusina,

3 if that's what you mean? And Dusina, that's obviously 27th of January,

4 1993.

5 A. I didn't say that a team was sent to carry out an on-site

6 investigation in Dusina. I said that after information from the civilian

7 protection was obtained, this duty service sent a team to carry out an

8 on-site investigation together with the investigative judge in the morgue

9 of the cantonal hospital in Zenica, where the corpses had already been

10 taken to from the Dusina area. The prosecutor -- or rather, the judge in

11 charge of the investigation assessed that the members of the units that I

12 commanded weren't sufficiently well equipped to carry out the

13 investigation, and he ordered that a patrol from the Security Services

14 Centre remain at the site and the patrol from the Military Police

15 Battalion was returned by him back to the barracks, and it was their duty

16 to provide statements of the individuals imprisoned who were taken from

17 Dusina to the Centre for the Reception of POWs. According to the

18 information I obtained from my subordinates, these statements were taken,

19 and on the basis of this order they were forwarded to the judge in charge

20 of the case.

21 Q. Well, I thought you cleared it up first by saying there was no

22 on-site investigation carried out in Dusina but, rather, at the morgue and

23 hospital, which is an information we heard from somebody else. But now

24 later you say that the "Security Services Centre" or "a patrol from the

25 Security Services Centre remain at the site." Can you tell us more

1 about -- about that? What were these people doing at the site? And

2 by "site" do you mean Dusina?

3 A. When I say "site," I'm referring to the morgue of the cantonal

4 hospital in Zenica. At the time, I don't know what its name was, but it

5 was the hospital in Zenica. That team was a forensic team, and its

6 objective was to determine the circumstances under which these people had

7 died. This involves analysing the wounds, describing the corpses,

8 performing the paraffin test on the individuals killed in order to

9 determine whether they had used firearms, and it also involves carrying

10 out all the other analyses ordered by the judge who is at the site.

11 Q. Thanks very much for this answer, which clears up the matter,

12 because we had another witness, a prosecutor, Mr. Ragib Hadzic who looked

13 into the matter in 1999 or 2000 and told us that no on-site investigation

14 was carried out in Dusina. He also said, though, that he could not find

15 any records of witness statements taken in the file he reviewed. Can you

16 give us an explanation why the witness statements which you mentioned

17 today and yesterday and, by the way, also your colleague on Monday,

18 weren't part of that official file which Mr. Hadzic reviewed -- reviewed

19 in 1999 or 2000?

20 A. I am not aware of the reasons for which the statements are not

21 included in the official files that Mr. Hadzic reviewed, but I can claim

22 with full responsibility that the statements of prisoners of war in the

23 reception centre were forwarded to two addresses: They were forwarded to

24 the judge in charge of the case in the military cantonal court, and to the

25 chief of the security sector in the 3rd Corps.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. And the name of the judge in charge of the case in the military

2 cantonal court, that's Mr. Mirsad Strika?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you know what he did or was supposed to do with his file?

5 A. I can assume what he should have done. I assume that on the

6 basis of those statements he should assess whether it was necessary to

7 take any other measures. And naturally it was necessary to bear in mind

8 the investigation carried out in the morgue, and this should have allowed

9 him to determine whether there were grounds to take further measures,

10 whether there were grounds to order that certain individuals should be

11 brought in, interrogated, whether evidence should be collected, et cetera.

12 When he went to the site, Mr. Strika became the person who had the highest

13 responsibility, and his orders, his instructions were the only valid

14 guidelines.

15 Q. So what was the measures which he was supposed to take after

16 having assessed the material, went to the site?

17 A. I can assume what they were, because Mr. Strika was a judge from

18 the regional military court. He was very experienced and probably

19 sufficiently professional to take a decision on his own, but I assume that

20 if there were grounds to continue with an investigation or if there were

21 indications pointing to the fact that a crime had been committed, then he

22 should have ordered steps to be taken in order to shed light on the crime.

23 If he assessed that everything was the result of combat, he could quite

24 simply complete the case, shelve the case.

25 Q. Without going to the crime scene?

1 A. Well, again, I'll repeat what I said: Mr. Strika was

2 sufficiently professional and sufficiently experienced, in terms of his

3 works in the military courts, to know what he should have done, but I

4 can't say what he did. I can only assume what he did.

5 Q. Would you have gone to the crime scene yourself to see what was

6 happening

7 A. Well, I don't know. Believe me, I haven't given any thought to

8 the matter. But bearing in mind the fact that according to information I

9 had, immediately afterwards there was shelling in that area and even

10 civilian areas were indiscriminately shelled, I'm not sure that I would

11 have gone to the scene at that point in time.

12 Q. Among the people interviewed by your subordinates, was there

13 Ivica Kegelj, one of the perhaps two survivors of that killing not through

14 shelling but through a killing, a execution in Dusina? Did your people

15 interview Ivica Kegelj?

16 A. I'm not familiar with the names of the prisoners interrogated by

17 my men. Perhaps I had a look at the list at that time, but given the

18 passage of time, I can't remember the names of those people.

19 Q. Do you think they should have interviewed one of the survivors of

20 that incident, a person by the way who was asked to put the bodies of the

21 killed, executed persons into his garage? Do you think that would have

22 been a person who needed to be interviewed in an investigation into the

23 killings of these people?

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to this

25 question, too, because my learned colleague is now interpreting some facts

1 that he had not previously asked the witness about, whether he was aware

2 of a garage, of people in a garage, of people being killed, where the

3 bodies were found in this vast area, in the course of combat. These --

4 such questions, if they had been previously put to the witness, could

5 provide him with grounds for this question, but he's now asking the

6 witness about bodies being placed in a garage. I see no grounds for

7 putting this question to the witness.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel objects because

9 the Prosecution hasn't established the grounds to put this question to the

10 witness.

11 MR. WAESPI: I can move on, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do so.

13 MR. WAESPI:

14 Q. But the members of your military police who conducted this

15 inquiry or investigation, they had access to all the people who were

16 detained at the KP Dom, who were brought from Lasva Valley to -- from

17 Lasva to the KP Dom.

18 A. All the people who were brought to the Reception Centre for

19 Prisoners of War from Dusina were available to authorised officials from

20 the military police.

21 Q. And it would have been the task of an investigator - and I think

22 you said there was someone in charge - to find the survivors of this

23 incident; do you agree with me?

24 A. I don't understand the question.

25 Q. If an investigation is launched into alleged incidents which

1 occurred or may not have occurred, if somebody who looks into that, would

2 he try to find eyewitnesses to a crime?

3 A. The duty judge is in charge of the investigation, who goes on

4 site. The Military Police Battalion was ordered to take statements from

5 persons who arrived at the Reception Centre for Prisoners of War. Apart

6 from that order or instructions, no one, me, or my superior, the chief of

7 the security sector, or the corps commander cannot influence the course of

8 the investigation. We were ordered to take statements from people in the

9 centre and thereby our duties end. Had the judge ordered us to carry out

10 certain checks, to investigate in the ground, to look around for those you

11 called "survivors," we would have done that.

12 Q. So on that evening or on that morning, who picked the names of

13 the people your subordinates had to interview?

