1 Thursday, 3 March 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.31 p.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
7 number IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
9 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Any matters to mention at
10 this stage?
11 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
12 MR. WEINER: Yes. Just a very brief matter, Your Honour.
13 The next witness was -- we were scheduled to bring him in
14 sometime around 4.00 or so; however, since we will not be reaching that
15 witness - he's requesting protective measures, so I'd rather not say his
16 name - I'd ask that he be released for the day and be brought in tomorrow.
17 I've discussed it with counsel, and there doesn't seem to be any
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, your request is granted.
20 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
21 JUDGE LIU: So could we have the witness, please.
22 MR. MORRISSEY: While the being is secured, could I just indicate
23 that I'm going to continue questioning him on Defence document D66, that
24 was the document yesterday. MFI221, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. So that we could have that
1 document on our screen.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, witness.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
5 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
8 Mr. Morrissey.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you.
10 WITNESS: JUSUF JASAREVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Morrissey: [Continued]
13 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic. Yesterday I was asking you some
15 questions about a particular document of Namik Dzankovic, and I just have
16 some final questions about that document now.
17 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the court staff please assist me for a
18 moment by providing a -- a paper copy of this document to Mr. Jasarevic,
19 which he was looking at yesterday.
20 Your Honours, the reason for providing the paper copy is that on
21 the screen the B/C/S version is marred by some -- some highlight or pen
22 markings, and so that's why he's being given it.
23 Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, yesterday I was -- I'd asked you a number of
25 questions about this document. And you indicated to me that you viewed
1 that some of the -- some of the proposals by Mr. Dzankovic appeared
2 somewhat unrealistic. I just want to ask you about the details of that
3 with respect to some of the specific proposals.
4 Would you look towards the end of the document, please, at those
5 specific proposals of -- of Mr. Dzankovic. And I'll take you one by one
6 to them and get your comments about them. Do you see -- do you have in
7 front of you those proposals?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Very well. Do you have in front of you the suggestion by
10 Mr. Dzankovic --
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this is on page 3 of the English
12 version, and it's -- it's essentially the last -- the last four paragraphs
13 of the -- on the English version.
14 Q. Sorry, Mr. Jasarevic.
15 Now, you'll see there that there are a number of proposals. I
16 just want you to comment on the first one. The first proposal seems to
17 be a proposal to -- and I quote: "Continue gathering operative
18 information." Now, could I just ask you: Was that a appropriate proposal
19 for Mr. Dzankovic to -- to pursue?
20 A. Your Honours, I provided a lot of comments regarding operative
21 information, operative work. This proposal definitely makes sense. But
22 as I said yesterday, one thing I failed to understand is why he's putting
23 this forward as a proposal and who the proposal is addressed to, to
24 himself or to someone else. It certainly does make sense, however, to
25 gather operative information at this stage.
1 Q. Yes, I understand that. And just to pursue a comment that you
2 made both now and yesterday. You personally were in no position sitting
3 in your office in Sarajevo and burdened with the tasks that you had to do
4 to perform any of these tasks listed here; is that accurate?
5 A. Definitely. It wasn't my understanding at the time that he was
6 bringing these proposals to me or to my administration.
7 Q. No, I understand that. Does it -- but just relying on your own
8 experience here of -- and -- and also your knowledge of -- of the concrete
9 case, does it appear to you that what you had here was Mr. Dzankovic in an
10 unfamiliar situation turning to a senior person for perhaps advice,
11 guidance, and comfort? Is that how it reads to you?
12 A. There are elements in this document to suggest that kind of
13 interpretation; however, I believe there's something else missing here,
14 Your Honours. When I look at these proposals by Mr. Dzankovic, it's very
15 difficult for me to understand his position, his ideas, or what he wants
16 to achieve. This, of course, follows from the task that he had been given
17 by Mr. Sefer Halilovic.
18 I must expand on this, Your Honours, taking one thing at a time.
19 If Dzankovic is a member of the inspection team, if Mr. Halilovic is the
20 leader of the inspection team, there's one thing I don't understand, and
21 this is what I had in mind when I spoke about these assignments given to
22 Mr. Dzankovic not being realistic. I don't see a commanding authority
23 here, someone who would have issued an order to carry out an assignment as
24 complex as this, an assignment that would have entailed an on-site
25 investigation. This assignment, which in my opinion was given to
1 Dzankovic by Mr. Halilovic, does make sense. What I recognise when I look
2 at it is that Mr. Halilovic was surprised and that he certainly wanted
3 something done in this respect. However, there are a number of other
4 significant details that one needs to bear in mind.
5 In every report, you find warnings about the dangers entailed in
6 moving about the area. It is quite obvious that conditions are imposed by
7 Mr. Delalic in relation to removing the units that were there, which also
8 relates to their combat tasks being carried out.
9 And now I'm inching closer to my own explanation. Why did I say
10 that these assignments were unrealistic? One thing, Your Honours, that I
11 can't figure out is how these were to be implemented, the tasks that
12 Dzankovic extrapolated from the assignment given him by Mr. Halilovic. I
13 see no realistic possibility for Mr. Dzankovic to be able to do anything
14 about this without enlisting the assistance of some forces on the ground.
15 It was down to them to carry this out. Rather strong forces, in fact, a
16 battalion or two of the military police, for instance. How, without
17 enlisting the assistance of the Ministry of the Interior's police
18 officers? How without clear orders from the operation commander? Someone
19 in a position of authority, someone to issue orders to the right people in
20 the right places. I mean, the professional people supposed to carry out
21 an on-site investigation as well as the units themselves. This sort of
22 approach to the assignment would only have been realistic under these
24 So as I said back at the outset, these tasks do make sense. The
25 problem is they are simply not realistic. Later on you will see what our
1 reaction was back in the administration when we realised about this
2 document. And --
3 Q. May I just intervene for one moment there. I have the intention
4 of taking you to some of those documents which indicate your reaction, and
5 you will certainly be asked those questions. There's just a translation
6 issue that's arisen here which I want to clarify, and, Mr. Jasarevic, at
7 page --
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, at page 5, line 1 the translation
9 has -- reads as follows: "What I recognise when I look at it is that
10 Mr. Halilovic was not surprised and that he certainly wanted something
11 done in this respect." Now, I'm instructed that the witness said that he
12 was surprised, that Mr. Halilovic was surprised, and that he wanted
13 something done in that respect.
14 And could I just ask, first of all, whether the interpreter would
15 be prepared to clarify what the situation was with that answer, and then
16 I'll -- I'll ask the witness also to clarify.
17 JUDGE LIU: I think you better ask the witness first.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, I will.
19 Q. Sorry, Mr. Jasarevic. This is entirely outside your control.
20 There was a translation of your words before in the way that I just --
21 that you heard me say. Was it your evidence that it appears that
22 Mr. Halilovic was surprised or was not surprised?
23 A. Your Honours, this may be about words. I believe I understand
24 the situation, and again I'm trying to interpret these two words said by
25 Dzankovic under quotation marks, saying -- distancing himself or
1 dissociating himself from the crime. My reading of this is very
2 unequivocal. Mr. Halilovic is against the crime. I'm not sure if I'm
3 making myself any clearer now.
4 Q. No, that -- you've made it clear that that's what your answer is,
5 and those are the only questions I have about it.
6 Could I just pursue a couple of specific questions about a couple
7 of the proposals made. I hear what you say about the -- the first
8 proposal -- or sorry, the second of the proposals. Could I ask you to
9 just comment on the appropriateness of interviewing members of Adnan
10 Solakovic's unit. Did that appear to be a sensible and appropriate
11 measure for Dzankovic to suggest? And, of course, I understand the -- the
12 issues that you've raised in other respects, but just in terms of that as
13 an appropriate measure, an appropriate investigative measure, did that
14 seem to make sense to you, to take statements from Solakovic's men?
15 A. This proposal was inappropriate in terms of timing. I provided a
16 lengthy explanation of my own position a while ago.
17 Q. Yes, I understand that.
18 A. And I believe that explanation also answered at least part of
19 your present question.
20 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, I follow that.
21 Could you go to the next paragraph there, and notice that one of
22 Dzankovic's suggestions was to request a report from Zulfikar Alispago.
23 Now, could I just ask you first of all: Did they ever show you any such
24 report from Zulfikar Alispago?
25 A. No. No. If you want me to comment on his proposal, his request,
1 I believe we had another proposal where he says, Give an order to set up a
2 mixed commission, including members of the MUP and of the SVB, and so on
3 and so forth. Again, I will give you my position on this. He's
4 requesting a report from the unit commanders, Zulfikar and so on and so
6 Here again I must say I don't understand Dzankovic's view on this
7 situation, being a member of the inspection team as he was. These are
8 assignments that should stem from a different level. There should be an
9 order, as they say in assignment number 2. Who on earth could have
10 requested Zulfikar to draft a report? I believe the most appropriate term
11 to use in this context is the one I have already used, "unrealistic." You
12 can see that people are striving for something here, that there are
13 certain aspirations and ambitions, a desire to achieve something, but this
14 still stops far short from actually managing to do a decent job. And I'm
15 talking about the on-site investigation that needs to be carried out.
16 Q. Yes. And just -- sorry, just to conclude that matter, you've
17 given us a -- a theoretical and a very useful theoretical explanation
18 there, if I may say so. May I just ask whether or not the report -- do
19 you see there that there's a reference made to a report by Zulfikar
20 Alispago which is, according to this note, already written? Do you see
21 that, that passage there, where it says "request a report from Zulfikar
22 Alispago who, as he says himself, wrote a report and forwarded it to the
23 Sarajevo SVK."
24 Now, my question about that really is this: As Dzankovic referred
25 to this particular report of Zulfikar Alispago, which was already supposed
1 to be written, do you recall whether you received or even heard of the SVK
2 receiving such a report, or at the time did you receive no such news at
4 A. Your Honours, I received no such news at all. I don't remember
5 having heard anything about it, and I've certainly never seen a report
6 like that.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you. Very well.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, the next document I would ask that the
9 witness be shown is D149. That is -- sorry, now, that's the 65 ter
10 number. So just before that's -- that's sought, I'll provide the double-D
11 number. It's DD00.0662, and it's to be MFI222.
12 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, while that document is being produced, can I
13 indicate what it is that's coming. It's the report of Mr. Salihamidzic,
14 which I think you gave evidence was suggested -- was annexed to the
15 Dzankovic report.
16 Do you have that in front of you on the screen now?
17 A. Yes. But the print is very small, and I can hardly distinguish
18 anything. But what you said is quite right. I remember the note by
19 Mr. Salihamidzic quite clearly. He was the deputy chief of the Jablanica
20 public security station. I have it here now.
21 Q. Okay. I'm just going to ask you about -- Mr. Jasarevic, it's --
22 there's no purpose in my reading this document onto the transcript. I'm
23 proposing to tender it -- offer it for tender as an exhibit.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, could I just indicate this, that
25 Mr. Salihamidzic will be giving evidence in the Prosecution case course
1 and, in any event, it would go through him, but I'll be tendering it now,
2 if permitted to do so, of course.
3 Q. And although I'm not going to read it out to you and get you to
4 agree with every line in it or to comment on every line in it, there are a
5 couple of matter in there that I want you to comment about. The first one
6 is this: There is a paragraph or a section that begins with the
7 words: "On the 10th of September, 1993, I interviewed Ivan Pranjic."
8 It's on the first page, and it may be at the start of the last big
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. Excellent. Very well, then --
12 A. I can see that.
13 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, in the English version, it's on
14 page 2, and it's perhaps six or seven lines from the top.
15 Q. Now, I just wanted to ask you about this: When a policeman says
16 in a statement that they have interviewed a person, according to the
17 practice at the time does that mean that a written statement would have
18 been obtained?
19 A. That's right. Especially as concerns members of the public
20 security station. I don't know these people involved personally, but I do
21 assume that there were better-trained officers around to do this sort of
22 work. In order to interview a crucial witness, I dare say, in a matter
23 like this -- or rather, having the possibility to take a statement from
24 this witness, it is clear that there is good information here, which is
25 not usually the case in this matter. Sometimes you only find someone's
1 first name and sometimes only their last name, whereas here you have more
2 information on these persons. And in my opinion, this shouldn't be --
3 this should have been written up as a formal statement. And not only this
4 person's statement but, rather, all the other 14 people who'd been
5 evacuated. They should have struck, as we say, while the iron was still
7 We all know from our professional experience that as time goes
8 by, it's very difficult to get good and reliable operative information at
9 a later stage.
10 Q. Yes, I understand that, and thank you for that.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Just would you excuse me for one moment.
12 Your Honours, I'm sorry, I'm just advised now that in terms of
13 the English translation, there may be a catch. And I just want to make
14 sure that everyone is able to look at the right document here. There are
15 in the English translation -- could I just ask perhaps before I go into
16 that: Do Your Honours have the right page in front of you now? Am I able
17 to ...
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, what do you mean by "the right page"?
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, what's on our screen now is -- and this
20 is -- this is not the fault of anyone in court. It's -- it's just a
21 labeling sort of issue.
22 There are two documents together here, two Defence documents
23 together, so that what needs to be shown in the English version is really
24 page 4 and not page 2. There's -- it's a scanning issue. But if you look
25 to page 4, you'll be able to see the -- the proper version. And it's
1 about six lines from the top. So I apologise for that. It's page 2 of
2 this document, but this document is only one part of what's been scanned
3 in, so ...
