1 Monday, 27 January 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
6 The Chamber will issue two rulings before we hear evidence from
7 the witness.
8 First, on the 22nd January, 2014, the accused filed a request for
9 presence of counsel and questions to be posed to General Ratko Mladic,
10 wherein the accused requests that Ratko Mladic's counsel be present
11 during his testimony in these proceedings.
12 On the 23rd of January, the Prosecution communicated via e-mail
13 that it did not wish to respond to this request.
14 The request is hereby granted.
15 Next, the Chamber is seized of the Prosecution's submission on
16 form of Karadzic's testimony filed on the 8th of January, 2014, which I
17 will refer to in this oral ruling as "submission," in which the
18 Prosecution requests the Chamber to disallow the accused to testify in a
19 narrative form. By way of background, the Chamber recalls that on the
20 16th of December, 2013, the accused's legal advisor stated that the
21 accused had originally planned on 32 hours of examination-in-chief and
22 intended to request the Chamber to allow the accused's legal advisor to
23 question the accused but subsequently decided that the accused should
24 testify in narrative form so as to cut the estimated time in half and to
25 save the time allocated to his Defence case. In the submission of order
1 of witnesses for February and March 2014, which was filed on the
2 18th of December, 2013, the accused confirmed his intention to testify in
3 narrative form.
4 In its submission, the Prosecution argues that the accused's
5 intention to testify in this specific form ignores the fact that such a
6 decision falls within the Chamber's discretion pursuant to Rule 90 (F) of
7 the Rules. The Prosecution also asserts that the accused's reliance on a
8 single US case from 2011 is misconstrued. Furthermore, the Prosecution
9 submits that it is speculative and unrealistic to claim that testifying
10 by way of narrative could half the time otherwise estimated for the
11 accused's examination-in-chief. It argues that contrary to the accused's
12 assertion, testimony in question-and-answer form would in fact
13 "facilitate the Prosecution to raise objections, assist the Chamber in
14 exercising control over proceedings, and provide for clearer, more
15 structured and more focussed testimony."
16 The accused did not respond to the Prosecution's submission.
17 The Chamber recalls its order on the procedure for the conduct of
18 trial issued on the 8th of October, 2009, where it underscored its
19 responsibility "to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair and
20 expeditious manner" in accordance with the Statute and the Rules with
21 full respect for the rights of the accused. The Chamber also notes that
22 Rule 90 (F) provides it with discretion to exercise control over the mode
23 of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to, 1, make the
24 interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the
25 truth, and, number 2, avoid needless consumption of time.
1 Furthermore, Rule 85 (B) sets out the procedure for
2 examination-in-chief, requiring that "the party calling a witness to
3 examine such witness in-chief ..."
4 The Chamber notes that the accused's sole rationale for
5 testifying in narrative form is saving the time allocated to his Defence
6 case, referring to one domestic case. In the Chamber's view, this case
7 has no direct bearing on the practice of this Tribunal. In any event,
8 the accused has failed to articulate why this case should be considered
9 in this specific instance.
10 The question-and-answer format, which is the standard procedure
11 for the examination of witnesses before the Tribunal, has been applied in
12 this case throughout. The Chamber considers that this form generally
13 produces structured and focussed testimony, facilitates the ability of
14 the cross-examining, to raise timely objections where appropriate, and
15 assists the Chamber in exercising control over the proceedings, therefore
16 making the presentation of evidence effective for the ascertainment of
17 the truth and avoiding unnecessary consumption of court time. In this
18 light, the accused has failed to substantiate his contention that
19 narrative testimony would be more effective and time-saving than the
20 stand question-and-answer form. The Chamber can see no reason for
21 departing from the well-established practice when it comes to the
22 accused's testimony.
23 Accordingly, the Chamber grants the Prosecution's request and
24 instructs, number 1, the accused to testify in question-and answer form,
25 and, number 2, his legal advisor to put questions to him during his own
2 We'll bring in the next witness.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, while we're bringing in the next
4 witness, with respect to the associated exhibits there were some that
5 were not translated and, therefore, we'll be leading those live, and
6 that's 1D9623, 9624, and 9625.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE KWON: How about 1D9622.
9 MR. ROBINSON: There's a translation in e-court at least that we
10 could see but I'm not -- if there has been some error in not releasing
11 it, I'm not aware of that, but ... if you didn't receive a translation of
12 that, then we'll also lead that live.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, if the Defence could lead live in order also to
14 decide the relevance and other things.
15 Yes, could the witness make the solemn declaration.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, presidents of
17 Republika Srpska, put in popular language --
18 JUDGE KWON: I asked you to make the solemn declaration, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 Honourable President of the Chamber, in our region it is the
21 custom of first greeting the participants, the Defence, the Prosecution,
22 and you, but of course I'm here to do what you say.
23 I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
24 and nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: JEVTO JANKOVIC
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jankovic. Good morning to you.
3 Please be seated and make yourself comfortable.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Excellencies. Good
7 morning to everyone.
8 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jankovic.
10 A. Thank you. Good morning. It was my intention to greet the
11 president of the republic in legalese. I would like to greet the
12 president who is charged with the most serious criminal offences. Good
13 morning to the Prosecution. Good morning to the Chamber. My name is
14 Jevto Jankovic.
15 Should I continue?
16 Q. We do have your particulars. Thank you.
17 Did you give a statement to the Defence team?
18 A. Yes, I did, to your Defence team. Let me say this right at the
19 start for the sake of everyone, formally and legally speaking, I am the
20 witness for the Defence, but in reality, I will be the witness for the
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we call up 1D49060, in e-court.
23 1D, yes, 49060.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I see on the left-hand side is
25 in English, and I don't have anything on the right side.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Same here.
2 JUDGE KWON: I wasn't told it hasn't been released, Mr. Karadzic.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, I think because this statement
4 was taken over the weekend and the Registry employees who are the ones
5 who have to release this maybe haven't gotten to it yet. But perhaps we
6 can show him a hard copy.
7 Mr. File, any objections?
8 MR. FILE: No objection, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Who has the hard copy?
10 MR. ROBINSON: It looks like he has one in front of him.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, it would be far
12 easier for me if I had the right to upload documents, just as the
13 Prosecution can. That would save us a great deal of time.
14 JUDGE KWON: We dealt with this problem, this issue of --
15 Shall we continue.
16 Mr. Jankovic, do you have your signed witness statement in front
17 of you?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do. I can show it to you.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Thank you. Did you read the statement and sign it?
21 A. Yes, I read it and signed it.
22 Q. Does this statement accurately reflect what you stated for the
23 Defence team?
24 A. Yes. There are some legal facts that I am more familiar with,
25 but we can discuss these later.
1 Q. But, in general, everything is accurately reflected?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If I were to ask you the same questions today, would your answers
4 essentially be the same as those recorded in your statement?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, I tender this under
8 Rule 92 ter, as well as the associated exhibits and their translations
9 save for the two that we will be leading live.
10 JUDGE KWON: I'd like to confirm one by one with respect to the
11 associated exhibits, in particular, regarding their admissibility.
12 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, and at first, I
14 need to request permission to add these to our Rule 65 ter exhibit list
15 because none of them made it to that list because this witness was
16 interviewed after the list was submitted, and I apologise for that not
17 being reflected in the comments section.
18 With respect to the first document, you have already indicated we
19 should lead it live. That's 1D --
20 JUDGE KWON: Could you tell us what it is that you are tendering
21 as associated exhibits.
22 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, we are tendering four document,
23 Mr. President. 1D55188, and that's --
24 JUDGE KWON: Do we have English translation?
25 MR. ROBINSON: That was sent to the Chamber Friday afternoon.
1 JUDGE KWON: Could you lead that live as well.
2 MR. ROBINSON: We will.
3 And then there's three documents with 65 ter numbers 16230,
4 16226, and 16229.
5 JUDGE KWON: The last two documents, Mr. Robinson, they seem to
6 be the statement of a third party.
7 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
8 JUDGE KWON: I take it that it hasn't been our practice to admit
9 those statements as part of associated exhibits.
10 MR. ROBINSON: In principle that's correct, Mr. President. I
11 think in this instances the statements are being offered to show simply
12 that they were taken as opposed to their further content, so to show what
13 the work was that was done on the Koricanske Stijene investigation.
14 JUDGE KWON: Not for the content of the statement.
15 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
16 JUDGE KWON: But for the fact that they were produced at the
18 MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
19 JUDGE KWON: Can I hear from you, Mr. File.
20 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour. If that's what those documents are
21 being offered for, then we have no objection.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit the statement as well as those three
24 associated exhibits.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the 92 ter statement 1D49060 will
1 be Exhibit D4235.
2 And the three documents referred to by Mr. Robinson will be
3 Exhibits D4236 through to Exhibit D4238.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will be now reading
7 out the summary of Mr. Jevto Jankovic's statement in English.
8 [In English] Jevto Jankovic was born on 9th of March, 1953, in
9 the victim of Bistrica, Banja Luka municipality. Between 1977 and 2001,
10 he was the investigating judge of the Banja Luka Lower Court, whereby
11 together with his colleagues he was performing his duties on the basis of
12 their own moral and professional qualities up to the beginning of the
13 civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the war and after it - never
14 on the basis of party membership. In addition, after the
15 League of Communists, Jevto Jankovic was not a member of any political
17 In the first multi-party elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
18 three leading parties emerged on the political scene: The SDA, as the
19 party of the Muslims; the HDZ, the Croatian party; and the SDS, Serbian
20 Democratic Party, as a party representing the political will of the
21 Serbs. There were political confrontations between the SDA and HDZ on
22 one hand, endeavouring in every manner possible for Bosnia to secede from
23 Yugoslavia, and the SDS and other smaller pro-Yugoslav parties whose
24 political activities were aimed at preserving the existing state of the
25 SFRY and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a member of the federal state.
1 By the beginning of 1991, members of the
2 Party of Democratic Action and the BH Croatian Democratic Union joined
3 paramilitary and terrorist organisations under the leadership of the
4 chauvinist HDZ leadership in Croatia where the civil war was already
5 underway and the same were involved in armed combat against regular
6 Yugoslav People's Army, JNA.
7 Jevto Jankovic conducted investigations on a monthly basis in
8 about 50 cases where members of the security services found Muslims and
9 Croats in possession of concealed military weapons and various explosive
10 devices, in the respect that individuals, groups and even formations were
11 armed in an organised manner and sent by leading members of the HDZ and
12 SDA in the BH.
13 On 30th July, 1992, following a report from the duty officer of
14 the Banja Luka CJB, Jevto Jankovic led an on-site investigation at
15 Manjaca where two detainees had died. Jevto Jankovic submitted a report
16 to the relevant prosecutor, and to the extent he had been informed, the
17 military policemen were tried before the relevant courts for this crime.
18 Until the 22nd of August, 1992, the police duty service called
19 me -- him and said that one of the -- or two bodies had been found in the
20 general area of Knezevo and that an on-site investigation was needed. He
21 personally saw the dispatches between the then-president of the republic,
22 Radovan Karadzic, and the Minister of Interior, Mico Stanisic, which
23 clearly stated that the perpetrators of the massacre at Koricanske
24 Stijene should be found and tried before the relevant courts.
25 As far as the crime at Koricanske Stijene is concerned,
1 Jevto Jankovic states that it was committed by criminals selected and
2 mobilised for this purpose, and that the people issuing the orders were
3 from foreign intelligence services. Their aim was to portray the Serbs
4 and legal organs of government as criminals.
5 In July 1991 [sic], Jevto Jankovic gave a statement to The Hague
6 investigators regarding the events at Koricanske Stijene, to an
7 investigator from Pakistan. As the truth was not favourable to some
8 foreigners in BH or to individuals in the Serbian criminal world,
9 Jevto Jankovic was put under pressure and offered money to go to
10 The Hague to testify for the Prosecution in the manner they wanted it.
11 And that is the short summary. Now I would like to call the
12 document, but prior to that, I would ask questions.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Jankovic, what was the extent of knowledge on the part of the
15 judiciary and the public in general about the illegal terrorist arming of
16 the Muslims primarily in the municipality of Banja Luka?