14 A. My subordinate commander of the platoon for investigations,

15 Mr. Bakir Alispahic, had the lawful duty to assign the persons who would

16 interview which of the war prisoners.

17 Q. So you are saying Mr. Alispahic, he assigned the members of the

18 police battalion, the interviewers. But who is picking the people to be

19 interviewed?

20 A. He was the person who would say, "Three prisoners of war," and

21 their names and initials or whatever, and he would assign an authorised

22 official from among his staff to do the interviews. So he selects both

23 the authorised official and the prisoners who will be interviewed.

24 Q. And when you testified yesterday that the person in charge of the

25 investigation had informed you about these interviews and you said they

1 were done according to the rules and regulations, it was

2 Mr. Bakir Alispahic who reported to you; is that correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Now, did your unit, Mr. Bakir Alispahic, apart from merely

5 sending the statements to -- to the investigative judge -- did your

6 services also make a report about the investigation?

7 A. We did not prepare special reports about the investigation

8 because we were not authorised or competent to do so. We would just

9 forward the statements, as I have said, but we did not prepare complete

10 reports, nor were we expected to do so. But only about the part of the

11 investigation relating to the examination and interviewing of prisoners.

12 Q. Isn't the military police, the investigators, required to draft

13 reports about alleged criminal activities? Isn't that one of -- one of

14 your jobs? And we have seen many of these criminal reports.

15 A. We're going back to the competencies and jurisdiction. I am

16 saying the taking of statements requires instructions from the

17 investigative judge. He is the person. As he is on site, he's in charge

18 of the investigation and he determines whether there are any elements of

19 criminal liability or any other kind of liability and gives instructions

20 regarding some other measures. So we did file criminal reports. We did

21 send reports about the investigations we conducted independently when

22 there was no judge who was in charge. We proposed measures in accordance

23 with our obligations, and when we coordinated efforts with the chief of

24 security. But in this particular case, our task, following instructions

25 from the investigative judge, was simply to take statements in order to

1 collect as much information as possible.

2 Q. Just to finalise two small aspects to what you just said. You

3 said you had coordinated efforts with the chief of security. In relation

4 to Dusina, did you have any interaction with the security service or

5 indeed anybody else from the 3rd Corps outside your battalion?

6 A. The first contact, with the chief of security, when we were given

7 direct orders to take over the prisoners and escort them to the Reception

8 Centre for Prisoners of War. The second contact was when the chief of

9 security, after contacting the judge regarding statements to be taken,

10 that is when we had a contact with him. And the third time was when the

11 statements taken from the prisoners of war were forwarded to the chief of

12 the military security sector for his information, because he, too, didn't

13 have the competence to undertake any other measures, as the judge was in

14 charge of the investigations on the site.

15 Q. Now, the first contact, when you were given direct orders to take

16 the people from -- the prisoners from Lasva, do you remember when that

17 was? Which time of the day it was?

18 A. I don't remember the date. It was the end of January 1993, late

19 in the afternoon, but I know that the commander for military police

20 investigations informed me in the evening that the -- he had carried out

21 the orders I had passed on to him, that is, that he had escorted the

22 prisoners to the reception centre.

23 Q. And did you talk directly to the chief of security before you

24 gave the assignment, you know, of your military police to go to -- to get

25 the prisoners?

1 A. Of course I spoke to him, because I received the order directly

2 from him for the Military Police Battalion to take over the prisoners.

3 That was the first contact we had in that way.

4 Q. And what exactly did he tell you? And incidentally, was that

5 over the phone, or how did that conversation occur?

6 A. The conversation was over the phone, but I find it hard to

7 recollect the details. He told me, to the extent one could speak on the

8 phone, that in the Lasva region -- or rather, in Dusina there had been

9 certain combat activities, that this was -- had resulted from earlier

10 tensions, and that the unit in the area had captured a certain number of

11 prisoners. And he ordered me to organise the escort of those prisoners

12 from Dusina to the reception centre at the KP Dom. My concern was to

13 select the people and the necessary means for transport. And I know that

14 we engaged a large bus for the purpose, to be able to carry out our task

15 properly.

16 Q. Did he tell you anything about killings, casualties, civilians,

17 military, ABiH, HVO?

18 A. He didn't say anything about that. We didn't discuss it. But

19 the next day in a conversation he mentioned that there had been casualties

20 on both sides, that apparently there had been casualties whose method of

21 death cannot have been established, that the civilian protection had

22 already sanitised the battlefield, and that the number of killed people in

23 Lasva had already been transported to the morgue in Zenica. About the

24 same time, we received information from the duty service from the civilian

25 protection, so that within a short span of time of some 10 to 20 minutes

1 both these reports reached the battalion.

2 Q. Now, did he also tell you that one of the ABiH commanders, the

3 company commanders, was killed?

4 A. He told me that on our side, according to available information,

5 there had been dead, but he didn't mention of what rank. He just said

6 that there had been some dead. And later on I learnt that was the

7 commander of one of the units, again from a report of the chief of the

8 security sector that I learnt this subsequently.

9 Q. And his name was Elvedin Camdzic. Do you remember that?

10 A. I am saying that I learned subsequently that it was Mr. Camdzic,

11 whom I didn't know personally, so I can't be more specific about that.

12 Q. Do you remember that in relation to this gentleman, Mr. Camdzic,

13 a criminal investigation was launched into the circumstances of his death?

14 Do you know that?

15 A. I was never given any instructions to initiate an investigation

16 of that kind. I personally never received any such instructions.

17 MR. WAESPI: Perhaps, Mr. President, if the witness could be

18 shown P135. I may have prepared some copies for Your Honours, and this

19 might refresh your recollection -- or perhaps you have another comment to

20 make.

21 Mr. President, that's a one-page document dated forwards 29th

22 January 1993 from the assistant commander for security, Nesib Talic, of

23 the 7th Muslim Brigade, and it addresses the murderer of "our company

24 commander, Elvedin Camdzic, who was immediately arrested" -- and it talks

25 about an alleged perpetrator who was "immediately arrested and taken to

1 the district military prison."

2 Q. Just take your time to read it. Do you remember that a gentleman

3 called Cvijanovic was arrested and taken to the military -- district

4 military prison in connection with the killing of a company commander from

5 the ABiH?

6 A. I personally do not remember Mr. Cvijanovic, and if this is so,

7 then it is in accordance with the rules when there is reason to believe

8 that there was a crime committed. Mr. Nesib Talic is addressing himself

9 to the security organ of the 3rd Corps, and again this is in accordance

10 with the norms of reporting and requests for information. I don't

11 remember that the chief of the security sector gave me personally any

12 concrete tasks linked to this information or linked to this document.

13 Q. Do you know whether the killing of Mr. Camdzic might have been a

14 battle casualty? Have you any information about that?

15 A. I did not have occasion to see combat reports, nor can I say that

16 this was treated in that way, but it is quite certain that the killing of

17 any member, and especially a company commander, is a loss for the forces,

18 and it is probably contained in the combat reports from the area.

19 Q. And following that, because it's a loss for the forces, it needs

20 to be fully investigated; correct?