4 Q. Thank you for that.
5 Now, sorry, I won't ask you about the -- the substance of that --
6 of this document. And I'm really asking about the taking of statements.
7 Would you mind now moving to another interview, which this
8 witness talks about. You may see a -- a section beginning with the
9 words "Together with Semsudin Halebic [phoen], a security officer of the
10 Jablanica OPS, I interviewed Alija Turkic." Does that passage appear on
11 the page that you have?
12 A. [No audible response].
13 Q. If so, it would be down -- very much down the bottom.
14 A. Semsudin Halebic -- together with Semsudin Halebic's security
15 officer of the Jablanica staff, I interviewed Alija Turkic? Is that what
16 you mean?
17 Q. Yes, that is the passage I mean.
18 I've already asked you about the situation with taking a
19 statement from Ivan Pranjic. And can I ask you whether the same comments
20 that you made about the Pranjic statement would apply to a taking of a
21 statement from Alija Turkic? In other words, would you expect that these
22 interviewing officers, Salihamidzic and Halebic - I appreciate you don't
23 know them personally - but would you expect them to have taken a
24 proper statement from those -- from Alija Turkic?
25 A. Definitely. Plus we see Mr. Salihamidzic here reinforced by a
1 security officer from Jablanica. So you have two qualified persons on the
2 spot interviewing Mr. Alija Turkic. I think it would have been more than
3 useful, even compulsory, for them to take a written statement.
4 Q. Yes. And would you mind just explaining very quickly to the
5 Court -- you see there's a reference there to the Jablanica OPS. What is
6 the OPS? Is that a military security body or is it a body of the State
7 Security Services?
8 A. This is a municipal staff. In September 1993, there appear to
9 still have been Municipal Staffs around. Before that, we used to have
10 Municipal Defence Staffs. However, when on the 15th of April the units of
11 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were established -- well, there's something
12 that strikes me as weird about this military command or staff existing, so
13 in that sense I have certain reservations but there certainly does call to
14 mind the position of security officer of the Municipal Staff, probably
15 with organisational duties. But it's not specified here which Municipal
16 Staff. The army's Municipal Staff? The Territorial Defence Municipal
17 Staff? Or from an altogether different area?
18 Q. Yes, okay. Well, -- all right. Well, yes. Thank you for that.
19 The final matter I want to ask you about from this particular
20 document is to be found at the -- probably the second-last major
21 paragraph. I think it would be on page 5 of the English version. And
22 it's the -- it -- just excuse me. I'll just find you the proper place.
23 It's a section commencing with the words: "At around 2030 hours
24 on the 10th of September, 1993, I was informed by Sead Brankovic, a Mostar
25 SDB State Security Service employee" -- it's on the final page of this
1 document. Yes.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you have that section?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. Very well. Now, from reading this document in the past, you're
6 aware of the involvement of a man from Mostar SDB named Sead Brankovic; is
7 that true?
8 A. You can see from this that he was included, but I know that there
9 was a detachment. It's an organ of the Mostar centre security service --
10 of the State Security Service in Konjic, and you can see from this that
11 Mr. Brankovic is a member of that service, of that detachment, or perhaps
12 directly from the Mostar State Security Service. I cannot state
13 definitely that he was from the Konjic detachment, but it says that he was
14 from the Mostar State Security Service.
15 Q. Okay. And it's apparent from the document that there was
16 reference -- I'm going to ask you a question about what this -- what this
17 meant to you when you read it, but it's apparent from reading this
18 document there that Brankovic, Salihamidzic, and Namik Dzankovic went to
19 Zulfikar Alispago's flat and then after that had a meeting when Ramiz
20 Delalic, Celo, appeared.
21 And I want to ask you a question about this. You see the account
22 that these people give about Ramiz Delalic's behaviour? And if you -- if
23 you need to, just read it to yourself and refresh your recollection about
24 what they were saying about Ramiz Delalic.
25 A. Yes, I can see the text, and I've read it. I have this.
1 Q. I understand. You gave some evidence yesterday about encounters
2 that you had with Ramiz Delalic and the way in which Ramiz Delalic
3 appeared to regard the system of command and control. And my question to
4 you is: Does this behaviour of Delalic's, as it's described here, appear
5 consistent with what you knew of -- of Ramiz Delalic, from your own
7 A. More or less. I'm speaking this out of a certain feeling. It
8 resembles the way that he would react, if I can put it that way.
9 Q. You see there that it's attributed to Ramiz Delalic, Celo, that
10 he appears to be if not blaming, then involving Vehbija Karic in the
11 events? Do you see that passage there, where he mentions the name Vehbija
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Did you know Vehbija Karic personally?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Was he a colonel in the JNA before the war?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was he married to a woman of Croatian origin and did he have a --
19 a son with her, who was half Croatian?
20 A. As far as I know, he did. But this is a private matter, so I
21 didn't really dwell on that. But I did hear about that.
22 Q. Yes. And I just want to indicate that I'm not going to ask you
23 to comment on private matters other than that bare fact.
24 But I do have a further question: To your knowledge, Vehbija
25 Karic was a responsible and even-tempered and professional military
1 officer; is that correct?
2 A. Absolutely.
3 Q. And even though you were far away in Sarajevo and you were not on
4 the ground in Herzegovina, you yourself didn't believe for one minute that
5 Karic would be capable of saying any such stupid thing as is described
6 there; is that correct?
7 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I would object to this line of
8 questioning as to what the witness feels Karic would or would not have
9 done. It's not an appropriate line of questioning to this particular
10 witness, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, I believe that you have to
12 establish some foundations for asking this question, whether this witness
13 has some relevance, you know, to this.
14 MR. MORRISSEY: I think, Your Honour, I -- I can deal with the
15 matter in a -- in a different way. I'll ask -- I'll ask the question in a
16 different form or ask a different form of question, and that may be
17 appropriate in the circumstances.
18 Q. Would you regard it, knowing -- knowing Karic as you did know
19 him, would you regard it as in character or out of character for Karic to
20 say such a thing as is attributed to him here?
21 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I would still object. It -- the
22 characterisation has not changed. This question is exactly the same as
23 the previous one.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, it's -- I've got a dispute
25 that it's exactly the same. But I can indicate that it's always open in
1 an appropriate case to ask a witness to evaluate the realities of a
2 particular situation. This case from the Prosecution's side involves
3 an -- I withdraw any speech that's about to follow.
4 But I -- I'd submit it's relevant because Mr. Karic, Your
5 Honour -- I understand the Prosecution have taken a deposition from him,
6 which you asked Mr. Re about two weeks ago, and no doubt that will be
7 before the Court in due course. But, of course, there are allegations
8 being made about Mr. Karic of a very grave kind in this Court, and it's
9 perfectly appropriate that Your Honours be given a proper picture of how
10 Mr. Karic normally behaved, because the Defence case about that, you'll
11 recall is twofold. I really have to deal with this matter as a matter of
12 relevance to the Defence case.
13 We say, first of all, that Mr. Halilovic wasn't present at any
14 alleged meeting when Mr. Karic is supposed to have done this. So we can't
15 have direct instructions on the matter, of course, because what he's
16 saying is, well, he wasn't present. But even so, we do not concede at any
17 time and we're not going to concede that Mr. Karic said anything like
18 that, and in fact we put to those witnesses that the thing is an invention
19 stemming from Musa Hota and -- and going through another chain of
20 reporting, as one might characterise it. So that's the Defence case.
21 And we are entitled in doing that to lead evidence about
22 Mr. Karic. We're entitled to do that. We have to do it. I have to do it
23 through a witness who knows him.
24 Now, Mr. Jasarevic has given the evidence that he knows him.
25 He's plainly entitled to comment. I'm not allowed to ask him whether it
1 happened or not, but I am allowed to ask him whether it's in character or
2 not. And that's why I ask the question.
3 JUDGE LIU: You know, the problem lies in character or out of
4 character, you know. It's very difficult, I believe, for anybody to
5 answer this question, you know. Maybe you could use some, you know, very
6 plain language, you know, to come across your ideas.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: I'll -- I'll put it -- I'll put the same question
8 in a plainer form so that there's no doubt.
9 MS. CHANA: Your Honour --
10 MR. MORRISSEY: You --
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
12 MS. CHANA: I'm sorry, Counsel.
13 I have brought this matter up before, and it's happened again.
14 The objections and the speeches counsel makes in front of a witness,
15 giving their entire Defence theory, and the witness is listening as to
16 what their -- what their view is on the matter, what they're alleging,
17 whether anybody said certain things or not, while the witness sits there,
18 Your Honour, I think it's most inappropriate. It will be tantamount to
19 the Prosecution telling Your Honours what the Prosecution theory is while
20 the witness is sitting there and is a Prosecution witness. And I think --
21 I think it's quite within counsel's right to -- to sort of say to the
22 Bench --
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 MS. CHANA: -- what his view on the matter is. But these long
25 speeches, giving away a lot of the intended answers, is inappropriate,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But sometimes the Defence counsel has to put
3 their case before this witness, including their theory and their attitude
4 towards a certain matter, and the witness is your witness. He could agree
5 or he has the full right to disagree with the Defence.
6 Of course in the future proceedings it would be better not to
7 discuss any matters which is not directly related to the particular
8 witness in front of him. But that particular question is allowed. The
9 problem is that we are not quite satisfied with the form of the question.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I can deal with the matter in a yet
11 third way, and I'll try to do better, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, had you ever known in the past Mr. Karic to say
13 anything as criminally irresponsible and stupid as the words that are
14 attributed to him here in this report?
15 A. Your Honours, I've known Mr. Karic from before the war. I knew
16 him during the war. I know him as a very moral and serious person. I was
17 not out in the field and I don't know whether he said that or not, but I
18 would never assume that such a person could say anything as remotely as
20 Q. Yes. In all your dealings with Vehbija Karic, you had seen him
21 to be a thoroughly professional and sensible officer who shared the goals
22 of the Bosnian army; namely, a multi-ethnic Bosnia. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, Your Honours, I offer that document, MFI222,
1 for tender, appreciating that it's -- that Mr. Salihamidzic himself is
2 coming. Nevertheless, it was an annex to the Dzankovic document, which is
3 already in evidence, at least in the copy that went to this witness. And
4 so I offer it for that reason.
5 Q. I want to show you another document now, Mr. Jasarevic, and this
6 is the -- it's in the same document, as a matter of fact, as the one
7 that's open now, Your Honours.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: It's page 1 of the English document. But the
9 B/C/S version is page 3 of the B/C/S document that's been the -- the
10 witness currently.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I just want to show -- give the
13 witness -- because there's more of these highlighter markings that make it
14 hard to read the -- read the B/C/S, I want to show the witness a copy -- a
15 paper copy.
16 Could I just indicate that on this there are some markings by our
17 investigators that are recent markings, and I'll hold it up so that you
18 can see. They are brown -- brown texter markings on there. Those are
19 additions later by the Defence team when they discovered this document and
20 looked at it.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that you have to show it to the
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, it's -- it is that document which
24 is scanned, and that should be in the -- I'm very happy to do so.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, especially, you know, the marks by your
1 investigations. They are entitled to look at it to see whether there's
2 any tricks on it.
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Oh, yes, of course, Your Honour. I just indicate
4 that those very marks are in fact on the B/C/S version that's on the
5 computer, but Your Honour is right and of course we don't have any
6 difficulty with that being done.
7 Q. If you'd just take that moment to look at that document, please.
8 This may or may not be a document that you've seen before, and I'm going
9 to ask you that question in a moment, whether you've seen it before. But
10 if you'd just look over it and see whether or not this is part of the
11 documentation that is -- that passed through your hands at some stage in
12 the time following Grabovica.
13 A. I haven't seen this document before, and I don't recall whether
14 it was part of the Trebevic operation set of documents for the use of the
15 teams. I cannot remember seeing this document before. I think I'm seeing
16 it for the first time.
17 MS. CHANA: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
19 MS. CHANA: Sorry, Your Honour. I don't think we have that
20 document. I still have the last document on the screen. I can't see this
21 new document. Sorry.
22 JUDGE LIU: Is this the same document?
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
24 JUDGE LIU: What's the number for that? Would you please repeat
25 it. Is it D149?
1 MR. MORRISSEY: D -- sorry, the -- in terms of MFI numbers,
2 it's -- it's to be MFI223. The number on the top of it -- of the one
3 which I'm showing the witness now is D149(a) -- oh, sorry. Pardon me.
4 It's not D149(a). It's D149. And it's -- commences with the
5 words: "Croats used to live in the suburbs of Grabovica." And it has --
6 on the right-hand side, to distinguish it from -- it's very similar to the
7 other document. It's very similar to it. But you'll see on the
8 right-hand side an address, SDB, Mostar Sector, to Alica Bilic personally,
9 SDB Konjic branch office to Nedzad Surkovic personally.
10 Q. Could I just ask you a couple of questions about these people..
11 Do you know who Alica Bilic was? Or is still.
12 A. I know him personally. During the war, there were periods when
13 we were in contact with each other. This man was an officer of the State
14 Security Service in the Mostar sector. He was a prominent person. He was
15 the man in charge of the intelligence centre.