17 A. It is difficult to give an answer that would apply to the
18 municipality of Banja Luka alone. All the war-related events in the SFRY
19 were interconnected. It was common knowledge that if the civil and
20 religious war should spill over to Bosnia and Herzegovina and all the
21 indications were that it would fair the -- the -- or that the same
22 destiny would befall it as befell Yugoslavia, well, that was common
23 knowledge. I knew it as a judge. And we all tried, as far as we were
24 able to, to introduce some sort of order, first, of course, in Bosnia
25 and Herzegovina but then also in Republika Srpska.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D9692 in e-court.
2 9622. It's 9622.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Jankovic, what this document represents.
5 A. This is a record. It's some citizen, Armin Osmancevic, son of
6 Mustafa. On the 24th of August of this year, my father, Mustafa, came
7 home from town and told me and my mother that he had decided to go to war
8 on the following day.
9 Q. It's the second half of September 1992; right?
10 A. Yes. This is rather late. The war started much earlier in our
11 area in 1991.
12 Q. Thank you. And --
13 A. And, sir, since nobody wants to say this, the address is Croatia,
14 Sijekovac is a classical attack in that sense. This place Sijekovac, if
15 that's what Bosnia-Herzegovina was like --
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the end of the
17 witness's sentence.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. What is the information received in this way from
21 A. You mean this record?
22 Q. Yes, yes.
23 A. Well, he, himself, says I mean, as far as I can see -- I mean,
24 that he is surprised, scared, and so on and so forth. And that he
25 decided to go in his steps, and he said that to his mother, and --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could we please have a
2 reference. The witness is reading very fast from a certain portion of
3 the statement. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: No, you're speaking too fast, Mr. Jankovic.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I admit that. This is our
6 mentality, isn't it. Please don't hold it against us.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can it be --
8 JUDGE KWON: We didn't hear his evidence.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can you tell us without reading what this is, this document --
11 or, rather, what is indicated by this document? What happened?
12 A. This document indicated that Muslims and Croats, I mean from the
13 area of Banja Luka, left en masse either to Croatia or abroad because of
14 the war.
15 Q. Who mobilised them in Banja Luka itself? And what kind of
16 trouble made them go to war?
17 A. Party affiliation. That is to say, the HDZ Croats and the SDA
18 Muslims, and we stayed.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted.
21 JUDGE KWON: This is not a statement that this witness had taken
22 at the time.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. This is an Official Note, a
24 record. It has to do with an interview with this man who returned from
25 the front line and who reported.
1 JUDGE KWON: And the basis on which we can admit this document
2 through this witnesses? If Mr. Robinson could assist us.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I think Dr. Karadzic needs to
4 ask this witness how this fits in with the statement he made earlier
5 concerning the information they had about the Muslims preparing for war.
6 And if he does that, then it can be admitted on that basis, if it's
8 JUDGE KWON: Does that apply to this third party statement at the
10 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, that's how you have been admitting third
11 party statements for both parties.
12 Mr. File.
13 MR. FILE: Your Honour, if it is established that this is a
14 document that he saw at the time and formed the basis for actions that he
15 took, then we would not object to its admission for that purpose, that
16 limited purpose only.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will take a look into our practice again
19 and we'll come back to this issue.
20 Shall we continue?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Just the last question. I asked you how much people knew about
24 organisation and how does this statement fit into your experience
25 regarding mobilisation and citizens -- citizens going to the front line
1 from Banja Luka, those who were not forced to do so by us?
2 A. This was compiled by the centre of security services. However, I
3 am familiar with this because I worked in that field. I know that
4 persons of Muslim ethnicity were involved at the front line in Croatia.
5 So were Croats. So I know that. I knew that about many persons who went
6 to fight there. We also took many of them prisoner.
7 Q. Thank you. And -- and this father and son, they weren't to
8 Kotor Varos to fight?
9 A. Yes. Lecici, this famous place was there, infamous. They set
10 people on fire in the street. How could I forget that?
11 Q. Thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this be admitted.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll give our ruling later on, after
14 considering some issues related -- and, in particular, our practice.
15 Please continue.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Jankovic, as an investigating judge, did you have insight
19 into the efforts made by our police investigations services, and so on,
20 to prosecute Serbs, especially those who committed crimes against Muslims
21 and Croats?
22 A. My answer would be yes. And that is, indeed, what was done.
23 Actually, many crimes were committed by both Serbs and Muslims and
24 Croats, at least in the area that was relatively peaceful.
25 We prosecuted all, irrespective of ethnic affiliations. Of
1 course, within the realm of the possible. Hardly anybody knows the
2 conditions under which we lived. Only we do. We didn't have
3 electricity. People were on the move. They wanted to leave for
4 different reasons, so all of those who committed crimes were being
5 prosecuted and who were known perpetrators as far as the police and the
6 prosecutor's office were concerned.
7 Q. You said a moment ago that it was relatively peaceful. How far
8 away was the front line?
9 A. Well, relatively peaceful. But there were many trouble spots
10 later on. I'm not really a military man, but I was friends with many
11 military men, and I knew what they told me directly. The question of all
12 questions was to transfer the war to Bosnia-Herzegovina and that is what
13 is Stipe Mesic managed to do in cahoots with foreign intelligence
14 services. And as the Bosnians would say, we knew that there would be
16 As far as the front line is concerned, I can tell you in general
17 terms there was fighting in the area of the so-called - no, it's not
18 so-called - the Serb Krajina. And that was about 50 or 60 kilometres
19 away from us. And then when the war spilled over to Bosnia-Herzegovina,
20 then many front lines were opened like Vecici, Sijekovac, Kupres, not to
21 enumerated all of them now. It depended on the period involved. I would
22 need a lot of time. Some were about 30 kilometres away, others were
23 about 60 kilometres away, and yet others 40 to 50 kilometres away. From
24 us, I mean.
25 Q. Thank you. Are you familiar with the Aleksic case?
1 A. Yes, I have heard of it. You have to understand that I've dealt
2 with a great many cases. Yes, I heard of that case, and it was dealt
3 with in our court.
4 Q. [No interpretation]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the
7 JUDGE KWON: If you could repeat the number.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D9623.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
11 A. I cannot see anything. I haven't got a thing here.
12 Q. We'll wait a bit.
13 The police, law enforcement, the judiciary, did they
14 intentionally, without justification delay or hush up crimes against
15 non-Serbs committed by Serbs in Banja Luka?
16 A. I know that that never happened. They didn't hush anything up.
17 Even later on, when we get to Koricanske Stijene, this was not an
18 investigation. This was investigative action, and that's why you perhaps
19 don't understand this very well. Investigative action is action taken
20 that is bare necessity in order not to destroy evidence which cannot be
21 obtained at a later date. So it is a well-known fact that after the Serb
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina was established, that is to say Republika Srpska,
23 according to the constitution, according to the law, and according to all
24 our regulations, regardless of who the perpetrator was, that person was
25 prosecuted, of course, within the scope of our possibilities because it
1 is a well-known thing that war was raging. There is was no electricity.
2 There was no water. It was very difficult.
3 I've already said a moment ago I don't even want to remember
4 that. But whatever was possible was prosecuted. Many things could not
5 have been dealt with because, thank God, everybody knows that a civilian
6 could not disarm a soldier who had an automatic rifle or arrest a person
7 who had a tank. That is only logical that that could not have been done.
8 However, whatever could have been dealt with was dealt with, at least in
9 the area of the town where I lived and where I worked.
10 JUDGE KWON: Please put a pause between the answer and your
11 question, as well.
12 Mr. Jankovic, I'm not sure I understood you in full. Could you
13 tell us again the difference between the investigation and investigative
14 action. What's the difference?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's a major difference,
16 Mr. President.
17 Investigative action is urgent by its very nature. And,
18 according to the law that was then in force, if evidence is not obtained
19 immediately, or right after something happened, later on, it cannot be
21 Investigation, according to the laws that were in force then in
22 our country, could be carried out only against known perpetrators at the
23 proposal of the prosecutor's office or the prosecutor. So the prosecutor
24 would have to file charges against a known perpetrator and then an
25 investigation could start. Whereas, on-site investigation, autopsy, and
1 some other urgent action is this investigative action, something that
2 cannot be delayed.
3 So that is how our law dealt with that. And then it was the
4 investigating judge who carried out such investigative action. Now this
5 is done by a prosecutor. So investigative action is only what is urgent
6 and what has to be dealt with immediately. Evidence has to be collected
7 as soon as possible or straight away.
8 That is what I meant, and I hope that you understand me now.
9 JUDGE KWON: I'll leave it there.
10 Yes, shall we continue.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that is easy to
12 check. I'm not the only person who knows about that.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please have the third page
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Could you please help us with this. Is this a second-instance
20 A. Yes. This is a judgement of the district court in Banja Luka.
21 The number is 82/99, and --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness will have to
23 slow down.
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
25 If you reading something, please read slowly because we have to
1 hear it through interpreters.
2 Yes, could you repeat your answer.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the proposal of the president of
4 the Chamber, there is a judgement. The appeal is granted of the public
5 prosecutor from Banja Luka, of the basic court in Banja Luka, case 6/93
6 from the 23rd of February, 1993. It is being overturned so the accused,
7 Aleksic Sredo, on the basis of Article 151, paragraph 2, the
8 Criminal Code of Republika Srpska, is being sentenced to one year and a
9 half in prison and also he is being credited for the time he has already
10 spent in detention.
11 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear
13 Dr. Karadzic.
14 JUDGE KWON: Please slow down.
15 Could you repeat your question.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please take a look at
17 page 16. 3216 is the ERN number, the last digits of the ERN number of
18 this document.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Are you familiar with this document?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What is this document?
23 A. This is a record, 625/92. The date is the 8th of November, 1992.
24 Attempted murder on the 6th of November, 1992, around 2100 hours in
25 Knezevo, the neighbourhood of Mahala, the street of
1 Rahidan Madajlic [phoen] number 9. And murder was attempted. There was
2 attempted murder against Fata Musanovic. I carried out the investigation
3 and the on-site investigation was also attended by Vesna Rujovic [phoen],
4 who was the deputy public prosecutor from Banja Luka;
5 Milan Pajnovic [phoen], an inspector of the SJB of Banja Luka; and
6 Srdjan Oljaca, a crime technician from the SJB of Banja Luka..
7 Q. [No interpretation]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear
9 Dr. Karadzic because this was an on-site translation.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
11 The interpreters didn't catch up with you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to see the last page, 229.
13 The last digits are 3229.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. The question was, Mr. Jankovic: Do you know of a single case
16 where our judicial authorities discriminated against perpetrators based
17 on their ethnicity or the ethnicity of the victims?
18 A. I need to explain to the Trial Chamber.
19 It was the reality, at least in the area of my court, and I have
20 information that it was the same in the area of other courts of
21 Republika Srpska, we prosecuted any known perpetrator. We were not able,
22 of course, to prosecute unknown perpetrators, but we prosecuted
23 perpetrators whenever they were known and whenever we knew where they
24 were. Those were the basic principles.
25 We did not prosecute more people of other ethnicities in favour
1 of the Serbs. We prosecuted all criminals. That was the rule in
2 practice, and we had instructions to act that way. I'd like to see here
3 similar documents concerning Sarajevo or Zenica.
4 Q. What is this document?
5 A. I'm asking here to extend remand by two months. Can you imagine
6 this extension of remand for Sredo Aleksic in war time?
7 Q. Was a judge able to request extension of remapped and who else
8 was able to do that?
9 A. The prosecutor could. I asked for this in -- in a request, in an
10 application addressed to the Trial Chamber because I, as an investigating
11 judge, could extend remand up to maximum of one month. This is for two
12 months, so it was up to the trial chamber.
13 Can you imagine my reckless valour in asking for this person to
14 stay in remand for another two months?
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted.
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. File.
18 MR. FILE: No objection, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE KWON: We dealt with the cover page, third page, page 16,
20 and page 34.