21 A. In principle, yes, but it's not to say that there's always an

22 investigation when there is a loss of this kind. Since this specific

23 information was forwarded to a concrete organ of control and command, then

24 the security sector -- or rather, the chief of that sector on the basis of

25 that report initiates investigative work in order to collect evidence and

1 potentially submit reports to the competent court.

2 Q. Let me leave Dusina and go on to a different location, but we are

3 staying in -- in those days, 27th January 1993. Do you remember that on

4 that day the military battalion had received an order from the commander

5 of the 3rd Corps to -- for a military police patrol to patrol a unit which

6 came from the 7th Mountain Muslim Brigade, from Zenica to Turbe and back?

7 Do you remember having received an order from the 3rd Corps commander?

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Defence.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to

10 ask my learned friend to clarify. It's either a problem with the

11 translation or I can't understand what it says here. He said "on that

12 same day," "in those days." I don't know what he meant, whether he's

13 talking about the day of fighting in Dusina on the 26th of January,

14 because I see here the date is the 27th of January, and the question

15 was "on that same day," or, rather, "in those days." So I'm not sure what

16 day he was referring to.

17 MR. WAESPI: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I probably misspoke.

18 It's on the -- this incident occurred, I believe, on the 27th of -- of

19 January. And it's not related to Dusina, I believe. So -- and of course

20 we all know Dusina occurred on the 26th of January.

21 Q. On the 27th of January, do you remember having received an order

22 from the commander of the 3rd Corps for a military police patrol to bring

23 units pertaining to the 7th Mountain -- Muslim Mountain Brigade from

24 Zenica to Turbe and back? Do you remember that?

25 A. I think I do remember. The order was very brief, I think, but it

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 resulted from the obligations of the military police. The Military Police

2 Battalion had the obligation or duty in certain situations on the basis of

3 the corps commander's assessment to provide traffic or secure the movement

4 of columns of military vehicles, columns of ABiH members, et cetera.

5 That's one thing.

6 And secondly, since the tensions were high, that the conflict had

7 already started, and members of the HVO had a very negative attitude

8 towards members of the 7th Brigade, the commander decided to engage the

9 military battalion to secure the column, the main aim being to reduce

10 tensions and eliminate the possibility of any incident breaking out along

11 the route from Zenica to Turbe and back.

12 Q. Do you remember whether that location in the Turbe area was in

13 fact Bijelo Bucje? That's where your patrol was supposed to bring the

14 units to and back?

15 A. I don't remember whether it was Bijelo Bucje. I know the order

16 said "Zenica-Turbe, Turbe-Zenica." For me, the final destination was

17 Turbe, and I really don't remember this.

18 Q. The first entry in the 3rd Corps logbook which mentions Bijelo

19 Bucje. I just wanted to -- to inquire whether that's a possibility as

20 well, if you know, if you don't know.

21 A. I really don't know.

22 [Prosecution counsel confer]

23 MR. WAESPI:

24 Q. I would just like to -- to follow up on the comment you made

25 about the very negative attitude towards the members of the 7th Brigade by

1 the HVO. Why do you say that? Can you give us an explanation?

2 A. If you watched one -- saw one of the Defence exhibits, in 1992

3 the Military Police Battalion already had some problems when it came to

4 engaging Croats. All units of the BH army were characterised by the Croat

5 extremists, especially the extremists in the HVO, as Mujahedin units, as

6 Muslim and I don't know what else. If a Military Police Battalion

7 encountered such problems, then you can imagine what it was like to be a

8 member of a unit which had in its name the word "Muslim" and in which a

9 large number of members, because of their religious beliefs, are wearing

10 beards, and the extremists in the HVO see them as a threat to their own

11 interests and probably all this contributed to the heightening of tensions

12 to such an extent that this became a problem.

13 Q. Now, you talked about the number of individuals that were

14 detained by your services in -- in quite a number of documents: For

15 instance - and I don't think we need to go into that again - tab 39.

16 That's the August 1993 report, for the month of August. And it talks

17 about 256 individuals.

18 Now, in your time as the commander of the -- the military police,

19 was there ever -- were there ever foreigners, including so-called

20 Mujahedin, who were detained in your facilities?

21 A. I am not aware of the Military Police Battalion having detained

22 anyone who called himself a Mujahedin.

23 Q. Now, were certain forms used by your service, pre-printed forms

24 which had blanks left in for the individual details of people who were

25 supposed to be taken in for custody?

1 A. Such forms did exist in accordance with the Law on Criminal

2 Procedure, and they would be filled in with the particulars of the person

3 who may be taken into custody on various grounds.

4 Q. Would it refresh your memory if I would show you such a form in

5 which the name of such a Mujahedin was mentioned? Would that refresh your

6 memory as to whether such a person would -- was indeed arrested by your

7 service?

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps my learned

9 friend could be more specific as to the time he's asking the witness

10 about; that is, whether in their custody there were any foreigners,

11 because it says here "while you were performing your duties." Perhaps the

12 time covered by the indictment would be best. Are we talking about 1993?

13 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, that's exactly my question. I asked

14 him, you know -- and that must have been stuck out in his memory, whether

15 there was ever something. He said "no." And it doesn't matter which time

16 period it is. It will refresh his memory. We'll see what -- what date

17 does -- I can certainly state the date. It's January 1994.

18 Q. Do you remember that in January 1994 somebody was taken custody

19 by -- by your services?

20 A. I do remember that, and I think the misunderstanding had to do

21 with the dates, because from 1994 onwards we did have situations in which

22 the so-called Mujahedin we had to investigate into and take into custody

23 in accordance with the law. In 1994 -- or rather, at the end of 1993, a

24 similar activity was launched in connection with the Golub operation,

25 which the security sector coordinated and its counter-intelligence body,

1 the aim being to establish the facts with respect to, conditionally

2 speaking, a military unit that called itself "legal" and which existed in

3 the area of Zenica. We knew it under the name of the so-called Turkish

4 Guerilla. And the coordination of all these activities was done by the

5 security sector and its counter-intelligence sector.

6 In addition to operatives from the Military Police Battalion,

7 some operatives from the CSB were engaged, and important for this

8 operation was that these members were not members of the Army of Bosnia

9 and Herzegovina or of the 3rd Corps, and it was not possible to engage

10 anyone from the brigade, such as the assistant commander for security, as

11 was the case for Operation Golub. So these persons were monitored, with

12 the aim of establishing their organisational structure, their movements,

13 et cetera, and I remember that following instructions from the sector,

14 together with the CSB we did arrest a group of men. We processed them.

15 They were held for 72 hours, as provided for by the Law on Procedure, et

16 cetera.

17 Q. Why did you arrest these people despite the fact that, as you

18 state, they were not members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

19 A. Well, for that very reason, because they weren't ABiH members and

20 they had declared themselves as members. They were often in uniform.

21 They were seen in various situations. And I believe that they even

22 committed certain crimes. They would sell cigarettes on the black market,

23 et cetera. And the security sector had this information. They gathered

24 all the information and we were the executive organ, in terms of carrying

25 out what the security sector had accomplished in the operative sense.