16 Q. Very well. Now, because this didn't pass through your hands, I'm
17 just going to limit my questions about it because it will be appropriate
18 to lead it through another witness. But I just ask you to indicate: This
19 is a State Security document and passes apparently through the line of
20 state security from the Mostar state security person in Jablanica to Alica
21 Bilic in Mostar; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. You can see who it's addressed to and a copy goes to the
23 Konjic detachment, to Mr. Surkovic.
24 Q. All right. And although you don't have a specific memory of this
25 document yourself, it is the type of document which should have been
1 included in the Trebevic investigations along with thousands of others, no
2 doubt, at a later time when -- when Trebevic came to be executed; is that
4 A. Absolutely, yes. Because we compiled everything that we could up
5 there. There's no need for me to repeat that. It will probably -- the
6 term -- its time will come. But I don't recall the document, no.
7 Q. That's okay. And I accept your evidence about that. But it
8 appears to you anyway to be consistent with the -- with -- being
9 consistent with coming from that person in the other report, Sead
10 Brankovic, who was referred to in the Salihamidzic report that you just
11 looked at; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, this is the reporting system along the vertical line in the
13 Internal Affairs organ. So that an indication of that reporting method.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you very much.
15 MR. MORRISSEY: I offer that document for tender, and we'll deal
16 with it -- if there's an objection to it, we'll deal with it at a later
17 time, when we deal with all of these documents. Thank you.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Ms. Chana.
19 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, now herein lies my problem in this:
20 This is a document. We've been shown a couple of pages on the screen. I
21 don't know how many pages it is. I don't know what else is in this
22 document. We have not been given this document. And I would have no way
23 of finding out before my re-examination if there's anything else in this
24 document I ought to know about.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. I can assist with that.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well -- well, since this document has already been
2 used by the Defence and is already in the system, in the e-court system,
3 and the -- I believe that the Prosecution have the access to this document
4 from now on. And if not, Mr. Morrissey, would you please be kind enough
5 to furnish a copy to Madam Chana.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I will do that. And there may be an
7 easier way for them to achieve that outcome, because Brankovic was a
8 witness of theirs.
9 JUDGE LIU: I see. And -- but anyway, we'll deal with the
10 admission of the document at a later stage.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. Of course. Thank you.
12 Q. Sorry, Mr. Jasarevic.
13 Okay. Now, what remains for -- for questioning now are really
14 two matters. I have to take you back to some of the rules effectively for
15 brief expert comment, and I will do that. After that, I'm going to take
16 you through certain documents that relate to the -- the information that
17 went to and fro within your organisation in September of 1993. My
18 questions are -- will take us up to the time when Mr. Sefer Halilovic was
19 questioned during Trebevic, and that will be effectively the end of the
20 questions, so that's -- that's what's coming: A section on the rules and
21 then a section on some of the correspondence which I'll -- which I'll take
22 you to.
23 Now, would you just excuse me a moment, please.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Very well -- sorry. Just excuse me.
2 Q. [Microphone not activated].
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry. Pardon me.
5 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I'm now going to ask you some questions about the
6 criminal procedure generally. I'll take you to some provisions. I bear
7 in mind that you've answered my learned friend's questions already, so
8 that I won't traverse every step of the way with those.
9 But firstly, the crime of murder was illegal in the state of
10 Bosnia because of the Criminal Procedure Code which, among other things,
11 forbids that particular crime; is that correct? Is that where we find
12 the -- the law against murder?
13 A. Of course. It's a crime of the utmost seriousness.
14 Q. You'll have to forgive me for asking these -- these questions
15 that obviously you take for granted in some respects, but I have to build
16 this up step by step so that the Tribunal knows and -- knows how -- how
17 these crimes were dealt with.
18 Murder being a crime under the Criminal Code, the Criminal Code
19 also provided --
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Or perhaps could the witness please be shown
21 Exhibit D136, which is already in evidence now. This is extracts of
22 certain parts of Criminal Code.
23 While that's being brought up on the screen, Mr. Jasarevic, I'm
24 going to show you sections 148 and 151, but particularly 148.
25 Q. And while that's being brought up, I'll explain why I'm asking
2 It was the duty of all citizens to denounce grave crimes such as
3 murder pursuant to Article 148 of the Criminal Code. Is that your
4 understanding of the -- of the situation?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, we're just awaiting that. I
7 understand sometimes these things take a time to bring up. That's --
8 that's okay.
9 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt counsel. Before
10 we carry on, I would like to see this section 148 because the witness is
11 not a lawyer, and I don't know whether he's been asked for his
12 professional opinion as a military security officer or as a legal
13 consultant in respect of the Criminal Code, and it's not up on the screen.
14 So if counsel would wait so we can see it and we can see what it actually
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, we'll wait. But I think the question
17 asked by Defence counsel is a question belonging to the common knowledge.
18 But anyway, we'll wait for that specific article.
19 MR. MORRISSEY:
20 Q. While we are waiting now for that, I might ask you this question,
21 Mr. Jasarevic: Because of your work and because of your experience, you
22 are familiar with that provision without having to be shown it; is that
23 correct? Of course we are going to show it to you as well, but ...
24 A. I can say that these are principles, and in this area you
25 couldn't live without these main guidelines and being acquainted with such
1 regulations and laws.
2 Q. Okay.
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, can I indicate what's going to
4 occur this afternoon, just so that -- it may assist things to go as
5 smoothly as possible. I have in mind to ask Mr. Jasarevic to comment on
6 a -- a couple of documents. First of all, the -- the two provisions of
7 the Criminal Code, which I wanted to show him. After that, I wanted to
8 show him the Law on District Military Courts to indicate how it was that
9 the civil -- the crime of murder came to be tried and was able to be tried
10 by -- by district military courts, and that's a matter which is of
11 importance because it shows how things were supposed to proceed.
12 Q. Very well. Now, on the screen now do you see the front page of
13 the -- it's called Zbornik -- is that the front page of the Criminal Code,
14 rather than my trying to pronounce it?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be moved forward now to
17 article -- it's the next page, Article 148 of that code, which is
18 photocopied on the following page.
19 Thank you. I'm very grateful for that.
20 Q. All right. Now, do you see Article 148 and also Article 149 on
21 that page?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Very well. And is --
24 A. I see 148, and I see 149 should be the next one.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. Now, I think Your Honours may recall that
1 I slipped into this error on the previous occasion that I asked witnesses
2 about this document that I -- I made the 148 error.
3 Q. Is it the duty of all citizens under both 148 but also under
4 149(a) -- sorry, 149(1), is it the duty of all citizens to report crimes?
5 And in particular I'm looking now at 149(1).
6 A. 149 article (1) you mean?
7 Q. Yes. Okay. Now, having inspected those -- those provisions, but
8 in particular 149(1), that's the fact, isn't it, citizens should report
9 crimes when they see them as a social duty? Is that the fact?
10 A. Yes, that's my understanding.
11 Q. Yes. Very well.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness now be shown the following
13 page, and in particular Article 151.
14 Q. Do you have in front of you Article 151 now, sorry,
15 Mr. Jasarevic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Very well. Does that article oblige Internal Affairs organs to
18 take steps? I'm looking now at paragraph 1 -- to take a variety of steps
19 in the investigation of a serious crime or a crime prosecuted ex officio?
20 A. That would be my understanding, yes.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, this was a -- a civil code -- sorry, a
22 civilian code applicable across the board to all civilians, whether they
23 were soldiers or -- or not. But now I want to show you another document
24 concerning the -- the way in which military courts got their jurisdiction.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness now please be shown -- it's
1 D1 -- sorry --
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Just excuse me. I'll give you the proper DD
4 It is DD00.0874, and it's to be MFI224.
5 THE REGISTRAR: It was the registry's understanding that it would
6 be MFI223.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, we accept that.
8 Your Honours, I readjust that on advice to MFI223.
9 Q. What I'm about to show you now when it comes up is Article 6 of
10 the district military court's law, which appears to give jurisdiction to
11 the -- those courts to try serious offences.
12 Very well. Now, do you have in front of you the front page of
13 the law on military courts?
14 A. I have Article 6.
15 Q. You have Article 6. Excellent. That's the one I want you to
16 have. Very well.
17 Now, is it your understanding that Article 6 gave jurisdiction to
18 the district military court to try cases involving criminal offences
19 committed by military personnel?
20 A. I'm not sure if we understand each other. You have Article 7
21 here with amendments and reference to military institutions. This may be
22 an error. Perhaps it's just that I'm misunderstanding something.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly be asked to speak up
24 or speak closer to the microphone.
25 MR. MORRISSEY:
1 Q. Yes. Well, two matters in response to what you raised there,
2 Mr. Jasarevic. You may detect from time to time a translation issue that
3 we haven't seen, and you can always point that out to us.
4 Secondly, the interpreter asks that you speak a little closer to
5 the microphone, if that's possible.
6 Finally, can I just ask: Do you have in front of you Article 6
7 or do you have Article 7?
8 A. I have Article 6.
9 Q. Very well. Returning to my question, then: Is that -- is it
10 under Article 6 that the jurisdiction of the military courts arises, in
11 your understanding, to try serious criminal offences?
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 MR. MORRISSEY: Oh, I'm sorry. No, I'm instructed now that what
14 you have in front of you may not be the correct page.
15 In the Bosnian version could the witness be shown the following
16 page after that one.
17 Q. Yes. Do you have that now, the relevant Article 6? Yes, I'm
18 sorry. I was certainly -- it was my fault there, and I apologise for
20 Now, do you have that jurisdictional section, Article 6?
21 A. Yes. Yes.
22 Q. Very well. And is that your understanding, that it's pursuant to
23 that Article that the courts get their jurisdiction -- the military courts
24 get their jurisdiction to try serious criminal offences?
25 A. As far as I am able to interpret this, that seems to be the case.
1 I have no other opinion to offer.
2 Q. Okay. Very well. Thank you.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I offer that for tender.
5 Q. Now, I just want to ask you some questions about the relevant law
6 applicable to investigations and how that's -- how that's to be dealt
8 First of all, you were asked questions by the learned Prosecutor
9 concerning military -- the Rules of Military Discipline, and I want to ask
10 you some questions about that. Firstly, the Rules of Military Discipline
11 to your understanding are a -- a tool that military commanders have to
12 deal with infractions of military discipline involving the infliction of
13 minor summary punishments; is that correct?
14 A. Yes. I did say so yesterday. Any infractions of military
15 discipline would be under the jurisdiction of all the different bodies
16 within the military organisation, including, of course, the security
17 bodies. However, when these infractions grow out of volume in a manner of
18 speaking and spill over into an area where there are potential indications
19 of a crime, then security bodies get involved -- or rather, the military
20 police, and professionals come in who take over.
21 Q. And when dealing with a series of tragic and horrible murders,
22 you don't proceed against -- you don't proceed in investigating those
23 murders under the military discipline rules; you proceed under the SVB's
24 rules. Is that correct?
25 A. You can investigate under the Rules of Military Discipline and
1 under the criminal -- instructions from criminal law, but not under the
2 SVB rules. Or in order to make myself clear, Article 40 of the Rules of
3 Service was virtually copied from the first section of Article 51, of the
4 law that we saw just a minute ago.
5 Q. Yes. Well, we'll be going to Article 40 of the SVB rules in
6 about five minutes, but at this stage now it's -- you indicated that there
7 were some difficulties with the -- perhaps the realism of some of
8 Mr. Dzankovic's proposals, but it would have been an extraordinary
9 situation for him to propose confining the men to barracks for three days
10 or demoting them or imposing some other of the military disciplinary
11 regimes. Would you agree with that?
12 A. Your Honours, perhaps I don't understand this approach or I just
13 don't support this approach. Mr. Dzankovic as a member of the inspection
14 team in this case had no competence, no power, and no authority, because
15 after all he had never received an order from the commander that he could
16 then see through. It would have been very difficult for him to find
17 himself in a situation like that. I did try to explain a while ago about
18 these circumstances, so I don't think I should waste any more time now,
19 unless counsel insists.
20 Q. No, I don't insist. I'm properly chastised. I'm sorry.
21 Sometimes my comprehension --
22 A. My apologies.
23 Q. That's fine.
24 A. My apologies.
25 Q. That's okay.
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Very well. Well, look, can I ask now that the
2 witness be shown the document which was tendered already, the SVB rules.
3 It's D13 -- yes, the Defence document D137. That's not a 65 ter number.
4 That's an exhibit number. That's already been tendered.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, could we have a break now, and
6 during the break I hope you could approach the court deputy about the
7 documents you are going to use --
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
9 JUDGE LIU: -- in the next session so we could save some time.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
11 JUDGE LIU: And we'll resume at quarter past 4.00, I guess.
12 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey. I saw the document on the
16 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated].
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.
20 Do you see before you on -- on the screen now the front page of
21 the SVB rules?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. Could the SVB rules now please be turned
24 to Articles 40 and 41. I think they are both on the same page.
25 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Jasarevic. We're just awaiting the English
2 Okay. Thank you. Do you have Article 40 in front of you now?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, that article appears to provide an
5 obligation for the military security service to take necessary measures to
6 find the perpetrator of the criminal offence, to prevent the perpetrator
7 and his accomplices from going into hiding or escaping.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Could I just ask that the next page in the English
9 be shown.
10 Q. "To uncover and protect the evidence and exhibits which can be
11 served as evidence and to gather all the information useful for successful
12 conduct of the criminal proceedings."