21 Are we admitting only those four pages, Mr. Robinson?
22 MR. ROBINSON: That's been our practice, Mr. President, although
23 we would prefer to have the entire filed admitted.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll put those four pages marked for
1 identification. We'll include page 21 as well.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI D4239, Your Honours.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. You were an investigating judge for a long time. Can you tell
5 us, especially concerning the war-time-period, how did your
6 investigations proceed? How were they finalised? How did various
7 trial chambers make decisions based on your investigations?
8 A. It's difficult to talk about myself, but I won't have another
9 opportunity. I majored in criminology and I have been working in the
10 judiciary of Republika Srpska for 40 years, first of all, in the
11 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, later in Republika Srpska. After my
12 investigations, indictments were issued, confirmed, and convictions were
13 made without any problem.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 1D9624.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson and Mr. Tieger, I'm not sure we heard
17 from the witnesses or through written evidence as to the qualifications
18 or professional requirements for a person to be appointed a judge,
19 investigating judge.
20 Otherwise, I would like you to deal with this issue with the
21 witness briefly.
22 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I also don't recall that,
23 although we have had some evidence about military judges but not the
24 civilian ones.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 Please continue.
2 In particular, I note the passage from this witness's statement,
3 it's third paragraph:
4 "I performed my duties as investigating judge on the basis of my
5 moral and professional qualities."
6 I take it you followed.
7 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will deal with that
9 through the witness.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. But, first of all, do you remember this case, Bavarcic?
12 A. I dealt with many cases. Can you give me more details apart from
13 the name and the article.
14 Q. Page 25.
15 A. I see it's qualified murder.
16 Q. Page 25.
17 Is it now clearer what this case is about? Whose document is it?
18 A. Mine. This is my decision to carry out an investigation.
19 Q. What was the act in question?
20 A. This offender, Bosko Bavarcic, perpetrated the crime of
21 aggravated robbery and qualified murder. Article 151, paragraph 2.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see the trial judgement,
23 page 12 in this document.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Who are the injured parties by ethnicity? You don't have to give
1 us the names.
2 A. I can't recall. I need to see it.
3 Q. Here we see the judgement.
4 A. Can we zoom in?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we scroll down, please.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This perpetrator was found guilty
7 because, on the 6th of May, 1992, in Donji Vakuf, he entered the house of
8 Hamda Karasin [phoen]. You see that the injured parties were Muslim.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. And under B?
11 A. On the 7th of June, 1992, in Donji Vakuf, intending to kill
12 Fuad Avdic. Again injured party is Muslim.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next page, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This area was no longer ours but
15 the front line was on the border. I just want the Trial Chamber to know.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: The question was not heard without microphone.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, he was convicted and sentenced
20 to two years of imprisonment for murder and aggravated robbery.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. The interpreters did not hear my question. I asked how this was
23 qualified and what the judgement was.
24 A. The sentence was five years. That's what matters. And the crime
25 was aggravated murder.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see page 3 now.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
4 Q. Can you tell us, what is this document? What does the appeal
5 judgement say?
6 A. I see that this is the higher court in Banja Luka, where it was
7 sent by the district court and then it was sent back to the district
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we scroll down, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Part of the appeal was granted. So
11 Bosko Bavarcic originally charged with murder and other crimes was
12 sentenced to eight years. So his sentence was raised from five to eight
13 years imprisonment during the war, during the fiercest fighting, and it
14 was done by a civilian court.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. So this is the appeal judgement of 1993 [Realtime transcript read
17 in error "1992"].
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see page 6. It is missing
19 from the record that the appeal judgement was in 1993.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. And this is his application to reduce the sentence?
22 A. And the court decided that his request to reduce his sentence has
23 no grounds and is rejected.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted.
1 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark for identification the first page,
2 pages 3, 6, 12, and 13.
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE KWON: And 25, of course. Yes.
5 Shall we assign a number for that.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI D4240, Your Honours.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, if I may suggest
8 that 3, 4, and 5, because that's the entirety of the trial Judgement; in
9 fact, the appeal judgement, three pages of the appeal judgement.
10 JUDGE KWON: I have no difficulty with that. We'll add page 4
11 and 5.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will skip the next
13 case causing general danger. The perpetrator, a Serb, was again punished
14 but I have no time.
15 Thank you, Your Excellencies. I have no further questions at
16 this time.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Jankovic, before you are cross-examined,
18 probably you remember my question.
19 Could you tell us about the qualification or professional
20 requirements to be appointed as a judge at the court at -- at -- at the
21 time before the war or during the war? That also includes an
22 investigating judges' qualification as well.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. You will hear now. I
24 am one of the rare people who graduated exclusively from professional
25 schools. I finished the school of internal affairs in Kamenica, the
1 higher criminology school in Zemun, and my average grade was 4.92. I
2 graduated from law school. I worked for a long time as a crime
3 investigations inspector and passed the bar exam.
4 After that, I became an investigating judge in 1977 and worked in
5 that post until 2002.
6 In 2002, without any precedent in international legal practice, I
7 was accused of obstructing the work of the prosecutor and the high
8 commissioner removed me from office.
9 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber was only interested in knowing the
10 qualification for you to be appointed as a judge before the war. We are
11 not going to deal with -- yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, the
13 qualifications that I just enumerated, you won't find many people who
14 have that many.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. If I may clarify. Mr. Jankovic, before you were elected to the
17 court, did you have to pass the bar exam?
18 A. I've already said I passed the bar exam, all within record times.
19 Q. And your grade was 4.92?
20 A. That was my grade at the criminology school in Zemun. After
21 that, I worked as a crime investigations inspector, and after that, I --
22 Q. There's a mistake. The grade should be 9.42.
23 My last question: When you said you had no party affiliation,
24 did anyone ask you to join any political party? Or more specifically the
25 SDS, in order to be able to continue in your job?
1 A. No. I was in the movement, that is well known, but I was not a
2 member of any party. I was a candidate of the SDS for the chief of SUP
3 in Banja Luka, if anyone is interested. But only as a candidate.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE KWON: Were there also judges who didn't pass the bar
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, that could not happen.
9 Your Honour, Mr. President, nowadays judges and prosecutors in
10 their wondrous country of Bosnia-Herzegovina are much less qualified and
11 much less able because they were elected by incompetent foreigners and
12 criminals. It's difficult to become a judge -- just let me finish. You
13 will see.
14 JUDGE KWON: No, that's -- I was --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will listen to you, but I am
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I was interested in the system that was in
18 practice during the war or before the war.
19 Thank you, Mr. Jankovic.
20 As you have noted, your evidence in-chief has been admitted in
21 its most part in writing; that is, your witness statement in lieu of your
22 oral testimony. And now you will be cross-examined by the representative
23 of the Prosecutor.
24 Yes, Mr. File.
25 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning to everyone.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. File:
2 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you just testified at page 27 that you became an
3 investigating judge in 1977. You included that information in your
4 statement at paragraph 2 as well.
5 But isn't it true that you only graduated from law school in 1983
6 and you passed the bar examination in 1985?
7 A. No. No, that's impossible.
8 You see, I graduated from law school in 19 ... 19 ... I became,
9 in 1977, judge, and graduated from law school five or six years earlier.
10 You do the sums. I have my diploma. I didn't know you would ask me
12 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
13 A. You are wasting your time proving my qualifications. There is
14 written proof.
15 Q. Okay. Let's look at some of that written proof.
16 MR. FILE: Could we have P6525, please.
17 Q. What you will see when it comes up is a letter from the
18 Banja Luka public prosecutor to the Banja Luka War Presidency dated
19 6 July 1992 with a list of candidates proposed for the position of deputy
20 prosecutor and judicial appointments in Banja Luka.
21 MR. FILE: Could we go first to B/C/S page 4, English page 5.
22 Q. So here you'll see a heading which says list of candidates for
23 the position of judge at the lower court in Banja Luka.
24 MR. FILE: Now if we could go to the next page in B/C/S and page
25 7 in English.
1 Q. There, near the top, by number 12 with a circle around it you
2 have your name --
3 A. [In English] Yes.
4 Q. If you'd let me finish. With all of your personal information,
5 and it says:
6 "Graduated in 1983, passed the bar examination in 1985, Serb,
7 judge at this court since 1989?"
8 Isn't that the truth?
9 A. [Interpretation] Yes, yes, possibly. Then it must be 1987, not
10 1977, but 1987. Yes, this is possible. I apologise. I really didn't
11 know I would be asked this question.
12 It's possible that this is true. 1985, 1989. This is true.
13 This is correct. I made a mistake because it was a long time ago.
14 Q. Right. So you've increased your -- in your sworn testimony
15 today, and in your statement, you've increased the length of your
16 judicial career from approximately 12 years to approximately 24 years.
17 You've effectively doubled the length of that career; correct?
18 A. In terms of math, that's right. I was judge from 1987. Maybe I
19 made a mistake, but it was not deliberate.
20 In any case, I was investigating judge for a long time, and I was
21 a crime investigations inspector for a long time as well. Both are true.
22 I have been working since -- I worked from 1972 as a crime investigations
23 inspector not as many years as I said, but --
24 Q. I'd like to move on to your statement where you say that you were
25 suspended from your position as a judge on 23 May 2002 by the
1 Office of the High Representative.
2 MR. FILE: Could we have 65 ter number 25857, please.
3 Q. Here you can see a copy of the decision that suspended you from
4 your position as a judge. I'd like you to look at page 2 below reasons
5 for suspension. There you can see that it says that it is alleged that
6 Jevto Jankovic has repeatedly failed to uphold the rule of law and the
7 OHR gave several reasons for its view that this took place. Under
8 paragraph (a), you'll see failing to act in an impartial and professional
9 manner towards the prosecution.
10 And another reason, in paragraph (b) says that in your capacity
11 as investigating judge you improperly released defendant from pre-trial
13 Now that's a correct understanding of the reasonings for your
14 suspension; correct?
15 A. No. Your Honour, Mr. President, I have this decision. I don't
16 know if you can hear me. I had that decision, and I wanted to show it to
18 To put it quite simply, this is a decision without precedent in
19 international law. My life and my entire career, which was 30 years at
20 that time. Look, without any signature, it just says Wolfgang Petritsch,
21 23rd May, 2002, High Representative. So anyone could have written this.
22 Without the English translation, without any signature, this decision was
23 simply put out in the media and I was forbidden access to the
24 court-house. Already by then, an independent judicial commission had
25 been established and when I called him international criminal, the
1 president of that chamber stopped me. His name is -- let me -- let me
2 see. This is how much I've forgotten these things. It's an Englishman.
3 I'll remember, if you let me find it. There it is.
4 Q. Mr. Jankovic, my question was simply whether this was a correct
5 understanding of the reasons.
6 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I would tender this document.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, I object on grounds of relevance.
8 Because when you look at the reasons -- looking at the first reason, the
9 second, and the third they have nothing to do with his conduct during the
10 war. So we -- I don't believe that it's relevant to any of the issues as
11 to his testimony concerning how he handles his judicial duties during the
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. File.
14 MR. FILE: Your Honour, this is clearly relevant to the witness's
15 credibility as well as the statement that he made. In his statement
16 about, I believe it says performing his duties as investigative judge on
17 the basis of his moral and professional qualities up to the beginning of
18 civil in Bosnia, during the war, and after it.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, and he also comments on his dismissal in
20 para 2.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive this.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6608, Your Honours.
24 MR. FILE:
25 Q. One other question, Mr. Jankovic. You became a member of the SDS
1 in 1997; correct?
2 A. That's not correct. I never was a member. But can I respond to
3 this, Mr. President?
4 Malcolm Simmons is the name of the man. If I can answer this
5 question to you. It is very instructive for the sake of the profession,
6 not because of Jevto Jankovic. So let me simplify this. I was accused
7 here because of a woman called Maric, Svetlana, that I was obstructing
8 her work. So let me explain this. I was in your seat, Svetlana Maric
9 was the prosecutor, and a man accused of trafficking in women was the
10 accused. And I was accused of obstructing the work of the prosecutor.
11 Nowhere in the world can this be the case. The prosecutor can obstruct
12 the procedure or the defence, but not the other way around. That's why I
13 took this document along to show it to you.