1 Q. And in fact, your services, your battalion, talked to a number of

2 these what you called Turkish Guerillas, took witness statements from

3 them.

4 A. That's correct. As I said, apart from the operative aspect, we

5 were also the executive organ for the security sector. They had a small

6 number of operative officers and they carried out certain duties, such as

7 counter-intelligence, et cetera. When it comes to going into the field,

8 arresting individuals, processing them, taking statements, gathering

9 evidence, this is usually something that the Military Police Battalion

10 does. I think that you'll find similarities between this Turkish Guerilla

11 group and the Green League. The system of gathering information was the

12 same. And the military police carries out the plan at the site itself.

13 Q. And do you recall that when your services interviewed these

14 members of the Turkish Guerilla, that some of them stated that they were

15 members of the Army of the ABiH? Do you remember that?

16 A. Again, I'll go back to the chain of command: Firstly, there

17 wasn't a single case while I was in command in which I directly

18 participated in taking statements from any individuals, so I never

19 interpreted the contents of statements. I left that to the commander of

20 the platoon for military police investigations. After he had carried out

21 his activities, he'd provide summary information on certain important

22 elements. I am not familiar with there being anything of that nature

23 contained in the statements taken from those people.

24 Q. Would it help you if I would show you one of these statements

25 taken by one of your subordinates? I take it -- in fact, it's

1 Mr. Alispahic.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that my learned colleague

5 is going beyond the scope of your decision. He asked the witness whether

6 he was familiar with the event. He asked him whether he knew how the

7 battalion participated in the event. The witness quite clearly stated

8 that he couldn't remember that, that he never took any statements. And

9 now we're moving on to questions about the contents of statements. And

10 this is beyond the scope allowed for cross-examination in accordance with

11 the decision that you rendered.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.

13 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honour. If I could just add to what

14 Mrs. Residovic said, and that is that, as my learned friend indicated,

15 Mr. Alispahic did participate in taking the statement, but so did

16 Mr. Semir Saric, who was a witness who testified, as Your Honours will

17 know, this week Monday, and his name appears on this statement, and yet

18 this statement was not shown to -- to that witness. In our submission, as

19 my learned colleague said yesterday, that would have been the right person

20 to put the statement to because he was the one involved in it. This

21 witness has said that he was not involved in these statements or analysing

22 these statements, and he's not familiar with anything that was in these

23 statements. It's not going to assist him in refreshing his memory if he's

24 now shown a statement.

25 But in addition to that, Your Honour, the real issue here is that

1 my learned friend is putting an assertion about the fact that certain

2 foreigners were in the army, and he's asking the witness whether he knows

3 that from these statements. If he wants to put that assertion, he can.

4 The witness can -- can then answer it. But what some other witness said

5 in a statement cannot be evidence, and if he's trying to get that as

6 evidence, then -- then we do object to that. If he wants to make the

7 assertion that foreigners were in the army, he can say that to the witness

8 and let's see what the witness's answer is. If he wants to call a witness

9 who -- who might have said in a statement, well, then that's a separate

10 matter. That witness should have been called. But he can't try and use

11 what another person has said and bring that into evidence through this

12 witness. That was the main objection that I was making at the beginning.

13 Thank you, Your Honours.

14 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if I might respond first to what my

15 learned colleague from the Hadzihasanovic said. It's well within the

16 scope, I believe, of cross-examination. The witness himself volunteered

17 the term of "Turkish Guerilla" and he displayed quite some knowledge. And

18 indeed he has to; he was the command to have military police. That was

19 his job to know what was happening in that area.

20 And again, in -- in response to what Mr. Dixon has said, that's

21 not evidence when I put something to the witness. It's up to the witness

22 to tell from his knowledge, from his experience what he knows about that.

23 But -- and we are free to put anything to whatever witness comes. It's up

24 to me or to my colleagues to decide which documents to use with which

25 witness.

1 Mr. Alispahic, I don't think he appeared as a witness, so that's

2 the first time we have the military commander and one of his subordinates,

3 direct subordinates - Alispahic was one of the commanders below him - has

4 taken a statement, and the purpose of it is merely to show him the

5 statement and ask him does he know something about that. He might

6 say, "No, that's new to me," "yes, I remember it now," or "no, the

7 statement is totally unreliable because my interviewers put words into the

8 mouth of the witness." That's what he can answer.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.

10 MR. DIXON: Sorry, Your Honour. I don't want to keep this going

11 unnecessarily, but it is important to note that Mr. Saric's name is on the

12 document as well as Mr. Alispahic, so both of them were involved in taking

13 the statement. Mr. Saric has certainly testified here. He did so on

14 Monday as a subordinate of the -- the current witness before Your Honours.

15 And I'm looking at the original. He has signed this document as

16 well.

17 In addition to that, Mr. Alispahic was somebody the Prosecution

18 interviewed. They took a statement from him. And that statement was

19 disclosed to us under Rule 68. He wasn't called as a witness by the

20 Prosecution. A statement was taken. And once again, another opportunity

21 was lost, in our submission, by the Prosecution if they wanted to

22 introduce this as evidence.

23 Thank you, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution.

25 MR. WAESPI: Well, several points: Again, and I can only repeat

1 it, I don't want to use it as evidence. Evidence is only what the witness

2 is going to say: Yes, no, I remember, I recall.

3 And a second point - I'm repeating it - I can use any information

4 I want with this witness. If I -- it's not the best-evidence rule here

5 that we have to get the best witness for the best document and only for

6 that purpose. I can show something which is reasonably within the scope

7 of this gentleman. He's the commander, Mr. President, of the Military

8 Police Battalion. A direct subordinate of him took a witness statement,

9 and I can certainly ask him after he has said that these statements are

10 usually reliable what this means, what it's all about. He can say no,

11 Mr. President, if he doesn't recall it.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're wasting time.

13 The debate arises because the questions that should have been put to the

14 witness weren't put to him. One should have asked the witness, who

15 spontaneously mentioned the investigations into the Turkish Guerilla --

16 one should have asked the witness who conducted the investigation. The

17 answer: Alispahic. And then he should have been asked who forwarded the

18 results of the investigation to the judge or to the prosecutor. The

19 witness could have replied, "It was me" or, "It was Alispahic." If he

20 said that he did that, then he should have been asked whether he had read

21 the statements taken in the course of the investigation. One should have

22 proceeded by putting such questions to the witness and this would have

23 enabled us to avoid a discussion that is of no use.

24 We have four minutes, so please start from the beginning.

25 MR. WAESPI: Thanks, Mr. President.

1 Q. Mr. Mujezinovic, do you know who was in charge? Was there a

2 specific who was in charge of these investigations against the Turkish

3 Guerilla?

4 A. The entire investigation, operative information, preparations to

5 arrest individuals, et cetera, was conducted by the Sector for Military

6 Security in the 3rd Corps, and I think that the chief of the

7 counter-intelligence organ, Mr. Osman Vlajcic, was responsible to

8 coordinate and lead all aspects of the investigation. On the basis of

9 everything that has been said so far, the Military Police Battalion had

10 the duty after arrests were made and statements were taken to provide

11 their files to the military security service and together with the

12 statements and information that they had, they would assess what further

13 measures should be taken in accordance with the law and they would then

14 instruct the Military Police Battalion and provide them with guidelines as

15 to how to proceed.