13 Now, I'm just going to ask for a couple of comments upon that
14 passage before I go any further. First of all, does that section there
15 deal with a part of the criminal proceeding or does it really deal with
16 something before the criminal proceeding itself begins; in other words,
17 the pre-criminal proceeding? Are you able to comment on that question?
18 A. This is a pre-criminal action. When there is reasonable
19 suspicion, then the service must take action.
20 Q. Now, could I -- I'll put a proposition to you and you tell me if
21 you agree or not. But I'll read it to you. And when I've finished, you
22 tell me if this is right. "The activity of the SVB" -- and I'm referring
23 here to the activity under that section. "The activity of the SVB does
24 not represent the criminal procedure itself, but that activity is a
25 necessary assumption which enables the initiation and effectiveness of the
1 procedure in the first place. The matters dealt with by the services are
2 to be relayed to the authorised military prosecutor through a criminal
3 denunciation or an official report."
4 Now, does that proposition I've just put to you accurately
5 reflect what should happen during the pre-criminal phase?
6 A. Yes. But there may be more flexible interpretation of the last
7 bit. In relation to relaying this to the authorised military prosecutor,
8 this can be quite simple, but it depends on the situation on the amount of
9 material that has been gathered because pursuant to the Law on Military
10 Prosecutors, as soon as a military prosecutor finds out that there are
11 indications that a crime has been committed, he must request additional
12 information. But I think I can accept yes as an answer to that.
13 Q. Yes. And perhaps to -- just to develop that a little bit. The
14 time at which the investigating service must go to the military prosecutor
15 really depends upon the nature of the concrete case at hand. Is that an
16 accurate statement?
17 A. Roughly speaking, but it may depend on the circumstances,
18 physical circumstances. Is this possible or is there still a hindrance or
19 an obstacle.
20 Q. Okay. Upon reaching a certain stage of -- well, I withdraw that.
21 Now, the -- the competence of the -- of the services, and in
22 particular of the SVB, to engage in that sort of investigative procedure
23 is founded upon that section; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. Could I take you now to Article number -- Article 41.
1 And does Article 41 indicate the obligation of the military security
2 service to submit a criminal report to the competent military prosecutor's
3 office? Is that accurate?
4 A. I apologise. I've lost the image there.
5 Yes, this is the first part of --
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. -- the article, based on such information as has been gathered,
8 the military security service at brigade level shall file a criminal
9 complaint, which is in relation to what we discussed about Article 40.
10 Q. Yes. I understand that. I just have some questions for you now
11 about how this operated at the battalion, the brigade, and the corps level
12 and the obligations that arose at those particular levels.
13 Let's deal with the battalion level. If there were -- a
14 reasonable suspicion arose under Article 40 that a -- a crime may have
15 been committed by a particular individual, whose obligation -- sorry, at
16 what level did -- was the SVB required to deal with that? Was it the
17 obligation -- well, first of all, was it your obligation to be advised
18 about and to deal with crimes at the battalion level, or was it really a
19 matter that should be dealt with in the first instance at the battalion
21 A. If I understand your question, the second part of your question
22 refers to me personally, or rather, to the security administration.
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. In terms of explaining the different levels of deployment of the
25 security administration, the fourth and lowest level is the battalion
1 level. That is the least evolved level of the military security service.
2 Intelligence and counter-intelligence are merged at that level.
3 In terms of manpower and in terms of the number of executors,
4 this is the weakest level. It would usually be an assistant commander.
5 In strong battalions or independent battalions, the assistant commander
6 would have two or three as a maximum assistant officers. But since they
7 had an intelligence function too, he would not have been bound, as you can
8 tell by looking at Article 1 of the Rules of Service, to file a criminal
9 complaint but he's still under obligation to gather information and then
10 submit the information to the brigade's security.
11 At this point, the brigade's security service comes in and that
12 part of the job is done at this particular level.
13 Q. Very well. And at the brigade level -- where -- where the
14 security service at the brigade level finds itself involved in an
15 investigation, who bears the -- the obligation of contacting the -- of
16 making a criminal report at that point? Should the brigade level
17 operative do it or do they need to come to you for permission about that?
18 A. No. There was no need to see me about permission. There would
19 have been no need to go to the corps for permission in that matter -- for
20 that matter. The brigade has its own military police. What you have to
21 look at is that this unit has its own military police attached. This unit
22 has both authority and certain competencies as part of the criminal
23 proceeding. It is an institution which has the use of force as an option
25 If you go by the principles, this could have ended right at the
1 brigade level. If they were dealing with a more complex case, in that
2 case they would have gone to the assistant commander of the corps. What
3 was especially important in wartime conditions was our cooperation with
4 the different bodies of the Ministry of the Interior.
5 Q. Yes. I understand that.
6 I just want to turn to the -- the issue of where an -- where a
7 security service officer finds himself being blocked by his commander.
8 Now, let's take the example of a -- of a brigade -- of a situation at
9 brigade level where an SVB operative is performing his proper
10 investigative duties but he finds that the brigade commander is
11 obstructing his work. Is it the SVB operative's obligation in that
12 situation to report up the professional line to the next level, to the
14 A. Your Honours, I spoke about the authority of the military
15 security service. I spoke about all the functions, and in principle this
16 worked up the line through the three different levels, across the three
18 When speaking about the second and third functions, I pointed out
19 then and I do now that there is a very significant element, especially in
20 wartime conditions. It would have been highly impractical - and I happen
21 to believe also impracticable - under combat conditions, or if combat was
22 about to begin, or just after combat they would have been facing a whole
23 range of difficulties. The military security service or the military
24 police would not have been in a position to commence -- to take any
25 pre-investigation steps. The best solution would have been for the
1 commander to -- to issue an order. This is due to the very nature of
2 military organisation. This is an important matter and a matter like this
3 could not have been done without the brigade commander issuing the
4 relevant orders.
5 Q. Yes, I understand that.
6 Now, in that situation, just in the situation of -- of a blocking
7 or a failure by the brigade commander to -- to do their job, not merely of
8 inactivity but a positive interference, for example, with the
9 investigation - I'm remaining in the hypothetical situation that we're
10 in - in that situation, the brigade SVB officer should report up the line,
11 shouldn't they? Up the professional line, I mean.
12 A. I understand you fully, and this is definitely the case. You
13 have an example from the 9th Brigade to that effect. There were certain
14 cases of obstruction, if you like, or blockade, or maybe the military
15 security service was not sufficiently free to go about their work. The
16 security service of the 9th Brigade informed the corps, and this is
17 precisely how we know about certain information, and we have more
18 information than in relation to the 10th Brigade, as I said yesterday.
19 Q. Yes. Yes, and you indicated that's because Tomo Juric was a
20 sensible functioning security officer doing his job.
21 A. [No audible response].
22 Q. Okay. I understand that.
23 Well, in the concrete case that's before the Court now, you did
24 not receive from Namik Dzankovic any complaint that he was being blocked
25 by Sefer Halilovic. Is that an accurate statement?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Very well. What I propose to do now is to take you through a
3 number of documents. There's -- there may be 20, as a matter of fact.
4 These documents, broadly speaking, are directions, letters, communications
5 of various sorts that passed in the -- in the SVB service in the days and
6 weeks after the killings at Grabovica.
7 Now, I'll make it clear that some of these documents are old
8 documents and some of them you may have seen before. Some of them you
9 certainly will not have seen. With respect to those that you haven't
10 seen, I'm going to ask you for an expert type of comment, and you can
11 advise us what the situation is, in terms of whether you've seen them or
12 not, and feel free to comment as you feel inclined to do with these ones
13 because, frankly, you were there and we weren't.
14 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown, first of all,-
15 just excuse me a moment - the exhibit which has already been tendered,
17 Q. The document I'm about to show you, while it's being brought up
18 on the screen -- the document I'm about to show you is one you may well
19 not have seen, but I'm going to ask you for a professional comment about
20 it. It's a document which has been tendered in evidence already and is a
21 communication between officers of the 44th Brigade, which was a local
22 Jablanica brigade, and the 6th Corps with certain information in it.
23 A. I haven't seen this document before.
24 Q. No. Very well. I would ask you then just to offer a
25 professional comment upon it.
1 Thank you. First of all, can you comment on the -- just can you
2 confirm a couple of details. Do you see that it's addressed from the
3 44th Mountain Brigade to the 6th Corps command military security sector in
4 Konjic and dated the 9th of September, 1993?
5 A. Yes, you can see that.
6 Q. Yes. And does it appear to you -- I understand you haven't seen
7 the document before, but does the information appear to you to be
8 typically operative information which is being passed along to the
9 6th Corps military security sector concerning the possibility of some
10 killings at Grabovica in the night between the 8th and 9th of September
11 and the arrival of 250 refugees on the same night in Jablanica from the
12 Dretelj camp?
13 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I would object to this line of
14 questioning. It's the very same what we the Prosecution did. We would
15 show the witness a document, he says he has never seen it before, and yet
16 this time the witness has been asked to comment on information within that
17 and whether it's operative information or not. I'm not sure what the
18 witness is being asked about in respect of a document he's not seen. It's
19 not his document. He's never seen it before.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, that depends on the contents of this document,
21 whether the witness is familiar with what is written there or not. But
22 we'll test how far the witness will go concerning of his testimony.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour. But I think I should
24 deal with a couple of matters raised there, because it could be important
25 in the way that other documents are used too. So -- I just indicate this:
1 First of all, this document is already in evidence, and what I'm asking
2 for is an expert comment by a person who's the head of this particular
3 service as to -- first of all I'm going to ask about structurally speaking
4 how should, according to the rules, the 6th Corps have responded to
5 this -- to this material.
6 I'm not asking him to confirm whether it's true or not, because
7 of course he doesn't know that. I wouldn't ask him that question. But
8 it's -- he's obviously clearly able to comment on, given the rules of the
9 SVB, what should have happened when this document arrived at the
10 6th Corps, and that's really what I want to ask him, what -- what nature
11 of report would he expect and should occur within his service. Now,
12 that's plainly admissible. It's -- it's relevant, so I'd seek to proceed.
13 Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Yes. Well, now, having regard to that document, Mr. Jasarevic,
15 I'm not asking you to confirm or deny the truth of the contents of it,
16 because I understand you weren't down in Jablanica at that time and didn't
17 see it. But what I'm asking you about is what action should the
18 6th Corps, which received -- the 6th Corps security services have taken
19 upon receiving this document? What should they have done in the normal
20 course of events, according to your rules?
21 A. The military security service, having received such a document
22 from a subordinate from some brigade, would receive it, study it, analyse
23 it, and assess what was the important thing in such a document. Since
24 this document indicates that there were murders, this would then lead to
25 the conclusion that there was a crime. In view of the gravity of such an
1 act, it would be important to inform the superior or the -- the corps
2 security service about this.
3 Along with such information being passed on to them, the
4 commander of the corps would also be informed about it, because these are
5 serious questions, and the security service in its way is a command
6 service, so it is something that it would have to inform about.
7 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. And I'll ask you one
8 question -- you may not have any personal knowledge of this matter, and if
9 you don't, you don't. Do you know whether -- do you from your own
10 knowledge know whether or not any statements -- well, look, I withdraw
11 that question. I'll deal with that issue a bit later on.
12 Very well. Thank you. Now, I want to take you to another
13 document. You said - and I'll just put a couple of preliminary questions
14 first - do you recall giving evidence - I think it was when my learned
15 friend asked you questions - concerning the first news that you heard
16 about the killings in Grabovica. And I think you indicated that you
17 received a phone call, and it may have been on approximately the 11th
18 of -- of September, and you weren't at that -- and now 11 years later you
19 weren't able to recall who gave you that phone call.
20 Now, this document may be -- may be relevant, may be able to
21 assist you. I'm not sure. I just want to give you the chance to look at
22 and it you make any comment you want.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: But could the witness please be shown now -- its
24 65 ter number is D26. Its ERN number -- or its eight-digit number is
25 DD00.2575, and it's to be MFI224.
1 Q. Now, this document has the appearance of a short inquiry. It may
2 assist your memory. But just take the opportunity to look at and it then
3 I'll ask you some questions about it.
4 Could I just ask you a question first of all: Do you notice in
5 the first line of this document here, there's a reference to "unverified
6 information." And I just wanted to ask --
7 MS. CHANA: Sorry. I'm sorry, counsel. I do not have it.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Oh, I'm sorry.
9 JUDGE LIU: Neither do I. But it's coming.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: It may have appeared just now.
11 Q. Sorry, Mr. Jasarevic. We have technical hitches from time to
13 There's a reference in this document here you'll see
14 to "unverified information." It's in the first line of the text there.
15 Could I ask you this --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are you able to comment? Is that -- is that a reference -- that
18 term "unverified information," is that a reference to the phone call that
19 you mentioned in evidence that -- that you received telling you that
20 something had happened on the 11th of -- of September?
21 A. Yes, probably by telephone. Perhaps also through unofficial
22 direct contacts outside of the official premises. But most probably it
23 was through the official telephone. What I called "unverified," I've
24 already emphasised that it was important for me the type of information I
25 received and from whom. So I probably then said that it was unverified,
1 and I also indicate here that it is necessary to react quickly.
2 Q. Yes. I won't ask you questions about that again, because you
3 were very clear on the topic of -- of the sort of -- of the way you dealt
4 with operative information.
5 Could I just have -- I just need some formal questions
6 effectively to be answered about this document here.