14 I worked conscientiously. However, in order to remove me from my
15 position what was done was that I was denigrated in the eyes of my
16 colleagues. So this woman is now the president of a -- a criminal law
17 chamber in -- in Bosnia, whereas I was removed on these very grounds.
18 And this was the reason why the prosecutor should, in fact, issue an
19 indictment against Wolfgang Petritsch. Can you imagine the
20 High Representative finding an insignificant judge obstructing allegedly
21 somebody's work? Nobody could release anyone from detention other than
22 the investigating judge. So what was this? This was mere propaganda.
23 And many people in my unfortunate country of Bosnia-Herzegovina fell
24 victim to this propaganda. And among those who stand trial, 90 to 95
25 per cent are Serbs.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. You have answered the question and I
2 think we heard from you sufficiently.
3 MR. FILE:
4 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you were interviewed by representatives of my
5 office, the Office of the Prosecutor, in Banja Luka, on 21st of July,
6 2001; correct?
7 A. If that's B.A. Nasar from Pakistan, if that's the man, then yes.
8 Q. Did you tell the truth on that occasion?
9 A. I always spoke the truth. There can only be some legal
10 differences. Now the decision you've just shown me is a decision without
12 Q. We're not talking --
13 A. And you -- you have demonstrated it here as proof against me.
14 Q. We're not talking about that decision anymore.
15 MR. FILE: What I'd like to look at is 65 ter number 25926, which
16 is a copy of the transcript of that interview which took place on 21
17 July 2001. And if we could look at English page 17; B/C/S page 15
19 Q. And here you will see the question asked to you:
20 "You were never a member of SDS, for example?"
21 Your answer was: "Yes, in 1997."
22 That was the truth; right? Not what you've just told us today?
23 A. No, no. That's not true. I don't know how this came about. I
24 never was a member. Had I been a member of any party, I would have been
25 a member of the leadership. I would have partaken in the elections.
1 Q. Now in your witness statement you said at paragraph 8 that:
2 "The SDS leadership in Banja Luka proposed me and put me up as a
3 non-partisan candidate for the post of chief of the Banja Luka public
4 security centre when they assumed power based on the election results."
5 But isn't it true that you believed that the head of the CSB in
6 Banja Luka would have to answer to the SDS, that the head would be
7 controlled by the SDS?
8 A. The head was not controlled by the SDS. I was not a member of
9 the SDS. I was, indeed, nominated as a candidate. You said yourself
10 that a logical interpretation of my sentence would be that I was put
11 forward as a non-partisan candidate.
12 Let me repeat this: Had I been a member of the SDS, I would have
13 been a member of the leadership. I would at the very least have been a
14 deputy in the Assembly. I had not attended a single meeting of the SDS.
15 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
16 A. I'm not ashamed of it. I could have been a member of the SDS but
17 I'm just telling you that I was not.
18 Q. Mr. Jankovic, I think we are in agreement that you were not a
19 member of the SDS until at least 1997. But you believed, at the time, in
20 1992, that the SDS would interfere in the work of the head of the CSB.
21 Isn't that true?
22 A. No. You can't put it that way. There's no logic to it. So I
23 was not in 1991. But I was in 1997. And already the head was elected.
24 And that was the only intention that I had, the only aspiration that I
25 had, nothing else. I didn't need a professional function of any sort to
1 be a member of the party or of a party. But I could have been a member
2 of the SDS. It's a party of the Serbian people, and I am a part of that.
3 I'm telling you formally I was not. I was a part of the movement. Had I
4 been, I would have been promoted. I would have taken up certain
6 Q. Mr. Jankovic, our time is limited and I would prefer that you
7 give focussed and precise answers to the question I'm asking.
8 Now, if we could look at this document that is on the screen,
9 English page 31 --
10 A. I'm telling you in quite precise terms that I was not, and you
11 can do whatever you want. It's easy for me to confirm this. I can bring
12 over 5.000 people who will testify to the fact that I was not. That I
13 was never putting up a public appearances. If you know this, then this
14 must be some sort of a novelty.
15 MR. FILE: It's B/C/S page 27.
16 JUDGE KWON: Were you a member? Did you become a member of SDS
17 in 1997?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, in order for me to become
19 a member of the SDS, I would have to pay the membership fee.
20 JUDGE KWON: The --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know about this. Somebody
22 may have applied on my behalf. There were such cases, but I myself did
23 not pay a single penny towards the membership fee, and I never considered
24 myself to be a SDS member. There were some friends of mine who were SDS
25 members and said, Well, you belong with us. But formally speaking, I was
1 not there. I did not pay a single penny toward the membership fee and
2 that's proof of the fact that I was not a member.
3 JUDGE KWON: I just asked you because the transcript was not
4 clear whether you said you were a member in 1997. It's still --
5 So you were not a member?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Maybe somebody applied for my
7 membership without me wanting it. But I would have had to pay the
8 membership fee at any rate, which I did not do.
9 JUDGE KWON: Well, I'll leave it at that.
10 Please continue.
11 MR. FILE:
12 Q. Looking at this page on your screen you'll see the question is
13 asked to you:
14 "Did you believe that the head of the CSB in Banja Luka would
15 have to answer to the SDS, that the head would be controlled by the SDS?
16 Your answer:
17 "Yes. Well, a simple calculation. After the multi-party
18 elections first party, the top party in this area was SDS. And they
19 naturally chose the most important positions or functions.
20 "Q. And did you believe that they would also interfere in the
21 work of the head of the CSB?
22 "A. Of course, each party wanted their men. That's math."
23 That's what you said on that day during that interview, and that
24 was the truth, wasn't it?
25 A. Can I read this out again and then you draw your logical
1 inferences: JJ: No, no, no, all three of us were non-partisan
2 candidates. Think about it, the SDS, the Serbian Democratic Party, put
3 forward myself and Stojan and Milovan Jancic for the head of the public
4 security centre. That's the Banja Luka region. But as non-partisan
5 candidate, as professionals, am I quite clear? So, what I said neither
6 Stojan, nor Jancic nor I were members. And as for the rest, every party
7 has its own set of rules. And that was the very reason why I avoided
8 getting affiliated with any party. And I told you that had I joined them
9 I would probably have been part of the SDS leadership. What does
10 membership mean to you? Being a member --
11 Q. All you just did was read a different section of the transcript.
12 What I asked you was the portion that I read about your belief that the
13 head of the CSB in Banja Luka would have to answer to the SDS and your
14 belief that they would interfere in the work of the head of the CSB, that
15 was the truth, that you spoke that day; correct?
16 A. No. No, no. That's -- the SDS head did not report to the SDS
17 president but to the national assembly, regardless of the party that he
18 belonged to.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You meant the CSB head, I suppose?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, the head of the CSB.
21 MR. FILE: This would be a good time for a break, if Your Honour
22 is inclined.
23 JUDGE KWON: What -- page number for the English?
24 MR. FILE: English page 31; B/C/S page 27.
25 JUDGE KWON: So where can we see "no, no, no," in English?
1 MR. FILE: I think that part may be on a previous page in B/C/S.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under number 9.
3 JUDGE KWON: Can you find the passage in English, "no, no, no."
4 "JJ: No, no, no."
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All three of us were non-partisan
7 JUDGE KWON: If you let us know after the break.
8 MR. FILE: That's fine.
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break.
10 I was told it's on page 29, but it says, "no, yay, no." Probably
11 maybe that.
12 We'll have a break for half an hour and resume at five past
14 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
16 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. File.
17 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour. And before I begin, I can
18 also confirm that it's our understanding as well that English page 29,
19 lines 23 to 27 is the translation of the portion you were asking about
21 One other question, I have --
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Sorry to interrupt you. But before
23 we continue, I'm coming back to the exhibit issue. Yes. I agree with --
24 the Chamber agrees with Mr. Robinson that unless the document is
25 something that has been produced for the purpose of current proceedings,
1 we have a basis to -- to admit document as long as it has been commented
2 upon or confirmed by the witness.
3 So on that basis, we'll admit the document. Yes, 1D9622.
4 Shall we assign a number for that.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D4241, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
7 MR. FILE: One other question, Your Honour, in light of some
8 translations that became available at the end of the day on Friday, I
9 would ask for some extra time to deal with some of those exhibits. I
10 don't think I'll need more than an extra 30 minutes but I just wanted to
11 request that in advance.
12 JUDGE KWON: Let us see.
13 Please continue.
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. Okay. Mr. Jankovic, we've been looking at this transcript from
16 this interview. I asked you earlier today whether you answered those
17 questions truthfully. Your response at page 34 was "I always spoke the
19 MR. FILE: I would also like to look at page 91 in the English of
20 this document; B/C/S page 78.
21 Q. Now, on this page, you say, and I quote:
22 "I was honest. Not because of you, but for the God. Try and
23 find one example or a case where I didn't tell you the truth and I knew
24 the truth?"
25 So I just want to verify that you were telling the truth that day
1 on 2001 when you spoke to the OTP; correct?
2 A. Correct. You removed the document.
3 Mr. President, can we go back to that "no, no." I read out a
4 very important sentence -- I read a very important sentence in there and
5 I'd like all of you to see it if we can --
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, if you could concentrate on the
7 current question.
8 If necessary, Mr. Karadzic will lead you there again.
9 But where can we see this passage, Mr. File?
10 MR. FILE: I believe it's on page 91 of the English, lines 22
11 to 24. I'm sorry, this doesn't correspond to what I have.
12 It's a page with ERN L0049756. I think it may be on the next
13 page of this. For some reason the pagination -- the pagination is off.
14 It will be page 92 of the English. It looks like it's at line 14 to 16.
15 JUDGE KWON: Could you confirm with -- the page -- B/C/S page
16 number with the witness, whether he can see it.
17 MR. FILE:
18 Q. Mr. Jankovic, can you see the passage that I just read to you
19 where you said: "I was honest. Not because of you, but for the God," et
21 A. Go ahead, say it. I can't see it here. Let's go slowly. That's
22 the beginning where I have it. What's the line number, please?
23 Q. It should be ERN L0072359.
24 A. I don't see that number.
25 Q. It may be -- it should be line 24 on the -- the current page that
1 is showing, it should be line 24.
2 A. Yes, I can see this: Okay, I don't hold anything against you. I
3 was honest.
4 Is that it?
5 Q. That's it. That appears to be page 80?
6 JUDGE KWON: And your question?
7 MR. FILE: I believe I asked the question.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I'm asking you to repeat the question.
9 MR. FILE:
10 Q. So my question was: On that day in 2001, you answered the
11 questions from the Office of the Prosecutor truthfully; correct?
12 A. Correct. But I don't know how the interpreter interpreted it,
13 and what was recorded. I'm not Bismark. I can't read this all at once
14 and confirm it. I can tell you that I was honest but I don't know if it
15 was honestly reflected here. But go back to that case and you'll see how
16 the meaning changed there.
17 Can we go back to the point where I was being asked about my
18 membership in SDS in 1997. And I said that there was no logic to it.
19 How -- why would I have been a member in 1997 if I wasn't a member in
21 Q. Mr. Jankovic, as Mr. President indicated previously, Mr. Karadzic
22 will have an opportunity to ask you additional questions if it's
24 Right now I want to ask you about your witness statement,
25 paragraph 7, where you say:
1 "In the lower court, that is to say as investigating judge, my
2 colleagues and I worked slowly on the basis of the law at this time. We
3 were never under influence by anyone on how to conduct investigations or
4 other activities when investigating and punishing crimes. I'm saying
5 this because those perpetrating crimes were the same for us, regardless
6 of the ethnicity or religion. I remember that as investigating judge, I
7 was engaged in work where we tried more Serbs for crimes committed
8 against non-Serbs."
9 Now I'd like to look at the transcript of your interview again,
10 English page 34 and B/C/S page 30.
11 You will see the question you were asked:
12 "The question again is: Did you find in your work during this
13 war time in 1992 it was impossible for you to fulfil your obligations to
14 investigate and punish these crimes by Serbs against Muslims and Croats
15 because of the pressure from other people?"