16 Q. So who within your services would forward these witness

17 statements to the security service, military security service?

18 A. The commander of the Military Police Battalion had the duty to

19 complete all the statements and then via the battalion command he had to

20 forward them to the security sector.

21 Q. When you compiled several witness statements and did forward it

22 to your subordinate officer did you attach a cover letter, or how was that

23 done, practically?

24 A. The accompanying letter meant that statements would be attached

25 to the document, nothing else. My comments and comments from my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 subordinates weren't necessary because there was a service that

2 coordinated all those activities. It was on the basis of those

3 statements - and I'll repeat this - that we would receive instructions or

4 an oral order or other orders on taking further measures and on

5 completing -- or rather, finalising investigation.

6 Q. So it was you who did send this package of witness statements to

7 your superior office.

8 A. I said the commander of the battalion, myself, my deputy also had

9 authority to sign a document in which one explained that statements had

10 been attached to the document.

11 Q. When sending these documents to the superior command, were you,

12 as the commander of the Military Police Battalion, generally aware of

13 what's contained in a file which you passed on to your superior command?

14 A. As a rule, I didn't read these statements or any others, nor did

15 I comment on them. Comments were based on the report from the command of

16 the military police platoon for investigations, and that was quite

17 sufficient for me.

18 Q. But you were familiar with the investigation against the Turkish

19 Guerilla.

20 A. Well, I was familiar with it to the extent that the security

21 sector believed that they should inform me of it. My knowledge concerned

22 the engagement of authorised officials when taking statements -- or

23 rather, it concerned the members of the Military Police Battalion who had

24 brought in individuals and interviewed them.

25 Q. Now, were you informed by your superiors that indeed members who

1 declared themselves --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll stop now because we have

3 to have our technical break.

4 How much time does the Prosecution need to complete its

5 cross-examination?

6 MR. WAESPI: Including legal arguments, Mr. President.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How much time?

8 MR. WAESPI: If there are no major legal arguments, I would say

9 10 minutes should be sufficient.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And how much time

11 will you require for re-examination? I'm asking you this question because

12 the registrar has answered my question. If we have a hearing tomorrow, we

13 can only commence at 4.00 p.m. because we're too late for the morning

14 session.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 4.00 p.m.?

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, 4.00 p.m.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecution

18 has raised a number of issues, and I'd like to ask the witness about these

19 issues again, so I believe that we will need -- or I will need at least

20 another half an hour to examine the witness.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ten minutes, plus

22 one hour, well, that's perhaps possible. We'll see. But try to be

23 concise and perhaps we can proceed expeditiously.

24 Very well. We'll resume at five to 1.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.

1 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to ask both parties to

3 be as concise as possible.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

6 I think, after having laid the foundation, it is established that

7 formally the documents, the witness statements, went over the desk of --

8 of the commander of the military police. He also showed general knowledge

9 about what was going on because he was informed by his subordinates and by

10 his superiors. He volunteered that there was an investigation about

11 the -- the Turkish Guerilla. And he also, as the military police

12 commander, he's responsible for what was happening in his area. And he

13 testified he assigned the interviewers to these interviews. So I think

14 I'm entitled just for the specific purpose of showing him whether he was

15 aware that from the witness statements information came out that members

16 of the Turkish Guerilla were part, in their own words, of the 7th Muslim

17 Brigade.

18 Again, it's up to him to say, "I've heard of it. I" --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But there's something

20 missing. When the case was -- when the file was forwarded, did he see the

21 file? Did he sign it? That's what's missing. Because if it's his

22 subordinate who dealt with the file behind his back, or rather, without

23 his knowledge, then he might not be familiar with it. So there's a

24 question that's missing, to know whether this file was forwarded to him.

25 Did he see it? Did he sign it? Was it his deputy who signed it? So

1 there are two or three questions that still need to be put to the witness.

2 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

3 Q. Were there instances that witness statements, indeed files, left

4 your command and went to your superior command without your knowledge?

5 A. That could happen.

6 Q. Do you recall whether any files being produced in the course the

7 investigation into the Turkish Guerilla left your office without your --

8 your knowledge, your general knowledge? Have you heard about -- are you

9 aware of any instances like that?

10 A. Well, I couldn't say that I remember any such cases, but in

11 practice it was possible that the security -- the military security sector

12 might establish direct contact with the Military Police Platoon for

13 Investigations in order to carry out tasks more expeditiously, tasks for

14 the purpose of investigations.

15 And secondly, if there were no such documents -- or if there was

16 no contact between the security sector and the military investigations

17 platoon, then someone I had left up there - my deputy or some other

18 authorised official - might forward those documents without me being

19 familiar with all the elements.

20 Q. But in relation to a specific investigation like this one about

21 the Turkish Guerilla, you can't say whether it's you who have personally

22 forwarded these files to your superior command? You can't say with

23 certainty, but you wouldn't exclude it.

24 A. Every investigation is specific. I can't claim anything for

25 sure, but I can claim for sure that the battalion's mission was

1 accomplished because statements were taken and forwarded to the security

2 sector. As to whether I'd see them or not, as to whether I'd sign an

3 accompanying document or not, in this case and in any other case this

4 wasn't an important question. It was important for the authorised

5 official from the Military Police Battalion and authorised officials to

6 carry out the tasks that had been assigned.

7 Q. If I were to show you a document, a two- or three-page witness

8 statement, do you think it might refresh your recollection of whether you

9 have seen it before forwarding it to your superior command? Is there a

10 chance that would enlighten your knowledge about whether it passed your

11 desk or not?

12 A. The statement itself won't help to refresh my memory. I'd said

13 that as a rule I did not read statements, because this was done at a lower

14 level of the chain of command. This would have meant that I didn't

15 believe the subordinate commander of military police investigations. All

16 I could do is perhaps confirm the reliability of the statement. But

17 again, I'll repeat that this would not really refresh my memory. It

18 wouldn't help me to tell you whether it was on my desk or not.

19 Q. But your subordinate commanders would usually inform you about

20 what's contained in general in these statements; is that correct?

21 A. Well, if it concerned something that they believed they should

22 inform me about. But believe me, the commander receives so much

23 information every day that I couldn't say that I would focus on certain

24 aspects of a investigation on a certain day, on a certain week. My

25 subordinates informed me about the tasks they carried out, on -- about the

1 duties they had to perform in general.

2 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, that's as far as I can take it. It

3 may be enough. It may be not. I'm absolutely in your hands whether I can

4 show it to the witness to refresh his memory. Credibility might be a

5 different aspect.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll withdraw now.

7 --- Break taken at 1.03 p.m.

8 --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber

10 will now render its third oral decision today. Perhaps it's not the last

11 one.

12 Given that the witness has told the Chamber in response to a

13 Prosecution question that he didn't sign files that were forwarded and he

14 didn't read statements taken from witnesses, the Trial Chamber believes

15 that it's not necessary to show the witness this document.