7 First of all, this document -- can I ask you this: How long is
8 it since you saw a copy of this document? Is it many years, or have you
9 been shown it in recent times?
10 A. I think that the investigators of this Tribunal showed it to me
11 when I was giving my statement, but also when I was given a series of
12 documents that I was supposed to identify. I think that that's when it
13 was, if I recall correctly.
14 Q. Okay. So as far as you know, anyway, this document was in the
15 Prosecution's hands because they showed it to you at one stage; correct?
16 A. I said that I probably was shown it by the investigators during
17 the identification of the documents. There were many documents from the
18 Prosecution. It's possible that this one was also amongst them.
19 Q. Okay. All right. Well, now, just dealing with it -- with some
20 specifics about it. This document is dated "Sarajevo, 12th of September,
21 1993." Is there any indication on the document about the time when it was
22 written? I notice there's a time down at the bottom next to -- or near to
23 the name "Arnautovic," but that seems to relate to something else. Is
24 there a time on -- when this document was composed on this -- anywhere on
25 this letter?
1 A. What you can see down here, that's written by hand: "The
2 communications centre, Supreme Command Staff, signed by Arnautovic. This
3 is the communications centre at the staff which received and decoded the
4 messages. You can see that this was received on the 13th, and the time is
5 1528 hours, and you can see that the document was drafted on the 12th.
6 Probably it was written on the 11th in the evening. I conclude this not
7 by my memory but by my initials in the lower right-hand corner, because I
8 didn't give it to any of my subordinates in the administration to type it
9 out. I very rarely myself actually typed a document, so I assume that
10 this was in the evening when people were already resting and because of
11 the speed required to respond to this, I most probably typed this myself.
12 Q. Okay. I understand. That's your signature; is that correct? Is
13 that --
14 A. Yes. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And -- and the "JJ" -- what you just referred to a moment
16 ago, the "JJ," is that "JJ" on the left-hand side of the page towards the
17 bottom; is that correct?
18 A. These are my initials. This is what I spoke about. Then "/JZ."
19 That is the typist, the operator who did that. It's a woman. Her name is
20 Jasna Zametica; she's an employee at the centre.
21 Q. Well, that resolves that -- that matter.
22 The person to whom it is addressed is not named, but by chief of
23 the military service of the 6th Corps, you understood that to be Nermin
24 Eminovic; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And so, in summary, this document here was a document which was
2 an urgent document done in response to some very disturbing news which you
3 had heard on the telephone; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. In an unofficial way, without a document. I'm not
5 insisting that it was by telephone. Perhaps it was in a conversation or
6 something like that.
7 Q. That's okay. I understand that. You -- yesterday I think you
8 considered the possibility that you received that news on the 11th from
9 Minister Alispahic, and I just wanted to ask you about that. Given your
10 use of the term "unverified information" there, does that make it more or
11 less likely that Mr. Alispahic was the source of that material?
12 A. That is less likely. Mr. Alispahic, as the Minister of MUP - I
13 don't know if I would have used this term "unverified in some village," if
14 that was to him there are some other key places. I said that it was
15 possible that it is from Alispahic or perhaps from some of his -- or one
16 of his men. I don't know. But it would be risky to state anything
17 definite on this issue.
18 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, I suppose -- could I ask you this: If Bakir
19 Alispahic had personally told you this information, the likelihood is that
20 you would have used a different phrase than "unverified information." Is
21 that an accurate statement?
22 A. I don't know. Right now I cannot really imagine that situation.
23 In any case, it would have been more reliable than had it come from
24 somebody else, in view of his function.
25 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, again, I won't read the document out to you or
1 read it into the transcript, but effectively in this letter you assigned
2 appropriate tasks to Nermin Eminovic based on the limited information that
3 you had at the time. Is that true?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. I offer that document for tender, Your
7 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I'm moving through a number of documents of this
8 nature one by one. And I'll try to do them in chronological order as much
9 as possible, but let -- let it be clear that if you notice that these
10 documents are being put in an unchronological order, you feel very free to
11 point that out, bearing in mind your knowledge of the way these documents
12 are labeled as well.
13 Very well. Now, the next question I have is that you -- you
14 ultimately received that Dzankovic report with the -- with the
15 Salihamidzic attachment which has already been shown to you, but I think
16 your evidence was that that document was quite delayed in reaching you and
17 didn't in fact get there until the 20th or so of September. Is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Well, there are some other documents that seem to arise
21 between that time, and now I'm going to take you to those documents.
22 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please now be shown -- its
23 65 ter number is D165, and its DD number is DD00.0770, and it will be
25 Q. And just excuse me a moment, Mr. Jasarevic.
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Madam Prosecutor and -- and members of the Court,
2 I just indicate so that it's clear what's happening here, that I'm going
3 to take him through a number of documents in a chronological way to
4 indicate what effectively occurred during the course of the -- before,
5 during and after the Uzdol matters and also concerning the Grabovica
7 Q. Very well. So is that document before you on the screen now a
8 document which appears to be dated 15 September 1993 and appears to be
9 signed by you? And I'll ask you whether it is you in fact who signed it
10 in a minute. But do you have that document in front of you there?
11 A. Yes, I have it in front of me.
12 Q. Very well. Can I just confirm that that is your signature on it?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Okay. Now, this document is -- is headed by a comment
15 regarding -- or using the terms "participation of Bosnian -- or Republic
16 of Bosnian and Herzegovinian members in the events of Grabovica village,
17 report requested by," and then it's got an address. Would you just
18 explain what the function -- do you see underneath the top -- the top left
19 has got the -- the originating address, "Sarajevo, on the 15th of
20 September," and underneath that is the words -- on the left-hand
21 side: "Participation of ARBiH, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina members."
22 Can you just explain the structure of this document for me very briefly.
23 What's the function of that passage there on the left-hand side of the
25 A. This document was drafted -- this is the first time I'm seeing it
1 though, although it's my document. There's my signature on it.
2 It was drafted in response to a report I received from the
3 security chief of the 6th Corps, as a response to the document that we
4 were looking at previously.
5 Your Honours, here you can note one thing: We were simply
6 looking for Dzankovic. You could see that the security administration
7 didn't know what the situation was in the field and that problem, who is
8 in charge and which of the security organs in the control and command
9 aspect are there, who would be able to take on their part of the
10 responsibility from the military security aspect. So we were sending out
11 papers to Mr. Eminovic in the 6th Corps and then to Mr. Dzankovic via the
12 6th Corps because we practically didn't know where he was.
13 I don't know if we received a response from Mr. Eminovic, but if
14 we have it, then you will see that it was not something that was
15 satisfactory to me. He was just providing a picture of the situation that
16 could not satisfy me, because it was talking about the corps security
17 chief, and there's a vast difference. I'm digressing here, but there's a
18 vast difference between that institution and Dzankovic. That person had a
19 service of 15, 16 people, military police battalion, commander, and so on.
20 So since I received a response like that to my document sent to
21 Mr. Eminovic on the 12th to the 6th Corps, I wasn't satisfied with the
22 response. I'm now continuing what I actually started to explain. We were
23 sending this document to Dzankovic to see what he could do, and he is
24 being issued with these tasks here and to make a report so that he could
25 provide us with something that we could evaluate and know what actually
1 had happened.
2 Q. And I take it at this time, when you sent this letter, you didn't
3 know that Dzankovic had already written his report dated the 13th of
4 September, because that hadn't arrived at your -- at your centre yet.
5 A. Yes. Yes.
6 Q. You --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I understand. Okay, thank you.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I tender that document -- sorry, I offer
10 that document for tender as well.
11 Q. There are going to be more such documents again. And if it's a
12 document that you don't recall seeing or haven't seen for many years, just
13 feel free to take as long to acquaint yourself with it as you need.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, could the witness please be shown -- its
16 65 ter number is D166. Its ERN number is DD00.0772, and it's to be
18 Q. While that's being brought up on the screen, could I just ask you
19 a question concerning numbers of military police and so on. Were you
20 aware of -- of the military police establishment within the 6th Corps in
21 September 1993?
22 A. I don't know. I'm not sure that I understood the question. I
24 Q. Yes. That's okay. Well, look, I've jumped to another topic and
25 it's a bit unfair. Perhaps if you'd just take the time to look at that
1 document first and then we'll -- I'll ask you those questions in a minute.
2 Okay. Now, this -- the document that you're now being shown
3 appears to be a document signed by Eminovic and is dated the 17th of
4 September of 1993, and it seems to be addressed to you personally. Did
5 you -- did you receive this letter from Eminovic at some stage?
6 A. The notes in the upper right-hand corner are mine, but this is
7 the first time that I am seeing this paper in 11 years, but the notes are
8 mine for Vahid to inform himself, then also it -- these are my initials,
9 for this to be included in the bulletin. This is already the 17th of
10 September. It's a dynamic, very lively phase of data compilation.
11 Q. Yes. Well --
12 A. That -- that's how we can describe it.
13 Q. I'll gratefully adopt that comment. There are some other
14 documents we're going to show you.
15 Just -- I just want to get some particulars about the document.
16 First of all, the handwritten part that refers to Vahida, is that a
17 reference there to your employee, Vahid Bogunic, who has figured in other
18 notes that have been mentioned before?
19 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, we seem to be -- have some confusion
20 here. Is D166, is that the document we were just shown, which is MFI226?
21 JUDGE LIU: I guess so.
22 MS. CHANA: Is that the one which is on the screen?
23 MR. MORRISSEY: The D166 is a Defence ERN number, if that's
24 causing confusion -- sorry, 65 ter number. The ERN number you'll find at
25 the very top, in the middle, at the very top of the page.
1 MS. CHANA: It's different than the one you read out, I think.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, if there's an objection, it had better be
3 clarified because I don't want to mislead the witness or the Prosecutor,
4 so ...
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, the number is DD00.0774 or 0772?
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry. Yes, it's been pointed out to me. The
7 Bosnian version is 772. That's what the problem is.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Sorry about that.
10 Q. Sorry, Mr. Jasarevic.
11 Okay. So that was my first question. That concerned
12 Mr. Bogunic.
13 Now, the next question was: It should be possible to -- yes, I'm
14 sorry, pardon me. I did have another question from the text.
15 If you -- if you could look towards the end of the document.
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MR. MORRISSEY:
18 Q. I understand yours is all one page. There's a section probably
19 15 lines from the end that refers to a report from Zuka, and you might
20 see -- I'll read you the sentence here: "I would like to emphasise that
21 Zuka was the only one who was able the enter this area without any
22 consequences, that he wrote a report on the event, but we do not know what
23 is written in it, and that he would forward it to the SFK in Sarajevo."
24 Do you have that passage in front of you?
25 A. We had this earlier on. I said that I couldn't remember this
1 report. After all, it was sent to the SFK and not to the security
2 administration, which is quite an important difference, I believe.
3 Q. Oh, certainly. Well, I -- sorry, pardon me. Yes, we acknowledge
4 the difference, and -- and I agree with that.
5 If it was sent to the SVK and the Chief of Staff of the SVK,
6 Sefer Halilovic, was on the terrain -- sorry, if it was sent to the SVK in
7 Sarajevo, as is stated here, and the Chief of Staff of the SVK was on the
8 terrain in Herzegovina, to whom would you expect any such report to go at
9 the SVK?
10 A. By the nature of things, the commander would receive these. If
11 the commander is absent, in the worst of cases this should -- this should
12 end up in the hands of the operations centre of the Main Staff. In the
13 worst of cases I say, because this report would sort of tend to be a
14 combat report, and that would be outside the purview of the service, and
15 Zuka was no member of the service, for that matter.
16 Q. Well, that was -- that was going to be my next question. In the
17 normal course of events, a combat report from Zuka, such as the one
18 described there, wouldn't go to you; it would go to Commander Delic. Is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes, it would go to Delic. Now who would process this sort of
21 document in an operative way is really not something that I can say.
22 Q. Yes, okay. What is the significance of the date at the very
23 bottom of the page there? It says -- the stamp on the last page
24 says: "Main Staff of the Armed Forces security administration. Strictly
25 confidential." It gives a number, and then it says: "20th of September."
1 Does that mean that your office received this on the 20th of September?
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Perhaps the witness will need to see the next
3 page in Bosnian.
4 A. Yes, I see that. That's precisely what it means. Here you see
5 the incoming stamp of the administration. You can see it right here.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Plus the date.
8 Q. Yes. I understand. Thank you.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document for tender as well.
10 I'd now ask that the witness be shown -- this is another
11 document, which is not uploaded into the system as yet. It is D573.
12 That's the -- that's the 65 ter number. And copies are now available to
13 be distributed.
14 Yes. Could I just indicate with respect to this, Your Honour,
15 there have been a number of acts of treachery by the Defence against the
16 e-court system in terms of using paper copies. We are going to be
17 provided with a scanner, and we are receiving, I have to say, a great deal
18 of support from the Registry in this regard. We believe physically the
19 scanner now exists and is to be delivered, and we hope to have it in place
20 this evening.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
22 MR. MORRISSEY: And we do undertake to do as much as we can to
23 avoid having to use paper copies in the future, and we're sorry that we're
24 doing it here.
25 This document we'd seek to be MFI227.
1 Q. Now, Mr. Jasarevic, again, this is -- I don't know whether this
2 is such a document. Have you seen this document in recent times, or is it
3 a -- one from long ago?