16 Your answer was:
17 "Yes. That's mathematically correct. What do you think, that I
18 was allowed in put in prison someone who carried an automatic weapon, by
19 just issuing a piece of paper, a decision" --
20 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Do we have that page?
21 MR. FILE: Could we go to the next page in the English.
22 JUDGE KWON: Please make sure that we have the page before
23 reading out ...
24 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, line 3. Let's check the B/C/S page.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That's page 29 in the B/C/S, Your Honours.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But what was entered in the
3 transcript, what the Prosecutor read out, cannot be found on this page.
4 And yet we have it in the transcript.
5 MR. FILE: What I read into the transcript is at the top of the
6 page on English e-court page 35.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We are talking about B/C/S page. You referred
8 to line 23 of this page? Not -- not this one.
9 MR. FILE: Let me just verify. It appears that in uploading, the
10 pagination has changed from what I have in my hard copy to what's in
12 Right. I believe that it is -- it is this section that was
13 previously referred to on page 29. It begins with "panaravno [phoen]."
14 JUDGE KWON: Can we see the line number as well. Yes, what
15 was -- what's the line number?
16 MR. FILE: It wasn't that page. It's on a page with
17 ERN L0072311.
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 MR. FILE: Your Honour, the problem is that the -- the ERN in my
20 hard copy is at the top of each page. And in this version that was
21 uploaded, it appears at different points on different pages, and so the
22 actual pagination of the document differs. Would it be possible to have
23 just a brief break so that we could correct that and upload an improved
25 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Shall we rise for five minutes? Would
1 that be sufficient? Or you need more?
2 MR. FILE: That will be fine.
3 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We will rise for five minutes.
4 --- Break taken at 11.25 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. File, please continue.
7 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honours, for your patience and
8 apologies for the error.
9 Q. We were looking at the transcript of your interview at English
10 page 34 and B/C/S page 30. And the passage that I read to you was:
11 "Did you find in your work during this war time in 1992, it was
12 impossible for you to fulfil your obligations to investigate and punish
13 these crimes by Serbs against Muslims and Croats because of the pressure
14 from other people?"
15 And your answer was:
16 "Yes. That's mathematically correct. What do you think, that I
17 was allowed to put in prison someone who carried an automatic weapon, by
18 just issuing a piece of paper, a decision?"
19 That's what you said in 2001 and that was your truthful belief at
20 the time; correct?
21 A. That's not correct. The translation is not correct here.
22 Possibly I said that it was mathematically correct that we prosecuted
23 all. I don't know where this comes from. I mean, maybe I talked to him
24 about the difficulties involved. Of course, that's only natural. I
25 exposed myself to that a thousand time. That's simply the way it was.
1 Can you imagine there is a war raging, everybody has a rifle, a tank, and
2 then you send them into custody because of some crime. I had personal
3 problems because I did actually do that, and I jeopardised myself in that
4 way. But what you read out here, that somebody exerted pressure against
5 me, I don't know who you meant. That somebody could have exerted
6 pressure against me. I was the civilian authorities then, the judiciary
7 authorities. If you mean the SDS, no. If you mean the president of the
8 republic, no. I don't know who have you in mind, who was it that could
9 have exerted pressure against me. You should have told me about that,
10 that somebody was exerting pressure against me. Who? There were foreign
11 intelligence services that were pressuring me. And a lot of us were
12 being pressured by them. Of course --
13 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
14 A. -- not everybody's ideal -- yes?
15 Q. Let's look at a passage just a little bit further on. It's
16 page 36 in the English and pages 31 to 32 of the B/C/S, which might
17 clarify this. Here you said:
18 "It's not that I had a pressure of military authorities to
19 process cases. The time was that perpetrators of murders at those times
20 or at that time were unknown."
21 You went on --
22 JUDGE KWON: Where do you have it?
23 MR. FILE: This version in the English appears to be suffering
24 from the same problem as before.
25 Oh, no, it's actually in lines 17 to 19 where he says:
1 "It's not that I had pressure of military authorities to process
2 cases. The time was that perpetrators of murders at those times at that
3 time were unknown."
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. And B/C/S?
5 MR. FILE: I believe that's the correct page.
6 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
7 MR. FILE:
8 Q. Then, Mr. Jankovic, you go on to say:
9 "Or if they were known, they were at the front line and I
10 didn't -- they were not within my range. I didn't have any jurisdiction
11 over them. So simply put, I couldn't and I didn't dare - you choose what
12 you want - to process the murder cases in which victims were Muslims and
14 A few lines down, you asked the question:
15 "My question is - you say" --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could we have the next page in the B/C/S,
18 MR. FILE: You were asked the question:
19 "My question is - you say that soldiers would be at the front
20 line and outside of your jurisdiction. The front lines were not in
21 Afghanistan, they were a matter of a few hours at most from Banja Luka.
22 Why couldn't you order ... what would happen if you ordered the police to
23 bring you the suspect from the front line?"
24 Your answer was:
25 "First, I couldn't have done it even in theory.
1 "Q. Explain that.
2 "A. I told you the reason. I was a civilian person. How could
3 you issue an order to a military person or policeman, police person?"
4 Now does that clarify the context for you in which you gave your
6 A. I don't understand your questions at all. But it is correct that
7 I, as a civilian judge, could not arrest a soldier who had committed a
8 crime because in the meantime a military court was established, so that
9 was under the jurisdiction of the military court. And I don't see what
10 you find unclear there. So I'm a civilian judge, and where crimes were
11 committed in Banja Luka, well, yes, there were civilian -- there were
12 Serb criminals who killed a Muslim or a Croat in order to gain some kind
13 of advantage. But it was hard to find perpetrators because everybody had
14 a rifle. And there was a military situation there, and we were dealing
15 with the front line, and with crime, too.
16 Now, I'm just explaining this to you. So I can explain this to
17 you within the framework of the authority that I had. I did not have any
18 kind of military powers. I had civilian powers. We arrested criminals.
19 You saw a moment ago how many people were sentenced. So find an example
20 like that to the contrary. I mean, since you've asked me, but you did
21 not ask me about this man who abused me for ten hours. He had come from
22 Pakistan and this was a holiday dedicated to a great saint, and I was
23 thinking in my head, God, God, and then I asked him. Maybe he wrote
24 that. How can I arrest someone who has a tank? And he'd say, Yes. And
25 then he'd take a break. And then he consulted some Serb criminal. And
1 then he'd come back again. And again, he would abuse Jevto Jankovic. I
2 mean, a policeman from Lahore. And then this other policeman from
3 Karachi, he's a Pakistani too, but he is civilian -- but he was
4 civilised. I don't want to lie before God. And then -- I mean, we don't
5 want a man from Pakistan coming in, rather have someone from Norway. I
6 mean, in Pakistan there are bombs falling every day. I mean, I'm not
7 saying they're not a good people in general. But anyway -- but maybe I
8 did have this discussion with him, but I mean, he abused me for ten
9 hours. For him, I am an intellectual and he is a policeman, and he asked
10 me about two Muslim victims out of 30.000 Serb victims, and he didn't me
11 about that.
12 That's it, quite simply.
13 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you've also -- you've also claimed in your
14 statement at paragraph 15 that the investigator pressured you into giving
15 false testimony. Now you've just said that he abused you for ten hours.
16 I have a copy of the entire transcript of that interview in your
17 language. When we get to the next break, I'd like to give you the
18 opportunity to review that transcript, and when we return, you can show
19 us where in the interview you were abused or pressured into giving false
21 Would that be acceptable?
22 A. No.
23 Q. In your statement at paragraph 7, you say on 30th July, 1992 --
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. We did not hear
25 anything from the witness with regard to the previous question and we're
1 already moving on to the next question. This, "no," merely, is not
3 JUDGE KWON: Was that your -- not your answer, Mr. Jankovic?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, that was my answer. Do
5 you understand that? I mean -- well, Mr. President, I have no reason to
6 exaggerate or to lie about anything. So, I mean, there are always legal
7 intricacies and there are always leading questions, and there's always
8 provocative questions that exist in the past and that will exist in the
9 future. So I am telling the truth. So I'm telling you the man abused me
10 for ten hours. Please, may I? I'm addressing you.
11 JUDGE KWON: Do you remember the question by Mr. File?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember the question. And I
13 gave him an answer that I was abused and that I did not say that because
14 there's no need for me to say that kind of thing and I have no motive for
15 saying that kind of thing. Now, how he calculated these questions of his
16 and answers of mine technically, well, I know that technically nowadays
17 you can do anything. So I'd fall silent when he would put his questions
18 and I'd wonder, God, what have I done wrong? He doesn't know the
19 situation in our country. He doesn't know the circumstances involved,
20 and he's asking about Muslim victims. Only about Muslim victims. And
21 then I saw that -- I mean, how I do put this? He is one-sided,
22 interested in one question only, as if we did not have other obligations,
23 other problems, just to take care of who would get killed. People get
24 killed in a war especially in a civil war.
25 JUDGE KWON: Could you listen to the question and answer the
1 question, please.
2 I will leave it to you.
3 Please continue, Mr. File.
4 MR. FILE:
5 Q. Mr. Jankovic, what I asked you was whether you would be willing
6 to review the transcript at the next break and tell us where in the
7 interview you believe that you were abused, or where in the interview you
8 believe that you were pressured into giving false testimony. Because I
9 would submit to you that nowhere in that interview do you ever complain
10 about your treatment, nor do you claim that you were being pressured into
11 false testimony.
12 Are you willing to show us where in the transcript you believe
13 this was happening?
14 A. This transcript is very long. I would need at least two days to
15 read it and analyse each and every word. That is quite understandable.
16 An interview of ten hours you cannot read that in a minute. Now as to
17 whether this was done -- do you understand what I'm telling you? This
18 man came. He asked about Muslim victims, about two cases. I mean, from
19 Pakistan. He is abusing me. He is hollering at me. He is stopping the
20 proceedings. Going out. Coming back. I'm silent because I don't know
21 what to answer.
22 What would that be but abuse? And now you're asking me why I did
23 not sign in front of him that he had abused me. Nobody can function
24 without logic. A judge, a prosecutor, a lawyer. And what I'm being
25 asked is illogical. So I don't have a motive. I don't -- yes?
1 Q. I take it that your answer is no, you're not willing to look at
2 this over the next break?
3 A. Yes. Yes, I am willing. I'm not evading any kind of question or
4 answer, regardless of who or what this is related to and whether it
5 affects me or somebody else. I am willing. But I'm telling you that
6 this is logical. I see that it's put in a leading fashion too. I told
7 you I have been involved in this practice for 40 years, and I have a
8 degree in criminology. And, I mean, who can remember what they were
9 asked 40 years ago or 30 years ago or 20 years ago? One's mind cannot
10 work that way. I'm not Bismark.
11 Q. In your --
12 A. I'm addressing the --
13 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
14 A. -- Chamber. I'm going to answer each and every one of your
15 questions if it is short, clear, and precise, regardless of whether if
16 affects me or anyone else. But just tell me what. I don't understand
17 these questions. They are leading questions. And I live in civil law,
18 continental law.
19 Q. I'd like to ask you about paragraph 7 of your statement where you
20 say that:
21 "On the 30th of July, 1992, following a report from the duty
22 officer of the Banja Luka CJB, public security centre, I led an on-site
23 investigation at Manjaca where two detainees had died."
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Paragraph number again?
25 MR. FILE: Seven.
1 JUDGE KWON: Of his statement?
2 MR. FILE: Of his statement. It's the last -- the last
3 paragraph of that paragraph.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please continue.
5 MR. FILE:
6 Q. In that paragraph you say that you investigated, and at the end
7 you say:
8 "I submitted a report to the relevant prosecutor and as far as I
9 know, the military policemen were tried before the relevant court for
10 this crime."
11 Now what you failed to mention is that this trial did not take
12 place until 2007 under the auspices of different authorities; correct?
13 A. Yes. What you said is correct. As for the action that I took, I
14 can say, loud and clear, I carried out only the on-site investigation and
15 compiled the record. I could not do anything else even if I --
16 Q. That actually goes beyond what I'd asked you.
17 I'd like to turn your attention --
18 A. I did not submit a report. This was written by a man who's not a
19 lawyer. I compiled a record. I did not submit a report. And in such
20 circumstances, that was a masterpiece too. On the other side there
21 weren't many on-site investigations and there were killings, murders.