16 So please proceed.

17 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 Q. Witness, were you aware that one of your subordinate

19 interviewers, Mr. Alispahic, interviewed a person who told him that he was

20 a member of the RBiH army since April 1993 as a Guerilla and this person

21 had a dual nationality in -- from Turkey and from Bosnia? Were you aware

22 of -- of a situation like -- like that, that somebody who appears to be

23 Turkish Guerilla in fact told one of your investigators that he was a

24 member of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Are you aware of that fact?

25 A. I haven't understood the question. You said that one of my

1 members was an investigator and a member of the ABiH -- could you repeat

2 the question, please.

3 Q. Yes. I'm sorry. It may have been a little bit too quick.

4 One of your subordinates, Mr. Alispahic, interviewed a person and

5 this person - in fact, I can name him - Mehmed Turcin, he asked dual

6 citizenship from Turkey and from Bosnia, and he told your investigator,

7 Mr. Alispahic, that he was a member of the ABiH army since April 1993 and

8 part of the Guerilla. Do you think that's -- that's correct, when

9 Mr. Alispahic noted that down?

10 A. I really don't know whether that's correct or not. What I do

11 know is that when individuals give statements, and in particular to

12 authorised officials from the Military Police Battalion, and when an

13 investigation is launched into them, and when they might be charged for

14 certain crimes, they then use all the methods they can avail themselves of

15 in order to find evidence, false statements, et cetera, which might

16 prevent them from being prosecuted. So I'm really not familiar with this

17 case. I'm not familiar with this gentleman having stated that he was a

18 member of the army at that time.

19 Q. But you have heard of instances that people called "Guerilla"

20 were considering themselves vis-a-vis your investigators as members of the

21 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Have you heard of instances?

22 A. When they were brought in in 1994, I believe that at the time

23 they were already members of the army, and that's what I was interested in

24 then. But in legal terms, as to whether they were members of the army

25 during the period that you have mentioned, well, I'm quite sure that the

1 military security sector would have had such information and wouldn't have

2 prepared operative activities in order to arrest them and hand them over

3 to the authorities. This would have been done directly through the units

4 that they were members of, through the security organ, through military

5 police units, in units that they were members of, in invented commas.

6 Q. To pick up a point before we left before the break. I was about

7 to show you one of these pre-printed forms which are the decision in

8 relation to an arrest of a person. Who is normally filling in that

9 information? The title is "In accordance to Article 196 of the Law on

10 Criminal Procedure, the authorised official of the Battalion Military

11 Police reached the following decision ..." And then it's a printed text

12 and then it's filled in, who is to be taken into custody. Who is usually

13 filling in that information by hand?

14 A. Usually this information is filled in by an authorised official

15 from the military police.

16 Q. And I'm not sure whether you had answered before the break my

17 question: You agree with me that in -- in January 1994, in fact, people

18 who were declared on that form as a member of the Mujahedin were indeed

19 put into custody, into your detention facilities. Can you confirm that?

20 A. Well, I can't confirm the first and last names, but I know that a

21 group from the so-called Guerilla, according to the information I already

22 mentioned -- I know that they were interviewed and that pursuant to

23 instructions from the Sector for Intelligence a number of the Guerilla

24 members were taken into custody in accordance with the Law on Criminal

25 Procedure and in order to prepare criminal reports to be filed against

1 them with the prosecutor's office. I really can't remember their first

2 and last names, nor was this of particular interest to me.

3 MR. WAESPI: In fact, Mr. President, this is the document I

4 mentioned which had been acquired by the OTP after the end of the

5 Prosecution case and I would propose this exhibit, after having it shown

6 to the witness, perhaps he can confirm that comes out of the military

7 police, to have it admitted later as a full exhibit -- exhibit with full

8 value, if that's amenable, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a -- it's a form. It's a

10 standard document?

11 MR. WAESPI: Yes, filled in and stamped by one of the members of

12 the military police. It's not stamped. I can put it onto the ELMO,

13 Mr. President, if -- if ...

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You can show this

16 document, but it's not a piece of evidence. It's just so that the witness

17 can say that this document was used within the military police.

18 Please place it on the ELMO.

19 MR. WAESPI: It's number 19 of my bundle. I believe I have an

20 exhibit -- an English translation.

21 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, can I just clarify one matter. I know

22 the document is going to be shown to the witness. By my learned friend

23 seemed to indicate that it can be introduced as an exhibit. Our

24 understanding of Your Honours' decision is that all new documents, it

25 doesn't mart when they were obtained, if they were not use in the

1 Prosecution case, then they can't be used as exhibits now. The

2 Prosecution may, of course, reapply to reopen their case at a later stage,

3 but our position is that all documents fit into the same category. If

4 they were not in the Prosecution case, then they are new documents which

5 could only be introduced for a limited purpose.

6 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I agree with my learned colleague. I just

7 would like to show it, if he can tell us the authenticity of the document.

8 Perhaps we can later use it at a later stage in the proceedings.

9 If it could be put onto the ELMO.

10 Perhaps, maybe -- I mean, we can -- we can hand over the whole

11 bundle now - it may take some time - to the Defence if they want it.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. The only point of showing

13 this document to the witness would be for the witness to say that it's a

14 standard document used by the military police. That's all. Unless

15 perhaps this document never existed.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could we first see

17 this and see whether there's any information contained in the document.

18 If it does contain information, you have already decided that it can't be

19 shown.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The Prosecution, is this

21 document being shown to the witness in its form? It's not the contents of

22 the document that the witness is being asked to comment?

23 MR. WAESPI: Well, it appears that it's a form and a member of

24 his police form has filled in the details of a Mujahedin who is to --

25 supposed to be taken into custody. But I think the Defence has not seen

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the document.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But if you're saying that

3 this document refers to a Mujahedin, which means you are going to

4 introduce the question of the Mujahedin. We only want to know whether

5 this document was used in the case of detention of persons, nothing more.

6 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. We don't need to go any

7 further. I withdraw the document.

8 Just a few remaining questions, if I may, Mr. President.

9 Q. Do you remember that in -- in June 1993 - in fact, on 17th of

10 June - you submitted a short report to the -- to your superior

11 authorities, I believe, that the security situation in Zenica wasn't --

12 wasn't proper, wasn't perfect? I think you -- you mentioned that improper

13 conduct of armed soldiers, that they take cigarettes and alcohol away,

14 stop girls wearing miniskirts, and so on. Do you remember having put that

15 on record and -- and sent up to your -- your command, comments like that

16 about the situation in the town of -- of Zenica?

17 A. It's difficult for me to say that I remember the document, but it

18 is quite certain that in the description of tasks of the Military Police

19 Battalion it is provided for that we should inform our superior about such

20 developments, and that is the chief of the security sector. So it is

21 quite probable that I did write a report of that kind and forwarded it to

22 my superior.

23 Q. And do you remember having said you had received oral admonitions

24 from some people that your military police be polite and careful when

25 approaching members of the 7th Muslim Brigade? Do you remember that?