4 A. Your Honours, this is the first time I've laid eyes on it. I
5 would even go so far as to say that I could have provided a more detailed
6 statement to the OTP had I seen this paper. I didn't sign this, but you
7 can see my initials right there in the lower left corner. So, on the one
8 hand, I produced this document; and on the other, I didn't sign it. Now,
9 there's something that doesn't tally about this, but it is my document.
10 Q. Yes. Well, I just want to be sure that we're -- I'm not putting
11 to you a document over which there's any suspicion. Does it appear to be
12 a genuine document, as far as you can see?
13 A. Your Honours, it has a formal drawback: I didn't sign it. You
14 see my initials on the left-hand side; although, anyone could have placed
15 them there. But the nature of the problem analysed by this document and
16 given who it was sent to, I am convinced of the latter.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Well -- thank you. Sorry. Pardon me.
18 Okay. Well, in relation to this, is the -- does the information
19 in it assist your memory to -- to explain to the Court what information
20 you had on that date, on the 16th of September, 1993? Does it accurately
21 reflect what you knew on that day?
22 A. Your Honours, there is no way I can possibly remember what I knew
23 on that day. Unlike Grabovica, I had precious little information in
24 relation to the Prozor area. We kept looking, which is easy to see if you
25 look at this document. We kept trying to track down information. We
1 insisted that we be informed.
2 Q. Yes. There's a number of other documents which -- which I'll put
3 to you in that regard as well.
4 But at this point anyway, are you able to recall or say what was
5 the source of this unverified information that's referred to in this
7 A. I really can't remember.
8 Q. Do you recall whether or not you heard of the -- the killings at
9 Kriz, Uzdol, and other hamlets in that area in whole or in part through
10 Croatian media? In other words, can you recall whether these incidents
11 featured in the Croatian media at or around this time?
12 A. I recall that there were references to Uzdol. I can't say I
13 heard this myself. It may have been one of my operations officers, one of
14 my subordinates, but I know that what happened at Uzdol was debated. I
15 remember there was one or possibly more special reports that we wrote and
16 sent to our superiors, the persons that we reported to, and I remember
17 that in that special report we stated that the information being forwarded
18 had been obtained from people who were on the ground. This information
19 spoke about some specific circumstances where civilians had been killed
20 because there was fighting going on, because the clashing parties were
21 very close, not far apart, and because there was artillery fire. I'm not
22 sure if I'm about to use the right term -- random fire.
23 The conclusion that we based on that was that casualties were
24 inflicted on their own forces as well as the enemy; friendly fire, in
25 other words. It was based on information like this that we also included
1 another bit of information that we had; namely, among the civilians who
2 were killed, there were some armed persons who had joined in the fighting
3 with the HVO, as members of the HVO. So this was more or less the gist of
4 the report that we sent along to our superiors.
5 Q. Yes. I should indicate to you, Mr. Jasarevic, we have a number
6 of such reports which I'm going to show you and get you to comment on
7 soon. This one now I'm really putting because I want to preserve the
8 chronology of -- of your involvement, frankly, in the matter and of your
9 service's actions and inquiries that -- that you undertook.
10 Before I --
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer this document for tender as well,
12 if the Court pleases.
13 Q. Could I just ask you, before I move on to another document, could
14 just ask you this: When Croatian media alleged that the Army of Bosnia
15 had committed a war crime or an atrocity, were you inclined to accept that
16 as 100 per cent accurate merely because it was on Croatian television?
17 A. Certainly not. We always took into account the fact that there
18 was a lot of propaganda included in what the media featured. A security
19 service should certainly not be tempted to take such things as face value.
20 As soon as you have a great deal of propaganda, you can hardly take
21 anything for granted. But we certainly didn't underrate these reports.
22 Q. No.
23 A. We were simply out to get information.
24 Q. And once again, it's -- it's fair to say that you would include
25 in the information that you processed all operative information, including
1 what was on the media? Is that accurate? In other words, you didn't
2 totally disregard it just because it happened to come from Croatian
3 television; you gave it the weight that you thought was appropriate. Is
4 that a fair way to put it?
5 A. This is not something that I can be sure about, but it certainly
6 made sense, what you're suggesting. This should have affected our
7 position in some way.
8 Q. And of course you did make the inquiry which is right in front of
9 us here on this page on the 16th of September; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Well -- and there are some other documents which I'm now
12 going to move to.
13 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness now be shown another document.
14 This is an exhibit in the case already, and it's, I think, D159.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. MORRISSEY: I believe it to be D, but I don't want to take
17 the Prosecution's credit if that's wrong. But it's the 159th exhibit.
18 It's D.
19 Q. This document that's going to be shown to you now, Mr. Jasarevic,
20 is not a document of yours. It appears to be an inquiry by Stjepan
21 Siber -- it's okay, I'm just describing what you're going to be looking at
22 in a minute. An inquiry directed to the 6th Corps. And when it comes on
23 the screen, I'll get you to comment on it.
24 All right. Now, do you see that that's a document from Siber to
25 the 6th Corps -- in fact, to the 6th Corps command?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Bearing in mind that it comes from -- from Stjepan Siber, who at
3 that time was standing in officially for the -- for the commander of the
4 army, who is --
5 A. Standing in, right.
6 Q. Yes, yes. So bearing in mind that it comes from someone of the
7 high level of Mr. Siber, who do you expect -- or to whom should that
8 document have gone within the 6th Corps?
9 A. This is command communication. This is someone who is standing
10 in for a commander and, therefore, holds a command position. On behalf of
11 the 6th Corps, this should go to the commander.
12 Q. In functional terms, this is a letter from Siber to Gusic; is
13 that correct?
14 A. Yes, if that's how you understand these names. It doesn't
15 necessarily mean that Gusic was there to receive the document. Maybe it
16 was his deputy. That's in terms of their respective positions.
17 Now, in reality, it depends on their respective whereabouts at
18 the time. I'm not sure if Gusic received this document personally.
19 It's -- it's purely speculative because it depends whether he happened to
20 be at the command at the time or maybe he was away.
21 Q. No, I understand that. And I'm not asking you to engage in that
22 particular speculation.
23 All right. Well, could I ask you: Although that's not a
24 document that's addressed within the professional line, did it come to
25 your knowledge that the acting commander of the army was inquiring of the
1 6th Corps exactly what had happened at Uzdol? Did that -- were you aware
2 that that inquiry was being made?
3 A. No., I don't recall that. I don't believe I knew at the time.
4 Q. All right. Thank you.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: That document is already in evidence.
6 I now ask that the witness be given --
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, could we have a break?
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Of course, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll resume at ten minutes to 6.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 5.51 p.m.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.
13 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated].
14 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
15 MR. MORRISSEY: My apologies. Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. And thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.
17 MR. MORRISSEY: I now ask that the witness be shown another
18 document. This is D -- the Defence 65 ter number is 167, and it's
19 DD00.0776, and it's to be MFI227.
20 THE REGISTRAR: 228.
21 MR. MORRISSEY: Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. Could that please
22 be 228. I apologise for that.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you. Could I just ask you, first of all,
24 Mr. Jasarevic: Is this a document that you've seen in recent times?
25 A. Never. From the day it was produced in all likelihood. But this
1 is my signature, and these bodies or persons referred to here in the lower
2 left-hand corner are my people, and this is my document.
3 Q. Yes. Okay. And I take it this is -- is one of the documents
4 produced at that time which you described as a reasonably hectic time
5 of -- of correspondence concerning events in Herzegovina.
6 Could I ask you this about this document. This is directed to --
7 this is another of the documents directed to Nermin Eminovic; is that
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, unlike some of the other documents, it doesn't refer, or at
11 least I don't notice it referring to -- to previous correspondence. What
12 was the trigger for this particular letter? Can you recall?
13 A. No, I can't.
14 Q. Okay. There's a reference here to the need to brief the
15 Presidency and the SVK.
16 The use of the term "Presidency," does that -- is that a
17 reference to briefing a session of the Presidency or a meeting of the
18 Presidency, or does it refer to a particular individual?
19 A. No, this is a conditional use of the term. That's what
20 Mr. Bogunic wrote. That's what I explained, who was informed. That's
22 Q. Oh, I see.
23 A. This document could only have been received by the president of
24 the Presidency and Mr. Ganic. So much for the Presidency.
25 Q. Yes, I understand. And what is the significance of that last
1 paragraph there: "The report should be forwarded to the security
2 administration by 1200 hours on 19th of September. Because of the
3 obligations towards the Presidency, please ensure that the report is sent
4 by this deadline."
5 Does that mean that there was already in existence a -- a request
6 from the Presidency to you or your organisation, or does it have some
7 other meaning?
8 A. I am in no position to comment on this, simply because I can't
9 recall this. It was a long time ago. I assume that probably we were not
10 satisfied with the reports we were receiving from people on the ground.
11 That's one possibility. It may be that the president required additional
12 information, but it could have been anything. I really can't remember,
13 and I wouldn't like to speculate.
14 Q. That's okay?
15 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document for tender as well,
16 Your Honours.
17 Could the witness please next be shown another document. This
18 one is 65 ter number D168. Its ERN number is DD00.0778, and it is to be
20 Q. When this document appears on your screen, you'll see,
21 Mr. Jasarevic, that it's a -- a similar document but it uses the
22 word "warning," and I'm going ask you to comment on that -- on that term.
23 Do you have the document in front of you yet?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Now,--
1 MR. MORRISSEY: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honours. I've been advised
2 that I should slow down what is already in some respects a very slow
3 process, but I shall -- I shall slow down, Your Honours.
4 Could I indicate after consideration in the break, Your Honours,
5 I think it's a noble ambition that I will not be able to fulfil to finish
6 tonight. But as you'll see, we're moving through, and -- and there will
7 be certainly room for another witness tomorrow.
8 Q. Yes, sorry, Mr. Jasarevic.
9 Now, with regard to this document here, can you indicate why it
10 was that this was headed as a warning?
11 A. Yes. This is the first time that I am seeing this document since
12 it was created, but it's absolutely clear why it's formulated in this way.
13 That's also stated. You can see that it says here "our telegrams number,"
14 so and so. The security service was asking for a report from the
15 6th Corps security service. We have no other way. We cannot order such a
16 report, but we were insisting, requiring, asking to have this information
17 sent to us.
18 Q. Yes. I notice here on the third line of the first paragraph
19 there - at least that's the English situation - that there's a reference
20 to -- there's a reference to events in Grabovica village, Jablanica
21 municipality, as well as to the villages of Uzdol and Kriz, in the Prozor
23 In referring to Grabovica, you'll recall that earlier on I -- I
24 showed you a document where you made an inquiry of the 6th Corps
25 concerning Grabovica. Is it that correspondence which is being referred
1 to here, where you refer to Grabovica, or is there some other
2 correspondence that occurred in respect of Grabovica that I haven't
3 provided to you?
4 A. Your Honours, I think that we continue here to ask for
5 information in respect of Grabovica, and it has helped me now. It has
6 refreshed my memory regarding crimes at a different location and our
7 attempts to receive information of which we had much less, and the
8 information was different than the one referring to Grabovica. I cannot
9 remember all the details about the cause and effect specifically when I'm
10 commenting on this document, but we, here you can see, are continuing to
11 find -- to ask for information from the service covering the location
12 where the crimes occurred, covering these villages.
13 Q. Yes. And just a final formal question: Is that your signature
14 on the document?
15 A. Yes, of course.
16 Q. Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry, I always have to ask that question,
17 to be -- to clear about it.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: And I offer that document for tender.
19 Could the witness please now be shown a -- another document.
20 This is 65 ter number 169. It is ERN number DD00.0780, and it's to be
22 Q. Do you have that document in a legible form before you?
23 A. I have the document in front of me.
24 Q. Very well. Okay. Now, does this appear to you to be a response
25 to your -- your warning letter and indeed the previous conversation -- the
1 previous correspondence to which you've already attested?
2 A. Probably. I can't state that decisively, but probably.
3 Q. Okay. In any event, are you able to indicate that this was
4 addressed to you personally and came from Nermin Eminovic, arriving at
5 your offices on the 21st of September, 1993?
6 A. I'm sorry, can I just say this arrived on the 21st of September.
7 You can see that in the lower left-hand corner.
8 Q. Yes. Well, you'd better explain, because I'm -- I'm a strict
9 amateur about these matters. But that -- that stamp at the bottom left
10 indicates the time it was received; is that correct?
11 A. Yes. That's the 29th of September -- 21st of September. That's
12 what it states on the document that I have.
13 Q. Okay. With respect to the communications you were having with
14 both Eminovic and Dzankovic, it appears to -- on the document so far --
15 I'm putting a general question now, not one directly related to this text,
16 but I'll come back to this text in a minute.
17 It appears that with respect to Grabovica you made inquiries both
18 of -- of Dzankovic and also of Eminovic, but with respect to Uzdol you
19 made inquiries of Eminovic alone. Am I right in that, or have I missed
21 A. I can explain that by the fact that Eminovic is part of the chain
22 of command, an institution which has force, physical force. It has a
23 detachment of 16 people and a military police battalion, so this is a
24 stable function.
25 However, Dzankovic is something else. He's a free shooter, if you
1 permit me to express it like that. He's simply a member of the inspection
2 team. He's not an organ of any command which is commanding and which has
3 all the attributes that go with it and can act in that way.