22 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to the --
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. This was written by a man who is not
24 a lawyer.
25 What did you mean? And that your statement was written by a man
1 who is not a lawyer and you do not agree with it.
2 Is that what you're saying?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. This is the
4 way it was. I just compiled a record on the on-site investigation. And
5 that was submitted to the prosecutor's office in charge. And now these
6 prosecutor's offices, because of the changes that took place in our
7 country, sometimes it was military and sometimes it was civilian. So
8 what -- the prosecutor is correct. This was prosecuted only later,
9 subsequently. So at the time when I took action, I did not know who the
10 perpetrator was. I mean, I just compiled a record. I went up there and
11 I had pictures taken, and I realised that this had to do with the killing
12 of two persons and the identification of these persons. So as far as I
13 was concerned as investigating judge, that was that. That was that
14 investigative action that I was explaining to you, Mr. President.
15 Whereas the investigation could take place only when the name of the
16 perpetrator is known and also at the request of the prosecutor's office.
17 Just like you cannot do anything before you get the indictment.
18 So that's the way it was. I was not in the position of the
19 prosecutor's office. I compiled a record and that shows that we did not
20 conceal anything. I could have not compiled a record as well, but I did
21 that for moral and professional reasons.
22 I don't know if I'm being clear, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
24 MR. FILE:
25 Q. I'd like to turn your attention now to the 21 August 1992
1 massacre at Koricanske Stijene.
2 You were one of three investigating judges in Banja Luka; is that
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And there -- and there was duty roster for the three
6 investigative judges whereby each of you would be on duty to receive new
7 cases for approximately one week at a time; is that true?
8 A. There was a roster, but I know what you want to ask me, so ask me
9 and I'll give you a concrete explanation. Two were Croats, and people
10 asked me that they not go because their lives would be in jeopardy so
11 that's why I went, at their request. Zoran Lipovac - I'll give you the
12 name - he is now a judge in the constitutional court. Ask me everything
13 and I will tell you everything. Briefly and clearly.
14 Q. Rather than guessing what I'm going to ask, I'd like you to
15 answer my questions as I ask them.
16 My question was going to be: You were assigned to be the
17 investigating judge because you were on-call or on duty that day; right?
18 A. I was on duty and I was the only investigating judge. There you
19 go. Realistically speaking. On paper there were three of us. These two
20 men did not come to work because they had not responded to their military
21 obligation call-up.
22 Q. As investigating judge, you were in charge of the on-site
23 investigation; correct?
24 A. Yes, yes. Among other things.
25 Q. You could give orders to the police at the crime scene, such as
1 to take photographs or otherwise document the scene, to conduct forensic
2 investigations, autopsies, exhumations, et cetera?
3 A. Yes. In legal conditions, yes. But in illegal conditions, I did
4 something and now I have to explain all of this here.
5 I did whatever I could under these circumstances. I was an
6 investigating judge, and, yes, I'm going to answer your further
8 As for exhumations, that was out of the question. That could not
9 be carried out.
10 As for autopsies, a man did try, Dr. Vodovnik, he tried to deal
11 with a few corpses but then he went to Slovenia. So even autopsies could
12 not be carried out.
13 I did issue orders orally, and I can explain to you how and why.
14 But I'm repeating, once again, it was only investigative action, not an
16 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you also had the power to order the police to bring
17 witnesses to you for questioning and also to identify and arrest
18 perpetrators; correct?
19 A. I did not have the authority to arrest perpetrators in that
20 situation. That was impossible.
21 First of all, that was the first major case --
22 Q. Sorry. Not -- not to arrest perpetrators yourself but to order
23 the police to do so.
24 A. No, no. The procedure was totally different. There is procedure
1 Mr. President, please. Do pay attention to this. Until then, we
2 call this mass killings, multiple killings, and so on. And until then,
3 it was the State Security Service that carried out on-site investigations
4 for that. And the investigating judge was only in charge of autopsy and
5 exhumation. So it was this action that could be taken by the
6 investigating judge. The SDB took care of all the rest according to
7 Article 154, paragraph 2. Once I went out to deal with this and -- and
8 went back and then I was there --
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not catch the date.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was there for two hours. And I
11 was never on the scene any longer than that. And I can explain all of
12 that to you if you're interested.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Four hours?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Between 1500 and 1700 hours.
15 How long is that? Four hours, yes, yes. In the middle of the month of
16 August. I mean -- oh, all right.
17 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I'd object to the accused feeding answers
18 to the witness.
19 JUDGE KWON: I think it was a translation. Transcript said two
20 hours and Mr. Karadzic asked four hours.
21 I think that was it.
22 But let me come back to your answer, Mr. Jankovic. Mr. File
23 asked you this, I'll quote:
24 "You could give orders to the police at the crime scenes, such as
25 to take photographs or otherwise document the scene, to conduct forensic
1 investigations, autopsies, exhumations, et cetera?"
2 Now this is your answer:
3 "Yes. In legal conditions, yes. But in illegal conditions, and
4 I did something and now I have to explain all of this here."
5 Do you remember having said so?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly. But I'll repeat it for
7 you again. Very simply --
8 JUDGE KWON: No. What did you mean "in illegal conditions"?
9 What did you refer to?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Abnormal conditions, that's what I
11 meant. I could not take any action realistically except for what I could
12 see with my very own eyes. From the top of the rock, I could see this
13 pile of corpses. So I would have needed a lot of equipment in order to
14 identify these persons, to get them out to an accessible spot, identify
15 them, and then take further legal actions. So, yes, I did issue orders,
16 and that is correct, on the spot. Srdjan Oljaca and
17 Vukovac Branko [phoen], and Sukalo, Radovan took photographs using a
18 camera, and that was the only thing that could have been do then. You
19 know, he took a camera and took pictures because that was in this abyss.
20 You could see for about 50 metres or perhaps 100 metres, you could see it
21 with your own eyes, but it was inaccessible. So this was photographed.
22 And the SFOR broke into SUP and took this, and later on, others even sold
23 this. So that was an on-site investigation that started but it did not
24 end. Since I was very busy, I was the only the investigating judge
25 realistically speaking at the time, I authorised the crime inspector, and
1 I could do that at the time, to continue the on-site investigation with
2 Dr. Vodovnik and other persons. However they compiled a record. They
3 returned and soon after that, he went to Slovenia and he said, It's there
4 in my record. Don't count on me. I'm going to Slovenia.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript --
6 JUDGE KWON: Later on, you said: "As for exhumations, that was
7 out of the question."
8 Why was it so?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because we did not have a single
10 pathologist left. Aco Vodovnik was the last one. And exhumations, you
11 know, that implies extraction of bodies, identification of bodies, and we
12 didn't have a single person who would do that. And to make it
13 technically possible we needed a crane, and the crane needed to be
14 brought between rocks. That is to say, we didn't need a crane. We
15 needed horses, because with horses we could drag these bodies out. First
16 they had to be dug out, and then hauled up to a place where
17 identification could be conducted. You can check this. Until Dr. Karan
18 appeared, and he appeared much later, we didn't have anyone.
19 So from 1991, from Aco Vodovnik until Zeljko Karan appeared, we
20 did not have a single forensic pathologist.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 58, line 1, I believe
23 there's some confusion. The witness was talking about video footage, not
24 photographs. I should like to ask the Trial Chamber to clarify what kind
25 of recording was made.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The crime technicians video camera
2 was used. Radovan Sukalo, Vukovac Branko, and Mr. Oljaca filmed the
3 entire area, whatever could be seen. They could not descend to the
4 bottom because it was -- they would be risking their lives.
5 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. File.
6 MR. FILE: If we could please look at the -- at 65 ter 25926,
7 which is on the screen currently. English page 12; B/C/S page 10.
8 Q. Here, near the top of the page you say:
9 "I could have ordered the police to identify, to find
10 perpetrators of such a crime, and in case it is urgent" --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please provide the reference
12 in the original.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only heard it now. Could you
14 please repeat.
15 MR. FILE:
16 Q. It's page 10 of the B/C/S.
17 A. Is it the passage where I say that's what we call investigative
18 action or preliminary investigation procedures? Is that what you mean?
19 Q. You say:
20 "I could have ordered the police to identify, to find
21 perpetrators of such a crime, and in case it is urgent, or it was urgent,
22 to arrest them and to bring up charges against them ..."
23 Do you see that passage?
24 A. Yes, I see it.
25 The truth is different. I was not able to. I couldn't.
1 Q. So you were not telling the complete truth to the investigators
2 that day.
3 A. I don't know what that investigator gave you and wrote to you.
4 But I maintain to you that I only carried out preliminary investigating
5 procedures. I, as the investigating judge, could not order the police.
6 There is a concern procedure in place. I could only compile a record.
7 The record is given to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor could order the
8 police to identify perpetrators, and once they are known, they should be
9 subjected to investigation.
10 I really don't know what language to speak in. It's perfectly
11 clear to me. But I can't make it clear to you. I could not order the
12 police directly to arrest anyone. I was an investigating judge
13 conducting preliminary investigative actions and I make it available to
14 the prosecutor. The prosecutor writes a request to the police and says,
15 Please, identify perpetrators of this multiple murder at Koricanske and
16 only once the perpetrators are identified can the investigation begin.
17 That was the procedure. Then and now and ten years from now, I will keep
18 saying the same thing.
19 Q. I'm going to ask you a few brief questions about your
21 The day after the massacre, i.e., 22 August 1992, you attempted
22 to travel to the crime site with an investigative team only to be turned
23 away by a policeman in Skender Vakuf or the town that was renamed Knezevo
24 before you arrived at the scene.
25 That's correct, isn't it?
1 A. No, that's not correct. You see what happens with a formulation
2 like that. It's like in English. Eat shoots and leaves, one coma makes
3 the whole difference. I came on 22nd August, 1992, to carry out these
4 preliminary investigative actions, not investigation, I repeat, with the
5 same police team on the 22nd and the 23rd of August. I approached the
6 policeman, the policeman recognised me and told me, Jevto, it is not one
7 or two bodies. There are many bodies there. Those who were going
8 towards Travnik. I told the police, We are in danger. Let's go back.
9 Plus there was shooting over there. We returned by night and then the
10 duty officer told me, Tomorrow morning, you have to go to the same place.
11 Q. Mr. Jankovic, to clarify, it was the policeman who told you it
12 was dangerous and turned you away.
13 A. Yes. He did not turn us back. I made the decision when I heard
14 that report. Plus, I could hear the shooting and the shells falling. I
15 made the decision because only two days before that, my colleague,
16 Gordana Radojko [phoen], a prosecutor, took off her jacket only to find
17 there was bullet-hole in it. He gave me that piece of information, and I
18 decided that we should turn bark. He would not have been able to make me
19 turn back because I believe --
20 Q. This police officer told you that the victims were probably part
21 of a convoy of Muslim refugees; correct?
22 A. He told me there were many bodies there.
23 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
24 A. And we knew - please let me finish - we knew that a convoy from
25 various places used that route. Those people were listed. It was a
1 disgrace for the Serbs. We didn't need that. I can't understand the OTP
2 for believing that somebody wanted to hush this up. I can never accept
3 that. Every reasonable person condemned this crime. These people were
4 accompanied by a list. The list was in the possession of the UNPROFOR,
5 the Muslim side, the Croatian side, and the International Red Cross --
6 Q. [Overlapping speakers] Mr. Jankovic --
7 A. So there were six lists, six copies of the list.
8 Q. To put it simply, you were able to conclude on the
9 22nd of August that people who had been killed at Koricanske Stijene were
10 people of Muslim ethnicity; correct?
11 A. I did not know that on the 22nd, until I came out to the scene.
12 Later on, I made that conclusion after seeing the list.
13 I didn't know it then. Please, I'm a lawyer, and you are a
14 lawyer. You are a serious lawyer. I described to you the sequence of
15 actions like in a chess game. My first move was to come out to the
16 scene. I tried on the 22nd. I came to the centre of Knezevo. It's
17 30 kilometres more to Knezevo and we could already hear shells falling.