1 A. What was happening at the time was that for the first time we see

2 soldiers that we had not been accustomed to seeing in the territory of

3 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last 40 to 50 years. The Rules of Service

4 that was in force at the time envisaged, among other things, that a

5 soldier should look like a soldier, buttoned up, with a belt,

6 clean-shaven, and everything else. My suggestions with respect to the 7th

7 Muslim Brigade was that the Military Police Battalion through its

8 admonishments of members of the 7th Brigade should bear in mind that in

9 that brigade there were soldiers who for religious reasons are wearing a

10 beard, which means they differ from the standard appearance of a soldier.

11 So my suggestions were along those lines. And also, the question of

12 beards could be addressed, and this appeared not only in the 7th but also

13 in the 314th Brigade, especially in Zenica. I think there were some also

14 in the 303rd Brigade. But no other instructions did I give about any

15 cases of drastic violations of the rules did we receive as the military

16 police.

17 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. That concludes

18 cross-examination.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now the Defence.

20 Go to the substance, please.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show the witness

22 P328, please.

23 Re-examined by Ms. Residovic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mujezinovic, my learned friend asked you

25 several questions about the competencies of the military police and the

1 battalion of military police, and I would just like before passing on to

2 any other questions, I would like to remind you of what you said, that

3 your purview and tasks were defined by the Rules of Service. Is that the

4 Rules of Service that you have in front of you that you were referring to?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Will you please look at paragraph 1 on page 3, which is

7 entitled "Purview of the military police." And in that point 1, towards

8 the bottom, it says: "To discover and intercept criminal activities

9 involving members of the armed forces or other citizens but only in cases

10 when the object of criminal offence is military property or criminal

11 offences within the jurisdiction of military courts."

12 Is this a binding rule that you were guided by, and all other

13 military units?

14 A. All military police units, including the battalion, were guided

15 by this rule in their activities.

16 Q. Tell me, please: When other citizens are involved, who was

17 meant? Was it just civilians, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina? But

18 did this also apply to foreign citizens who were not members of the Army

19 of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Did this apply to all other citizens

20 regardless of their nationality or citizenship?

21 A. Yes, it refers to all citizens, regardless of citizenship or

22 ethnicity. The main aim was being to take measures envisaged by the law.

23 Q. Will you please tell me once again: When those persons did not

24 commit offences at the expense of the armed forces or acts within the

25 jurisdiction of the military courts, which is the only authorised police

1 authority that could act in relation to them?

2 A. The only authorised authority was the civilian police -- or

3 rather, members of the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

4 Q. When the corps commander issued orders, who did those orders

5 refer to? The army, these other persons, or were they general so that

6 anyone could implement them?

7 A. Corps commander's orders are exclusively linked to the military

8 organisation. The corps commander commands units within the 3rd Corps,

9 and he is the only one authorised to issue orders, guidelines, and

10 instructions to units' members of the 3rd Corps.

11 Q. In answer to one of the questions of my learned friend, you said

12 that you trust your subordinates when they file reports, that you have no

13 reason to doubt the correctness and truthfulness of those reports; is that

14 right?

15 A. Yes, indeed.

16 Q. Is it a general rule in the army that the superior officer should

17 have confidence in the information and reports received and the execution

18 of tasks by subordinate officers or units?

19 A. Of course, that is the general rule. And that is why there is a

20 chain of command. So everyone is accountable at his level and also at the

21 levels defined by mutual relationships.

22 Q. Now, will you look at document at tab 51, please. It is DH161/4.

23 The document has been addressed by the commander of the 3rd Corps to the

24 Military Police Battalion, and in item 3 it says that "For the execution

25 of this task, the commander of the Military Police Battalion is held

1 accountable."

2 Were you the responsible person for executing this task and which

3 should report back about the execution of that task to the corps command?

4 A. Yes, according to this order, I was to resubordinate two units to

5 the 325th Brigade, so I had to prepare this and to send the unit to the

6 required place, and I am, of course, duty-bound to report to the corps

7 commander about the completion of the task.

8 Q. Thank you. Do you know why such an order was being issued? In

9 the preamble, it says: "To assist in preventing undisciplined behaviour

10 and looting." Who was -- who needed disciplining according to this order?

11 A. Probably members of units within the 3rd Corps who were deployed

12 in that area.

13 Q. Look at now document at tab 42. It is a document dated the 10th

14 of June, 1993 of the command of the 3rd Corps, DH161/12. In paragraph 6,

15 it says that "Brigade commanders will be held responsible and other

16 commanding officers." Can we see from this order who needs to implement

17 the order and who the commander has to trust that he will indeed carry out

18 the order as ordered?

19 A. The commander needs to trust his subordinate brigade commanders

20 and other subordinate commanding officers. By appointing brigade

21 commanders or commanders of units at lower levels, this means that they

22 enjoy the confidence of their superior.

23 Q. Now, look at paragraph 2 in the preamble where it says: "A

24 conflict between the HVO and the army would sometimes develop into open

25 armed conflicts and combat activities lead to highly harmful behaviour

1 with unforeseeable consequences."

2 Does this preamble, too, confirm which is envisaged by the rules,

3 and that is that the commander issues an order simply to discipline his

4 own members, or can his order apply also to measures to be taken against

5 other persons?

6 A. The commander's order implies taking measures exclusively in

7 relation to members of the ABiH or, rather, members of the 3rd Corps

8 because probably these matters are not within the jurisdiction of military

9 courts.

10 Q. Now, look at document at tab 47, which my learned friend showed

11 to you. It is DH161/13. And in the preamble of this order, it

12 says: "Soldiers obsessed with war booty, stolen things, forget the tasks

13 they were given, reject your orders by which they are endangering their

14 own destiny."

15 Tell me, please: In view of the cause that has prompted this

16 order, does this order apply to persons over which the military police has

17 jurisdiction, or can it apply to some other persons as well?

18 A. In principle, the order applies to fighters, members of the 3rd

19 Corps of the ABiH, as is clear from the preamble. The rest is defined by

20 the law and the Rules of Service and the situation on the ground.

21 Q. Tell me, please: My learned friend asked you several questions

22 about the Mujahedin Guerilla, and you spoke about counter-intelligence and

23 other activities that preceded this military police operation. Tell me,

24 for how long, to the best of your recollection, did the

25 counter-intelligence section of the armed forces engage in prior

1 investigations in order to launch their operation?

2 A. This took about five or six months of intensive monitoring,

3 operative work on the ground, and collecting evidence as part of the

4 investigations.

5 Q. My learned friend also asked you whether you were ever assigned

6 to investigate war crimes. You answered that you investigated events

7 without bothering about the classification of acts. At what stage is a

8 certain act legally qualified? Do you first name an act and then

9 investigate it, or the other way round?

10 A. The process of qualifying a criminal offence runs as follows: By

11 going on site, the military police engages in pre-trial activities to

12 establish what kind of criminal act may have been committed. They collect

13 sufficient material evidence, and then on the basis of that evidence, they

14 may propose the qualification of the act. The prosecutor may accept or

15 reject the criminal report and proposes to the investigative judge the

16 legal qualification of the act. So it is the judge who finally decides

17 what kind of criminal offence had been committed. So the military police

18 only makes a proposal.

19 Q. Thank you. Since you investigated the event which you suspected

20 could be a criminal offence, did the corps commander or your chief of

21 security ever prohibit you from investigating an event which might have

22 elements of a crime?