4 Q. Yes. Very well.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document for tender as well.
6 The next document I would like the witness to be given the
7 opportunity to look at is -- is 65 ter number D77. Its ERN number is
8 DD00.0295, and its MFI number is 231.
9 Q. The document that's coming up now appears to have the form of a
10 weekly report, and I'd just ask you to take the -- take a moment to look
11 at it. It's -- it's in a form that you may be able to assist us with and
12 explain. But would you just take a moment to check that document, first
13 of all. It may be that it's on more than one page in the B/C/S. It
14 certainly is in the English version. It has three pages in the English
16 And, Mr. Jasarevic, for your convenience, you had better be the
17 one who indicates when you need to turn over the page with that document.
18 When you've looked at that first page you indicate. And then the
19 court staff will help by turning over the page.
20 A. Could you please scroll the entire text so that I could look at
21 the whole thing and then we can go back to where you want to go.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. You can scroll further.
24 I would also like to see the end of the document at least.
25 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, you're under no time pressure here. You're
1 entitled to -- to look. I'll just indicate to you to assist that I have
2 a -- the questions I have chiefly relate to the passage that's on --
3 that's near to the end of the -- of the document and refers to the work of
4 the SVB in working on the investigation of possible crimes committed
5 against civilians in the village of Grabovica in Jablanica municipality
6 and the villages of Uzdol and Kriz in Prozor municipality. You feel free
7 to look at the whole thing as much as you need to, but that's -- that's
8 where I'll be asking you questions.
9 A. Could I please look at that part of the text.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: I believe it will be the last page of the B/C/S.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. MORRISSEY:
13 Q. Do you see, Mr. Jasarevic, somebody has underlined in the B/C/S
14 version the area of interest. It's just above heading 4, "Proposed
15 measures." And the part of the text that I'm interested by is --
16 A. Yes, I see it.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you see there that you've -- you've mentioned that
18 the: "SVB monitored the security situation in the city." And I take it
19 by "the city" you meant Sarajevo; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. I don't know what part of the text this refers to, but if
21 it's about the city, then I think it refers to Sarajevo.
22 Q. Okay. If -- if -- I mean, you'll -- you will be better at
23 reading this document than I am, so if there's any context that you think
24 you need by reading other parts, just don't hesitate to do that. But the
25 bit that interests me is the underlined part and the bit following that,
1 which is: "They are working on the investigation of possible crimes
2 committed against civilians in the village of Grabovica, in Jablanica
3 municipality, and the villages of Uzdol and Kriz, in Prozor municipality."
4 Now, what I wanted to ask you about: This is -- that was the
5 typical sort of information to record in a weekly report such as the one
6 we have before us; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. That is part of the operative report when all the
8 administrations submit reports according to combat readiness elements,
9 it's a kind of overview of what the service was doing in the period
10 covered. Then there are different functions that the service is in charge
11 with. Then we have "Zahid" signed at the end of this document. He was
12 the person who was at the head of that section -- or
13 department. "Section" is used here. This was a processing of all the
14 activities that the service performed in a given period.
15 Q. Okay. Can I just ask you a question -- the passage I just
16 referred you to concerning Grabovica and Uzdol is followed by a sentence
17 which says: "Cooperation with the MUP has continued and so has the
18 exchange of information with the intelligence administration."
19 Now, what -- my question is: Does that sentence relate to the --
20 to what went immediately before it; namely, the work of the SVB in working
21 on the investigation of possible crimes in Grabovica and Uzdol, or is that
22 cooperation with the MUP about something different?
23 A. This is probably a general remark which may not necessarily rule
24 out what you said specifically. But I think that this is just a general
25 remark, that this task of cooperation is being implemented. I think this
1 is what is being alluded to.
2 Q. Finally, a formal question: Is that your signature at the end of
3 that document?
4 A. Yes. And I've already said who was the person who actually
5 drafted it, Zahid, which -- he's the one who actually processed the
7 Q. Yes. Thank you.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document for tender as well.
9 Now, I move now to -- this is a document which is Defence 65 ter
10 number D21, and its ERN number is DD00.0070, and it's to be MFI232.
11 Q. Very well. Now, do you now have in front of you a document
12 described as "Special report" and dated the 20th of September?
13 A. Yes, this is a special report. This is the cover page. I have
14 the beginning of the text here, but before that I saw the cover page.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. This is the format for these special reports that I mentioned
17 which we sent to our superiors.
18 Q. Yes. I understand. And just again, I have to ask the formal
19 question: Is that your signature at the end of that document?
20 A. Yes, that's my signature. And on the left side is Visca Hamza,
21 who is the author of this document Hamza Visca was the head of the
22 analytical section in the security administration.
23 Q. This document asserts a number of facts relevant to the -- to
24 what happened at the villages around Uzdol. Are you able to recall what
25 was the source of information that allowed these facts to be put into this
1 document? For example, did this information come from Enver Buza and the
2 Independent Prozor Battalion, or from their professional body, or did it
3 come from the 6th Corps, or did it come from some other source? What are
4 you able to tell us about that?
5 A. I cannot remember the sources or on the basis of which it was
6 written. Definitely it -- something like this is never written just off
7 the top of one's head. There must be documents on -- based on which these
8 reports were created. They were created on the basis of information that
9 we processed.
10 Q. Whilst you can't remember the precise documents there that --
11 that were relied on in this case, through other witnesses in the case
12 we've seen certain documents that circulated within the 6th Corps, and I
13 wanted to ask you: Would it be the normal practice for a combat report,
14 for example in this case, from the Independent Prozor Battalion, to be
15 assessed personally by you back in Sarajevo, or would that task be
16 performed in the normal course of events by the 6th Corps themselves and
17 they would send you a summary of that? And I indicate I have such a
18 report from the Independent Prozor Battalion that I'll show you unless you
19 tell me that that -- it would never have arrived with you.
20 A. The command and control principle in the military was to go
21 from down to higher levels. You would go from the battalion, then the
22 brigade, and the corps. You wouldn't bypass the brigade unless it was an
23 independent battalion. This is a principle, and I stand by that.
24 However, if any of the operatives from the service from any level
25 arrived - and this is the institute - arrived at some sort of information
1 by operative means, he could form an official report about that purely to
2 save time, and that document could be treated as a primary document. It
3 would be evaluated -- the source would be evaluated. And then it could be
4 taken into account. But in principle it went from one service to the next
5 upwards along the vertical line from one commander to another, and it
6 would not reach -- and then it would reach the operative centres which
7 analysed this information and then decided on activities that needed to be
8 implemented and so on.
9 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, I understand that. Thank you.
10 At all events, you having made proper and thorough inquiries so
11 far as you were able to do in the circumstances, came to the view that --
12 to the views expressed in this document; is that correct?
13 A. In principle, yes. These are the views formed based on certain
14 documents. Again, I must say that -- I've already said something like
15 this yesterday. This kind of document is usually the result of
16 information acquired in the field, and this would be forwarded in order to
17 inform the people who were our superiors. We did not usually check this
18 information ourselves.
19 Q. I understand that, and I -- I mean no criticism by this, but
20 would you look at the last paragraph there, because in this paragraph it
21 appears that you went a step further than simply relaying information.
22 And again, this is no criticism at all, but I just want to clarify what
23 the position is.
24 In that last paragraph, was it the case that you, having made
25 certain inquiries, were prepared to draw the conclusions that are
1 expressed in that final paragraph; namely, that based on the above
2 information, you -- it was obvious that no massacre had taken place at all
3 but, on the contrary, the HVO leaders were circulating a false story?
4 A. I think that this is a sort of reaction that's kind of
5 freewheeling and it was probably provoked by the media. When we're
6 talking about the media, probably he was prompted to draw such a
7 conclusion, such a liberal conclusion.
8 Q. Yes. And the fact is, I suppose, that at that time it was just
9 impossible to send investigators onto the terrain at Uzdol because Uzdol
10 had actually been recaptured by the HVO the very same day of the battle;
11 is that correct?
12 A. Yes. And even if that were possible, it would not have come from
13 the administration but would have taken the usual order --
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. -- for such things.
16 Q. Yes, I understand that. Thank you.
17 MR. MORRISSEY: And I now ask that the witness be shown another
18 document. This document is DD00.2660, and it's to be MFI233.
19 Q. This document is -- that's about to be shown to you -- no, you
20 don't have it yet.
21 The document I'm seeking to show you is a document that bears the
22 date 21st of September, 1993 and a signature that may be your signature.
23 Would you mind just looking at that document and seeing -- first of all,
24 is that your signature on the bottom?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Once again, I should ask you: Is this a document you've seen in
2 recent times, or is it one that is from the old days?
3 A. I remember it, and I also saw it recently.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. I think that I saw it recently, but I also remember it.
6 Q. Okay. Now, this document here is a response to the earlier
7 letter that was sent by Namik Dzankovic dated 13th of September but which
8 only arrived at your centre after a delay of about a week; is that
10 A. Yes, it arrived on the 20th.
11 Q. And am I right in -- in suggesting that this is a response to
12 that letter?
13 A. I apologise. It was a lapse. It didn't arrive on the 20th. The
14 response to this letter arrived much later, sometime in the first half of
16 Q. Oh, I apologise. No, my question was misleading there. It
17 wasn't your answer; it was my question.
18 What I was -- what I was asking you was: Did Dzankovic's
19 original letter arrive at your -- at your centre on the 20th of September
20 and did you then respond with this letter?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Yes, that's it.
24 Q. And later on I'm going to show you a letter from Dzankovic which
25 may be an answer to what you've put here, but for now we'll just deal with
1 this one.
2 Now, this letter here was -- in the tasks that you assign or what
3 you -- what you ask him to undertake I take it is an attempt by you to
4 give him some realistic jobs that he could do in the unusual circumstances
5 that he'd told you about. Is that the fact?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And, in fact, you -- you went so far as to specifically tell him
8 to be very careful and watch out for his own safety.
9 A. Yes. Because all the documents that we were receiving indicated
10 that the area was dangerous. We'd had indication that everything had been
11 placed under control there by a crime. A man was actually murdered, which
12 was supposed to lead us to conclude that anything was under control. And
13 then there was this document, which was a set of instructions,
14 professional instructions for Mr. Dzankovic to deal with it to the best of
15 his ability. In the title, you can see that these are operative tasks.
16 There was no possibility to -- to carry out an inspection. It was just
17 for him to do the best he could. Based on the document he sent us, as
18 well as the attachment by Mr. Salihamidzic. Together with my legal
19 assistant Mr. Goran Radovic [phoen], whose initials you can see in the
20 lower left-hand corner, I concluded that these instructions or tasks would
21 be the most adequate at the time for Mr. Dzankovic to use.
22 Q. Yes, I understand what you say. And just in relation to that,
23 you had information that a man had been murdered. And let me just clarify
24 what -- what you're referring to there. Were you referring there to the
25 claim made by Ramiz Delalic himself that he had imposed order upon the
1 situation in Grabovica by the means of executing a soldier? Is that the
2 incident to which you refer?
3 A. I think that's the incident to which I refer, but not to Ramiz
4 Delalic's report. I think it was in a different report that I saw that.
5 Was it Dzankovic's report or an official note by someone? I believe it
6 was in another document that I saw that. I'm not sure if -- if the timing
7 is the same, but it is true that in each and every document that we
8 received from our people on the ground there were warnings about danger,
9 danger in the area, and they said that only Zuka could go there. You
10 could assume that there would be danger, life-threatening danger, in fact,
11 to Mr. Dzankovic's life as well.
12 Q. I should confirm both for your sake and for the record that
13 you're correct; there's -- I'm not suggesting to you that there was
14 actually some sort of written report from Ramiz Delalic in which he
15 admitted this but, rather, that indeed in the -- the
16 Dzankovic/Salihamidzic material there is such a reference.
17 MR. MORRISSEY: I offer that document for tender.
18 Q. And yes, I should, I think, ask you one other question about
19 this. You mentioned at point 5 of that document the -- that:
20 "Mr. Dzankovic should undertake to establish the necessary cooperation
21 with Jablanica SJB for realisation of these tasks."
22 Is the SJB -- would you just explain to the Court what is the
24 A. The public security station, the one in Jablanica.
25 Q. Yes, the police station.
1 A. Yes. It's under the Ministry of the Interior. It's one of their
2 own units, and it was a unit at the municipal level.
3 Q. Yes. Very well. Thank you.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: I now ask that the witness be shown another
5 document. This is -- now, this is a document that's not in the computer
6 and copy -- copies will have to be provided.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. And could this document -- this is D --
9 Defence number -- 65 ter number D404, and we ask that it be MFI234.
10 Q. Now, what we have here is a document purporting to be a
11 transcript. It's a Prosecution document with an ERN -- or once a
12 Prosecution document with an ERN number, 1 -- 01472382 upon it. And what
13 I'd ask you to do is just -- just read over it, first of all. Because
14 it's only a transcript and we are in no position to assert to you its
15 genuineness or not, what I want to do is give you the opportunity to read
16 it yourself, see whether -- whether you recall that conversation, and
17 whether you're prepared to say that -- whether this is an accurate
18 transcript or not, because it purports to come from you but I want to be
19 clear whether it really comes from you or whether it's from somewhere
21 When I say "comes from you," I should rephrase that. It purports
22 to feature you was a participant in the conversation, but it's for you to
23 tell us whether that's correct or not.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, are there dates for this conversation?.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: No, Your Honour, there aren't dates. And if it's
1 a question of inference. When this document -- if it's accurate, first of
2 all, and in fairness to the witness, he should tell us really whether it
3 is or not.