18 And this man, the policeman, told me there are many bodies there. And
19 when I came up there finally, I found one man. I cannot still tell his
20 name because of things in my country. But I put the man in my own car
21 and took him to the hospital.
22 Q. I'd like to show you page 45 in the English and page 40 in the
23 B/C/S of the transcript of your interview.
24 MR. FILE: It's actually page 46 of the English.
25 Q. You were asked the question, this is at lines 8 to 10 in the
2 "Were you able to conclude then on the 22nd of August at the
3 Knezevo police station that people who had been killed at the
4 Koricanske Stijene were people of Muslim ethnicity? "
5 Your answer was:
7 A. Yes. At the police station in Knezevo, after we returned from
8 the scene, when the storm and rain had already started, then I knew it.
9 Bosko Peulic, who was commander of the 22nd Brigade, told me and the
10 captain who had filmed it told me and we standing in front of the camera
11 made an appeal to everyone who knew anything, who survived, to come to us
12 and we guaranteed their freedom. And that's how we found 14 survivors.
13 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
14 A. In fact, 13 survivors who were saved. Yes?
15 Q. That happened the next day on the 23rd of August, when you
16 returned to the scene; correct?
17 A. On the 23rd, when I came back, that's when I learned. On the
18 22nd, I had not yet managed to get to the crime scene. So I didn't know
19 yet. How could I? It was still 30 kilometres away from me. They could
20 have been Serbian victims. The separation line was not far from there,
21 and the shells were falling all around.
22 I can understand you putting questions to me in these comfortable
23 conditions but you can't understand what I'm saying. I was working while
24 a civil and a religious war was raging all around me. I was an
25 investigating judge, and when an investigating judge conducts an on-site
1 investigation, has to make personal observations [Realtime transcript
2 read in error "objections"] to make conclusions. So on the 23rd, I knew
3 it. On the 22nd, I didn't know it. I was informed there were two bodies
5 Q. You were told by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic that the perpetrators
6 had been civilian police and that there were -- and you understood there
7 were one to two police on each bus in a convoy.
8 That's what you understood on the 23rd; correct?
9 A. On the 23rd, I was told both by Peulic and the police structures,
10 to put it that way, that the escort was made up of unknown people. Maybe
11 they were policemen; maybe they were infiltrators. Now, I suspect, after
12 all this time, that this crime at Koricanske Stijene, was no good to the
13 Serbs. It was committed in order to later put all sorts of pressure on
14 Republika Srpska.
15 So I repeat, who would be crazy to cover up so many victims?
16 Does a drug trafficker selling drugs do that publicly?
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, the question was not whether this
18 crime was good or bad to the Serbs. The question was whether you were
19 told that there had been civilian police on each bus.
20 Did you know that or did you not?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know. I was told that
22 there were infiltrators. Do you know what infiltrators means? That
23 means men who had put on police uniforms --
24 JUDGE KWON: If you just please concentrate on answering the
25 question posed by the Prosecutor.
1 Please continue, Mr. File.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not quite sure about this, but
5 page 64, line 8, the witness said by direct "observation." Rather than
6 personal "objection."
7 He said: The investigating judge can make conclusions only by
8 direct observation.
9 JUDGE KWON: Do you agree with it, Mr. Jankovic?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By direct observation? Well,
11 that's the main role of the investigative judge. Those are the basic
12 principles, regardless of what kind of legal system you're working in.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MR. FILE: Can we look at e-court page 56 in the English and
15 page 49 in the B/C/S, at the top of the B/C/S page and the bottom of the
16 English page.
17 Q. Now, this relates to what Mr. Peulic told you. The question was:
18 "Now I want you to please try to remember his exact words. When
19 he said that the people who committed this crime were, did he say they
20 were military police from Prijedor, Sanski Most, or Novi Grad, or did he
21 say just the policemen from either of those three municipalities?
22 Your answer was:
23 "I want to explain that to you as well, so that you don't have to
24 waste any time. They were the police who were escorting the convoys.
25 Each bus -- on each such bus there was one or two policemen who escorted
1 such convoys, and for your information, it will make things easier for
2 you, they were in blue uniforms. The military persons, army, they were
3 wearing SMB olive-grey uniforms or camouflage uniforms."
4 Then you were asked:
5 "Did Mr. Peulic say that they were in blue uniforms, the
7 Your answer was:
8 "Well, he said that they were civilian police. It wasn't the
9 military police. It's a very simple thing, a very simple matter for me.
10 One word is enough. That's why, I mean, he wanted them to be arrested."
11 Now, he didn't tell you anything about infiltrators. You
12 certainly didn't report that in this interview in 2001, did you?
13 A. Well, you see how one action and one conversation can lead to
14 confusion and misunderstanding.
15 Of course, I know what happened. And you believe this policeman
16 from Pakistan, that he really wrote all this accurately and that it has
17 to be the way he puts it.
18 Mr. President, Peulic, the commander, and I, did talk. And at
19 that time in our country there were all sorts of uniforms, including a
20 variety of police uniforms. It's true that those were not military
21 uniforms, but among police uniform there was a variety. So a person who
22 is normally on guard duty could put on a different uniforms and go out to
23 work as a policeman. Later, as time passed, we kept thinking who could
24 have been infiltrated to do this, and with what motives. It's true when
25 the Prosecutor says that in one vehicle there were two policemen, and in
1 another vehicle only one, but we didn't know from what area. It was
2 assumed they were from the area mentioned by the Prosecutor. We assumed
3 but didn't know for sure. And Bosko Peulic also had his own assumptions
4 that these people were from these areas and wore a variety of uniforms.
5 As time passed and we tried to reconstruct event by event, we
6 came to the conclusion that this was done by somebody who wanted to
7 portray Serbs as criminals. It was no good. It did no good to the
8 serious leadership or -- or normal people. Who could it have served?
9 Ivankovic, for instance, and some other people, they robbed those people
10 and killed them. Nobody among the Serbian people in Republika Srpska
11 justified this crime. Everybody agrees about the same conclusion. And I
12 don't know why the Prosecutor here is trying to catch me out in certain
13 inconsistencies and he had sent me this Pakistani investigator who is not
14 my equal. I am looking you in the eyes now and you can take my measure
15 right here and now.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, I must let you know that this is not
17 what this investigator wrote. I think this is an audiotape recorded at
18 the time of your interview.
19 Am I correct in so understanding, Mr. File?
20 MR. FILE: That's correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE KWON: And we still have that tape?
22 MR. FILE: Yes, we do.
23 JUDGE KWON: Shall we take a break.
24 MR. FILE: If we may, before the break, if Your Honour agrees, if
25 we can give the witness a copy of his -- the B/C/S version of the
1 transcript to review.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, do you have any difficulty with that?
3 THE ACCUSED: No.
4 JUDGE KWON: How much longer do you expect the --
5 MR. FILE: I would estimate approximately 45 minutes.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll break for 45 minutes and resume at 1.15.
9 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.24 p.m.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 If I could quickly raise what would normally be a housekeeping
14 matter but now because of the imminent appearances of the witness has
15 some greater urgency.
16 We, that is the Prosecution, made a motion quite some time ago to
17 exclude a portion of Mr. Jaksic's testimony. We have no record of a
18 decision on that motion. I believe the Defence doesn't either, so unless
19 we missed something, apparently that's still pending and I wanted to
20 raise it before the witness appeared.
21 JUDGE KWON: Chamber is considering the issue.
22 Yes, Mr. File. You said you would need 45 minutes.
23 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you try to conclude it in half an hour.
25 MR. FILE: Okay. I will try.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. Mr. Jankovic, did you have the opportunity to locate any part of
4 the transcript of your 2001 interview where you feel you were abused or
5 pressured into giving false testimony?
6 A. Your Honours, I looked at this, as far as I could, and it turns
7 out as if this was all milk and honey as we say in popular language. Ten
8 hours of interrogation, interruption, abuse, and then going back and
9 forth to receive instructions, and I know who he received instructions
11 Look here, what's the reason for not putting a question to me now
12 but going back to precisely what I said was wrong with it. A policeman
13 came, and I told him the truth.
14 First of all, this individual was not prepared for many of these
16 Second of all, in many of these issues, we see that I say one
17 thing, it's mathematically correct, and he say it is mathematically
18 incorrect. This is what I'm going to say to you now. This is quite
19 clear, there is no reason for me to say otherwise. I spoke the truth.
20 Only Jesus Christ is infallible. I make mistakes, other people make
21 mistakes, but I do acknowledge my mistakes.
22 So to put it quite simply, it transpires from this that
23 everything was excellent and all in good order. It wasn't. This man was
24 shouting at me. He asked me about two individuals, Muslims, Filipovic
25 and somebody else, because he was a relative of one of the politicians.
1 So that's why this individual came to put questions to me, and he
2 wouldn't ask me any questions about 10.000 victims of my own people and
3 other peoples.
4 Let me tell you quite simply, I was born in the village of
5 Bistrica. It's 60 kilometres away from Jasenovac, 50 kilometres away
6 from Kozara. If I may finish, please. This is important.
7 JUDGE KWON: No, I'm cutting you off.
8 Do you remember the question? If you can answer the question --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. He asked me if what I said
10 there was the result of any sort of duress and I'm answering by saying
11 that there was harassment. Scientifically speaking, not everyone is
12 capable of putting questions, not everyone is capable of answering
13 questions, and not everyone is capable of following or observing things
14 happening over a long period of time. There was this individual who came
15 and put questions to me. And that's my answer to you.
16 Ask me now and -- and I'll answer. And the Trial Chamber will
17 seek -- hear clearly what I have to say. And a moment ago you
18 interrupted me when I was about to say the most important of things.
19 JUDGE KWON: Please listen carefully to the question and
20 concentrate on answering the question.
21 I will ask Mr. File to ask his question again, if necessary.
22 Please continue, Mr. File.
23 MR. FILE:
24 Q. We're going to move on to the amount of time -- I just want to
25 clarify the amount of time that you spent on the scene at
1 Koricanske Stijene.
2 At transcript page 56, lines 20 to 24 today, you said that you
3 were on the scene for two hours, from 1500 to 1700 hours, and that you
4 were never on the scene any longer than that.
5 Dr. Karadzic intervened and added that it was four hours. But
6 the correct answer was that you were there for two hours; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now --
9 A. Well, I think it was four hours. Between 1300 hours and
10 1700 hours. So that would be four hours.
11 Q. Okay.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, I think that his
13 Excellency Mr. Kwon sensed why I intervened. I heard four hours having
14 been said, and what was recorded in the transcript was two hours.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, regardless of who is asking
16 what, the answer is four hours.
17 JUDGE KWON: After -- you want to say something after
18 Mr. Karadzic says something, please wait. Put a pause between his -- his
19 words and your words, in light of the interpretation that is going on.
20 Do you follow?
21 Yes, Mr. File.
22 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me repeat this now for the sake
24 of everyone.
25 The correct answer is four hours, regardless of who puts the
1 question to me.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. Could we look at the same document that is on the screen, the
4 transcript of your interview.
5 MR. FILE: English page 50; B/C/S page 44, please.
6 Q. You'll see towards the bottom half of the page in English you are
8 "After the rain, and because it was cold, it was already getting
9 dark and you know that in the mountains days are shorter. And I told you
10 that we stayed there for about two hours. During that period, two
11 civilians came..."
12 And it goes on. You see that?
13 A. I don't see that. Where is that? Do you have that cursor to
14 show it to me?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 9 and 10 in Serbian.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I arrived at the scene, was
17 around two hours.
18 Well, you see, this was an on-site investigation. I calculated
19 in the amount of time I spent there the time when we were trying to find
20 shelter from the rain. There was a storm and a shower. Nobody could
21 stay outdoors, so I factored in also the time spent in Knezevo when we
22 appealed over the TV for all those who knew anything about it to report
23 to the nearest police station.
24 So there -- they were four hours in all, because I considered
25 that to be part of the on-site investigation.