23 A. Not just any such event, but no other event was I ever told by my

24 superiors not to investigate.

25 Q. My learned friend asked you whether it was normal to conduct an

1 investigation when a commander gets killed. Tell me, as you were in the

2 war for four years, is it normal for people to get killed in battle?

3 A. Of course it's normal, especially by commanders, who have to set

4 the example by their bravery.

5 Q. Tell me, that thousands of men were killed, was it customary to

6 conduct an investigation for each of the dead persons, why, and how he was

7 killed?

8 A. No, it was not customary at all.

9 Q. In connection with this Turkish Guerilla, you said you didn't

10 know what they said later on because when someone is a suspect, he seeks

11 to belittle his responsibility. To the best of your knowledge, in 1993

12 was this Turkish Guerilla within the 3rd Corps or any of its units?

13 A. No. I did not have occasion to see a single document or to

14 establish in any other way that they were members. And the

15 counter-intelligence work in the security sector and preparations for

16 arrest did not discover that. Had they been members, no such evidence was

17 ever found.

18 Q. Will you look at document at tab 80, also shown to you by my

19 learned friend. In view of the fact that in answer to my question you

20 explained when you were responsible for civilians, here in (B), it says

21 that "The criminal reports were filed for 204 [Realtime transcript read in

22 error "804"] civilians." Were they civilians in your jurisdiction,

23 according to the decree on military courts, or could these be any other

24 civilians?

25 A. These were civilians for which we were responsible -- or rather,

1 the acts emanating from the Law on District Military Courts.

2 Q. Now, please look at document, at 79, the plan of action Golub.

3 You have already said that that operation, too, was prepared for five or

4 six months, if I remember well.

5 A. Yes, that's right.

6 Q. From this plan -- or rather, before I ask you anything about the

7 plan itself. For you as a military policeman, is it normal before

8 launching a military police operation, arrest, or investigation, is it

9 important for you to discover all the basic elements required to be able

10 to plan and prepare the number of policemen you need for the execution of

11 that task and the consequences that may result?

12 A. Of course. The more information we had or any occasion we had to

13 avoid casualties or other elements, we had to collect. So it's quite

14 normal and binding by law to collect all relevant information when it

15 comes to perpetrators of crimes, that is, how well equipped they are, how

16 skilled, what methods they resort to, nicknames, et cetera.

17 Q. Could you, as the battalion commander, engage in a military

18 police operation without knowing at all what you would come across?

19 A. I don't think so, because that would mean exposing my men to

20 absolute risk.

21 Q. Now, look at this plan. In addition to the fact indicated by my

22 colleague on page 2 that you knew that this group had pistols, automatic

23 weapons, hand grenades, et cetera, you also knew how many people there

24 were. On page 1, there were 12. Is it important for you to know the

25 number of men?

1 A. Of course it is important, because we had to send a patrol to

2 arrest each of these people.

3 Q. It says here that you are aware of their addresses and even the

4 floor on which they live. Tell me, is it important for you to know where

5 the persons you wish to arrest are located?

6 A. Yes. The address, the entrance, the floor is very important.

7 Also, whether there's any possibility of leaving those apartments across

8 balconies or escaping through any openings, because once you arrive on

9 site, it's not sufficient to appear at the door, but you always have to

10 block the whole area.

11 Q. Isn't it important to know whether these ten persons may be

12 supported by another ten, who might resist you?

13 A. Of course. The potential danger existed that they might arouse

14 the rest of their supporters and the rest of the unit and we could have an

15 armed rebellion within our forces.

16 Q. I see that you planned 95 policemen for these persons, 90

17 automatic rifles, and some other ammunition and weaponry. If this -- did

18 you use significant human and materiel resources for these 12 men?

19 A. The high degree of criminality and -- of this group we needed to

20 mobilise a large number of men and resources so as not to be put in a

21 position of failing due to inappropriate planning and preparations.

22 Q. As a commander, if you were in a position with respect to this

23 group or the Turkish Guerilla or any other group, if you had to deal with

24 such problems in various ways, where would you rank resort to military

25 force if you had other possibilities to deal with the problem as well?

1 A. The use of military force as a means to be used by the military

2 police comes at the end, which means once you have exhausted all

3 possibilities and when you see that there's no other way, only then does

4 the police resort to the use of force.

5 Q. With respect to this arrest, regardless of the fact that you

6 mobilised a large number of men to do it, at that point in time did this

7 reduce the capability of your battalion to engage in other duties at the

8 same time, or were the elements you had collected sufficient for you to

9 carry out this operation without any negative consequences for the

10 battalion?

11 A. The operation was planned for a long time. Everything was done

12 to keep the preparations secret and confidential, so that we used our

13 reserves, so that our other activities would not suffer. Just to carry

14 out the arrest and neglect our other duties would not be proper nor

15 lawful.

16 Q. To go back to the Guerilla, in view of the fact that there were

17 foreigners there: Do you know, as the battalion commander, on the basis

18 of counter-intelligence information whether the 3rd Corps had to have the

19 approval of a superior command before launching an operation against

20 foreigners?

21 A. In principle, I was not involved in that area, but I know that

22 that is the case.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The other Defence

24 team.

25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions. Thank you,

1 Mr. President.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Major, your testimony has been

3 completed. Thank you for coming to testify, and on behalf of the Chamber,

4 I wish you all the best for your return home.

5 And could the usher please accompany you out of the courtroom.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In view of the very little time

9 left, you are going to tell us about your plans next week, because we

10 don't have the time to do it now.

11 If my understanding is correct, next Monday we will begin with

12 the expert witness; Tuesday we will have Witness X interposed; and perhaps

13 towards the end of the testimony of X we will continue with the expert

14 witness Wednesday and Thursday; then there's a holiday; and we will resume

15 on Tuesday.

16 Is that right? Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

17 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order to avoid

18 any misunderstanding, I know that yesterday my colleague made some

19 comments regarding the examination-in-chief of the expert. I wish to say

20 that the Defence of General Hadzihasanovic will take 12 hours for the

21 examination-in-chief.

22 When the Prosecution presented their report, they had a different

23 strategy; however, we have sufficient material to have three complete

24 sittings with this witness.

25 We can either follow with the cross-examination that same week,

1 or we can have him come back.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So 12 hours, that means three

3 days for you. Let's hope there will be no repetition during those 12

4 hours.

5 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] I promise you that, Mr. President.

6 We have many subjects to address with the expert, and I promise you that

7 you will not be disappointed.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we await that with

9 impatience.

10 If the Prosecution has no special points to address and raise, I

11 invite everyone to come back for the hearing that will begin on Monday at

12 2.15. As there are no witnesses for tomorrow and the day after, we will

13 resume our work on Monday at 2.15, and on that day at the beginning we

14 will address the question of admission of documents. I will give you the

15 floor. And then you will see whether you need to talk about the schedule,

16 and then we will begin with the testimony of the expert witness.

17 Thank you all. And I invite you to come back on Monday at 2.15.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Monday, the 21st day of

20 March, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.

21

22

23

24

25