4 If it is accurate, it may be possible to infer the dates from the
5 subject matter in it. So that's the process. But I think in fairness to
6 the witness he has to be given to chance to go through it.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: As he has.
9 [Defence counsel confer]
10 MR. MORRISSEY:
11 Q. As you read, Mr. Jasarevic, I just want to make the -- the
12 comment to you that there's a note on it saying "made late in September,"
13 but that note saying "late in September" is a later addition by some other
14 person, and you don't need to be bound by that in any way. That's just --
15 that might having nothing to do with the case whatsoever. What I ask is
16 that you finish reading that and then you can give a response to what's
17 contained in it on a number of levels.
18 Very well. Mr. Jasarevic, I'm not suggesting to you for a moment
19 that this is your document or that you produced the document, but what do
20 you say about that conversation? Do you recall such a conversation
21 between yourself and Sefer Halilovic one morning such as that has been --
22 well, in the terms that are before you in that document?
23 A. Your Honours, I really can't recall this. I can't see a date or
24 a signature, for that matter. This is purportedly a transcript. Someone
25 probably taped this secretly. I'm not sure who wrote this. It is
1 possible that this conversation actually took place.
2 If I look at the substance of the conversation, especially the
3 last part, talking about the conversation with Dzankovic and his mother,
4 this jogged my memory in relation to certain details that I had already
5 forgotten about his mother's health. I -- I thought it was about her
6 legs, and I can see now the problem was her eyes.
7 But in order to vouch for the authenticity of this document, this
8 is something that I simply cannot do based on -- on this document.
9 Q. Well, I understand that. And -- and since you say that you can't
10 vouch for the authenticity of the document, then I won't ask you to say
11 anything about it at all.
12 But as to contact with Sefer Halilovic, could I ask you the
13 general question about what actually occurred around that time. Was it --
14 to your knowledge, did Sefer Halilovic return to Sarajevo approximately --
15 in or about the 20th of September and stay in Sarajevo for a couple of
16 days after his trip to Herzegovina before he returned back down to
17 Herzegovina again? Does that accord with your memory?
18 A. No. I don't remember.
19 Q. Do you recall one way or other whether he came back from
20 Herzegovina at that time, or is that just too long ago to say?
21 A. I really can't recall. I'd be glad to be able to recall, but it
22 was just such a long time ago. I may have seen him; I may not have seen
23 him. We may have been in touch; we may not have been in touch. I just
24 can't say.
25 Q. In any event, you would not dispute this, would you: That --
1 that Halilovic did call you and inquire of you as to whether you'd heard
2 from Mr. Dzankovic?
3 A. It's possible. I can't confirm or deny that. Realistically
4 speaking, it's a possibility.
5 Q. Yes. And, in fact, given the realities of the situation, what I
6 suggest to you is that it's a highly likely thing to have happened, that
7 Halilovic would have called you and made an inquiry in terms such as this
8 that -- as to how Dzankovic was getting on with his inquiries. Is that a
9 realistic proposition to put to you?
10 A. I stand by what I said in answer to your last question. What I
11 see here is something else. The origin of this document, who taped this?
12 Where did it come from? That's what I find very interesting as -- as a
13 member of the security administration. In fact, more interesting than the
14 conversation itself, because the conversation may as well have taken
16 Q. Yes. And just -- just on that topic, which may -- may prove to
17 be a very important one. It certainly wasn't tape recorded by your
18 service, to your knowledge, anyway, was it?
19 A. I don't recognise that it was. At that time, we didn't do that,
20 as far as I remember. We didn't use that particular method.
21 Q. But was it within your knowledge that operative measure,
22 including tape recording of telephone conversations, was being applied by
23 the State Security Services -- not by you but by the State Security
24 Services to Mr. Halilovic.
25 I suppose I should put that question in two parts: Were you
1 aware of it at the time of these events? That's the first question. And
2 secondly, if not, did you become aware that that was taking place at any
3 subsequent time?
4 A. Your Honours, I took up my present position on or about the 17th
5 of July. Prior to that date, I had not been aware of any operative
6 measures being applied in relation to Mr. Sefer Halilovic while carrying
7 out preparations for Trebevic I and Trebevic II operations. There was an
8 enormous amount of information from the State Security Service, from the
9 1st Corps, some information from the 4th Corps.
10 On several occasions - and I think we referred to this
11 yesterday - there were overlaps. There was information overlap which
12 obviously came about as a result of phone line tapping. I did ask what
13 was going on, but I didn't know Mr. Halilovic was a high-ranking officer.
14 I can't tie this down to a specific time or place, but if memory serves,
15 an answer came from the State Security Service that they were indeed
16 applying this measure as some form of operative control, that the Secret
17 Services were doing this, their counter-intelligence. They had measures
18 that were prescribed, and this was one of them.
19 Again, operative control was something that was applied according
20 to a set of rules, and the purpose was to monitor everything that was
21 suspicious or that required checking and to verify whether these potential
22 threats were still real or ongoing. Once something ceased to be of
23 interest, the operative measures would be dropped. These operative
24 measures were by no means to be misused in order to prejudice or hurt in
25 any way the person that the measure was being applied on. If indeed it
1 turned out that some indications persisted, then the measures would
2 continue to be applied until such time as these indications ceased and
3 until such time as there was no longer any need to apply these measures
4 that I refer to as "operative control."
5 Why did the State Security Service do this? I was asking myself
6 the same question. For the most part, the answer was - and I can't be
7 more specific about it - that this had already been introduced at an
8 earlier stage based on information obtained by the State Security Service,
9 information indicating that Mr. Sefer Halilovic had been a secret
10 associate of the former JNA security service, and that the measure had
11 been adopted following approval by the state president and following
12 approval by the Minister of the Interior. This was a wartime situation,
13 so they came up with a legal justification, saying that that service, too,
14 was also under the jurisdiction of the army and that this was their
15 platform for taking this measure.
16 Q. Yes. You --
17 A. With no ill intent towards Mr. Halilovic. That's what they said.
18 I'm not sure if I've been successful in explaining this to you.
19 Q. No, you have been. And I just wanted to clarify one short point
20 about that. As to the basis on which the State Security took that action,
21 you only know what you were told by them; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. I personally had no other information regarding that.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, in -- in light of the witness's comments of
25 not having seen in document in any form, I'm not going to seek to tender
1 that one, so that that can be returned.
2 I'd ask that the witness please be given the opportunity now to
3 look at another document.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. MORRISSEY: This document is Defence 65 ter number --
6 Your Honour, I'm happy for that to remain -- for the Prosecutors
7 to retain a copy, even though I haven't sought to tender it. I don't seek
8 to leave one with the Court in order to --
9 [Defence counsel confer]
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I gave it an MFI number. I don't
11 think it's proper to leave it with the Court when I'm not seeking to
12 tender it. I don't know how to resolve that problem though, and I just
13 indicate I don't seek to leave it there to leave an impression of any
14 sort, if it's ...
15 Anyway, the next document is -- I'm sorry.
16 THE REGISTRAR: You've withdrawn the document, so you have
17 withdrawn the MFI and we can use the next MFI, 234.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Very well. Well, I will seek the use that MFI
19 now in relation to another document, which is DD00.0130.
20 Q. This document -- do you have that document in front of you that
21 appears to be dated 24th of September, 1993 and to originate from Nermin
23 A. I have the document before me. It's not very clear. But I think
24 the date up in the heading is the 14th of September and not the 24th.
25 Q. Okay. Well, I'm sorry, it's -- I've got the English version.
1 Just excuse me a moment.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, the -- the date in question is at
4 the top left of the first page, and I wonder if that could be enlarged so
5 that the witness could view an enlarged version of it. And meanwhile,
6 Your Honour, a paper copy will be procured.
7 It's the -- the top left of the page is what's needed, I'm sorry
8 to say.
9 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I'm going to try to get an expanded version of
10 that so that you can view the -- the date.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: But, Your Honours, what's on the screen in front
12 of me right now -- oh, yes, it does -- sorry, pardon me. It does have
13 what's needed.
14 Q. Are you able to see now -- in the -- in the section at the top
15 left of the page, the date which at least is at sometime in the -- in
16 September 1993. And when you look closely at that -- at the digits there,
17 what's your view? Do you say that looks like a "14th of the 9th"
18 or "the 24th of the 9th"?
19 A. At the top left, it looks very much like "24," this figure here.
20 But I think if we look at the incoming stamp, the number will be much
21 easier to discern.
22 If you look there, you will see that it was after all the 14th,
23 because the incoming stamp says "15." There is no way it could have been
24 received on the 15th if it had been sent on the 24th.
25 Q. Yes. Well, I said at the start that you were fully entitled to
1 correct us as to dates, and I'm very grateful that you have. By looking
2 at that -- at that document, are you able to make the comment that this --
3 you can comment that this document is -- was whatever date may appear,
4 whether it's 24th or 14th, the fact is it was received by -- by your
5 organisation on the 15th of September, which probably concludes the issue.
6 Very well. Well, in relation to that document there, we are --
7 I'm sorry to say, we're jumping a little bit out of time now. And when I
8 prepare -- I'm going to prepare list of these documents later for ease of
9 handling. But this document probably occurred a little bit earlier.
10 Again, this is a -- a document quite early in the -- in the
11 investigation, and it appears from that point of view to repeat the
12 comment about Vehbija Karic. Do you recall receiving this document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I won't go -- I won't go back through the
15 document, but do you remember earlier on there was a document that we
16 looked at which referred to another letter dated on the 14th of September?
17 Do you remember that occurring?
18 A. I can't really put the two together, but I can comment on this:
19 This is in response to my first document, with that initiative I spoke
20 about. I sent it out on the 12th based on verified information, and so on
21 and so forth, and then those two tasks. It's about those two tasks that
22 he should check whether it was true or not, and if true, that he should
23 speak to the commander to recommend for the military police to get
24 involved so that arrests can be made. This is his reply to that document.
25 And I can see the reference at the top of the page, "your document dated
1 the 12th of September." All these things that were underlined and the
2 question marks, these are the marks that I made.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. I recognise my own marks. And what you can see here, these
5 proposals and assignments written by hand, I wrote all of these.
6 Q. I understand. And just to finally conclude this matter, you have
7 made it possible in this document to trace back the letter to which it's
8 responding because at the top you've referred -- at the top of the text,
9 after the addresses, you've referred to a document "03/5-108" of 12
10 September 1993, and so if we have the number with that -- the document
11 with that number on it, then we know we have the correct document; is that
13 A. Yes. The document that I sent on the 12th to the 6th Corps.
14 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, may I just interject for a moment?
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
16 MS. CHANA: This is the very same document that we showed it as
17 Prosecution MFI214. It's the same document that I -- in my
18 examination-in-chief. I thought I'd indicate that so that -- it's the
19 same document, Your Honour. And the date on ours is the 14th in the
20 Bosnian version, and it's been translated somewhere as the 16th of
21 September in the English, but I think we should obviously take the B/C/S.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, yes, I'm grateful for that
24 indication, and -- yeah, I think -- just for continuity I may -- I may
25 stick to the number that we are using, if that's okay. But I think it
1 should be noted by my friend, as she's mentioned, that it's the same
2 document or a copy of it. We're not quite sure about that, but it's
3 likely to be the same document.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, before we finish, could I just --
6 just raise one matter? MFI224 is a document that was tendered earlier on.
7 That number -- without going back through the computer and bringing it all
8 up again over five minutes, can I indicate that that document, MFI224 is
9 indeed the order of the 12th and it indeed has the numbers referred to,
11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, can I just indicate now that I'm
13 moving through a number of documents. I -- my estimate was wrong. I
14 apologise for that. And I'm very grateful to the court staff for handling
15 this volume of documents. I'm putting the e-court under some pressure but
16 it has stood up well. I expect to be no more than an hour with this
17 witness tomorrow, and really what remains is document work of the nature
18 that has occurred today.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Well, we will request both
20 parties to submit a list containing the documents which they are going to
21 tender through this witness by tomorrow, because since we have so many
22 documents, it's very difficult to identify which document is used and
23 which document is going to tender through this witness.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated].
25 JUDGE LIU: And I hope one party should furnish that list to the
1 other party, as well as to the Bench and the court deputy.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated].
3 JUDGE LIU: If there's any problem with the numbers, please check
4 it with our court deputy.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated].
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Morrissey, please.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry. I'm just asked to clarify the timing of
8 tomorrow, that you would like that done, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, before -- before the afternoon sitting.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Very well. Well, that -- that will mean
11 our list is incomplete because I haven't -- I won't have finished
12 cross-examination. But it's very predictable what I'm going to put
13 tomorrow, and assuming that -- I think most of it ought to be
14 uncontroversial. So yes, of course, we will comply with that. And also
15 we will speak to the Prosecutors. It may be we can do it in a form, Your
16 Honour, which will allows Your Honour to deal with any controversy over
17 admission as well at the end of this witness's evidence.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
19 So, witness, you have to come back tomorrow, and I believe that
20 you still remember my warnings to you, and we'll see you tomorrow
22 The hearing for today is adjourned.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 4th day of
25 March, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.