1 MR. FILE:
2 Q. You said in paragraph 9 of your statement that -- we're talking
3 about your witness statement now:
4 "I could not be present there due to other obligations except on
5 23 August 1992 in the afternoon because I was the only investigating
6 judge and had to attend other investigations every half-hour or hour."
7 But my question to you is: What other case could possibly have
8 been more important than this massacre of 200 civilians such that you
9 would never return to the scene again, other than this two-hour visit to
10 the crime scene or four-hour visit to the area?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your question is logical.
13 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
14 What objection is it, Mr. Karadzic?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that 120 is a -- a horrible
16 enough figure, and I kindly appeal to the Prosecutor not to inflate it
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. You said the question was logical.
19 Can you answer the question?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I said that the question was
22 The only thing I did was conduct an on-site investigation as a
23 preliminary investigative action. Since there were between 165 and 170
24 victims, if you're asking me to give you precise figures, we could --
25 arrived at that number on the basis of the number of the buses, the seats
1 on the buses, and the space available for them to be standing. Of course
2 any victim is a victim too much. But we concluded that on the basis of
3 the vehicle used, it could have been between 165 and 170 persons. That
4 was on the basis of the type of the bus, carrying capacity, and similar.
5 As for your logical question, I carried out the on-site
6 investigation only. But this was the situation: Every hour, there were
7 cases of hand-grenades being thrown at different facilities and buildings
8 and this was just one investigative action. That's to say, the crime
9 scene was filmed on a camera. The survivors were called upon to report
10 to the nearest station over the TV. There was a separation line, a
11 confrontation line quite nearby, and an order was issued on the following
12 day to an individual called Markovic and Vodovnik to attend the scene so
13 that autopsies may be carried out and the identification process
14 completed. So this was about preliminary investigative actions. But
15 there were many cases of hand-grenades being held, buildings in
16 Banja Luka being torched, et cetera. Whereas, this was just a -- a crime
17 scene examination. I wasn't in charge of an investigation, and I keep
18 repeating this.
19 MR. FILE:
20 Q. Well, then, let's return to what happened at that crime scene.
21 You had a crime scene technician named Milivoje Pavicic; correct?
22 A. One of the technicians, he was a junior technician, the
23 technician in charge was Branko --
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the family name.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Another technician was
1 Radovan Sukalo, also an experienced technician. The other one was
2 Srdjan Oljaca. This Pavicic was not the person who would, in fact, be
3 examining crime scenes. He was carrying bags around, to put it quite
4 frankly. At the time I was working, I didn't know the scale of the
5 civilian and religious war.
6 Q. My question was: You had a crime scene technician named
7 Milivoje Pavicic. That was it. All that required --
8 A. Pavicic.
9 Q. All that required was a yes as an answer. Now I would like to
10 direct your attention to a signed witness statement from this individual.
11 MR. FILE: This is 65 ter number 25183. Now, if we go to page 4,
12 paragraph 12.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do we have it in Serbian?
14 MR. FILE: I don't believe we do.
15 Q. Here you'll see that he is referring to September, ten days after
16 the initial -- I'm just going to read to you the relevant portions.
17 We're talking about a visit to the site again, in paragraph 12,
18 in September.
19 In paragraph 14 it says:
20 "The lower court investigating judge did not come."
21 The part that I'm interested in is on the next page,
22 paragraphs 16 and 17. Here it says:
23 "The men from Prijedor wearing the rubber suits began pulling out
24 the bodies so they could be loaded on a crane. They were put on a wooden
25 platform which was suspended on the crane. I saw that, two by two,
1 bodies were lifted twice and then the crane broke down. I recorded this
2 with video camera. I came back up to the road and continued to record
3 the crime scene when the chief of the Prijedor public security station
4 Simo Drljaca, started yelling at me for filming the site. He asked me
5 who ordered me to film, and I said Chief Buhovac. He ordered me to stop
6 recording the scene. I did not record anything else that day and they
7 stopped pulling out the bodies because the crane broke. I think they
8 could only remove four bodies during the first day. During the four days
9 that I was around Drljaca, he was saying things like: I was in Belgrade
10 and I wasn't around. I think Buhovac was there as well when Drljaca was
11 saying. I did not believe him due to the fact that he ordered me to stop
12 shooting the scene which should have been proper procedures.
13 "We went background to Knezevo where I, Brane Buhovac,
14 Zdenko Tesanovic [phoen] and Srdjan Oljaca waited for a few more days to
15 see whether identification would take place. The rest of the team went
16 back to Banja Luka the same date. I have been asked why Simo Drljaca,
17 the chief of the Prijedor police SJB, would be at the scene. I can only
18 say that we all knew that it was the Prijedor police who had done this
19 crime and that's why Drljaca was present."
20 My question for you is: Surely you worked closely enough with
21 your crime scene technician that you were aware that these things were
22 happening at the crime scene in September; correct?
23 A. Your Honour, now you have heard what this man asked me and since
24 I'm not entitled to give or many any comments, let me tell you this.
25 This man Pavicic whom he mentioned was a young man. This is the
1 first time I'm seeing this, and I don't believe that this is what he
2 said, unless he was insane. He is asking me about something that I did
3 not absolutely witness. I said that was there on -- one day only, on the
4 22nd of August, 1992, at the crime scene, and he is describing something
5 that happened in the month of September. And this individual was either
6 given money or was insane. He draws Radovan Karadzic into this story.
7 Let me tell you quite clearly that this is crime against the
8 Serbian people, and only if he turned insane would Radovan Karadzic have
9 done this. Let's compare this to whether Obama would have supported what
10 had been done to those children last year. We see that among the
11 technician, there is was Radovan Sukalo, Velko Maric, Srdjan Oljaca,
12 Branko Buhovac. So how can Pavicic carry more statement in his statement
13 than his superior, Branko Buhovac. This statement was either the result
14 of a bribe or -- or something else, and this is the first time I hear of
15 this. And I would always keep repeating this.
16 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure, Mr. Jankovic, where in this statement,
17 in particular in those that were read to you, this crime technician,
18 Mr. Pavicic, was drawing Mr. Karadzic into this.
19 MR. ROBINSON: Paragraph 13, Mr. President. But he wasn't
20 drawing him into it in a negative way. But he does mention in
21 paragraph 13 Dr. Karadzic.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And Simo Drljaca.
23 JUDGE KWON: I will leave it at that.
24 Yes, please continue. Just a second.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. File will ask you questions. Thank you for your
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But it's important for me to tell
4 you this. This is good for our general public to see.
5 JUDGE KWON: Just --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excellent.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. File will ask you questions.
8 MR. FILE:
9 Q. Mr. Jankovic, Slobodan Avlijas came here to testify for the
10 Defence and he confirmed that there was a meeting on the 30th of August,
11 attended by a number of high-ranking RS officials as well as some of your
12 colleagues, including the presidents of the county courts and the public
13 prosecutor, Mr. Panic, and here's what he said at transcript pages 35187
14 to 35188. He said:
15 "Let's not reinvent the wheel here. The entire RS knows that it
16 was done by members of the SJB in Prijedor commanded by Simo Drljaca."
17 He went on to say:
18 "It is no secret at all and it was known on that day of the
19 meeting the entire Krajina and all of the RS knew that the police station
20 or SJB, I'm not sure of the exact name at the time, was in charge of
21 escorting a civilian convoy, a convoy of civilian population, I think
22 predominantly of Muslim ethnicity."
23 He continued:
24 "There was no doubt about whether or not the crime had been
25 committed or not. Everything was known."
1 Finally he said:
2 "If it had been a well functioning state, Simo Drljaca should
3 have been locked up. If there is command responsibility in a well
4 functioning state, then there can be no discussion about it."
5 Now, Mr. Jankovic, senior officials in the RS knew who was
6 responsible. Your colleagues on the court knew who was responsible. The
7 prosecutor knew who was responsible. Surely you must have known as the
8 investigating judge where to go looking for the perpetrators of this
9 crime; right?
10 A. That's not right. May I explain?
11 Q. Before you do, I want to ask you whether you ever summoned anyone
12 from the Prijedor police to answer questions about this incident. You
13 didn't do that, did you?
14 A. No, never. I've told you this for 100 times now, that the only
15 thing I did was the on-site investigation as part of the preliminary
16 investigative action. And I made an attempt at having autopsies
17 conducted. I could not have summoned anyone because I didn't know their
18 names. A witness who was arrested, Darko, I can't recall his name at
19 present, I didn't know who the perpetrators were. There was guess-work.
20 I agree with you. People were guessing but didn't know precisely who
21 they were. As I said, a killer is always in hiding, as is a drug dealer,
22 an adulter, et cetera. Nobody wanted to hush this up except for the
23 perpetrators, of course. But we didn't know at the time -- was the scale
24 of the war. If you go back to the time when I was proceeding in this
25 case, and this was also a question put to me by this unfortunate
1 investigator from Pakistan. I had a pen and a notepad with me and he
2 asked me why I didn't arrest those men who had a tank. I would have been
3 a super -- superman had I been able to do that. I would dearly like to
4 have seen you there with me to see what you would have done in my shoes.
5 I will never say this. I have never said this. I -- I do not justify
6 this at all. Every human life it precious and this is something that was
7 a burden for the Serbian people. Nobody tried to conceal this.
8 Unfortunately, we had a -- a stretch of the front line of
9 2.000 kilometres, and unfortunately, we were short of a genocide having
10 been committed there, and had all of this not happened I would not be
11 here today. But go on, say what you want to say.
12 Q. I'd like to return to 65 ter 25926 and look at your transcript
13 again, at English page 69 B/C/S page 59.
14 Okay. Here you were asked -- you said:
15 "First, the only entity or a person who was capable of
16 identifying and arresting perpetrators was the civilian police. The
17 civilian police and nobody else. Whether they were willing or not,
18 that's another issue, another question."
19 Then you were asked:
20 "But couldn't you have found out -- found that out if you talked
21 to Stojan Zupljanin who was the head of the civilian police?"
22 Your answer was:
23 "No, because I did not talk to him after... about it."
24 Then you were asked:
25 "Was that because -- let's be honest here, because the police
1 were involved and it would have been dangerous for you to push the
2 identification and arrest the perpetrators?"
3 And your answer was --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could we get the next page in the B/C/S,
6 MR. FILE:
7 Q. Your answer was:
8 "Not only for me, for everybody."
9 JUDGE KWON: Next page for the B/C/S.
10 MR. FILE:
11 Q. "Every policeman at the time was the force or power."
12 That was what you said in 2001, and that was the truth, wasn't
14 A. No, I said something different. Perhaps, I mean, in reaching a
15 conclusion. I mean, well, I repeat, yet again. Few people are capable
16 of putting the right questions. So then and now, and always, I can just
17 tell you that I, as a civilian investigating judge, could not have
18 arrested a policeman. So the sequence was that I would submit a record
19 and then the prosecutor could ask for identification from the police.
20 You see, here people really didn't know because uniforms were different.
21 They didn't know for a long time who the perpetrators were. Now people
22 found out who the perpetrators were and they were prosecuted before the
23 judiciary of the BH.
24 Now, what is there here that you don't know or don't want to
25 know? Some judges and prosecutors in order to establish the prosecutor's
1 office of the BH and the court of BH, they saw themselves here and then
2 they kept this in a drawer. Vojkan Dimitrijevic was here and defended a
3 person, a suspect, and you never asked him whether he knew and what he
4 knew. He returned and became a judge of the high court in contravention
5 of all international codes, and conversely he said --
6 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
7 A. You don't want to hear the truth. That's the problem. I wish
8 you all the best. You just do your job.
9 Q. You saw Simo Drljaca four or five days after your investigation
10 was complete, and he told you:
11 "You finished your job. You submitted it. You surrendered it to
12 the SUP. You are -- you shouldn't be dealing with it anymore."
14 A. I think that that was at the Bosna hotel. It was private, not
15 official. No, I knew Simo. We were on good terms, I knew many people,
16 Simo included. Regardless of whether somebody is a good person or a bad
17 person I cannot avoid that. But speaking personally -- I mean, but, no,
18 not officially. No way. I didn't know Simo's role in this case for a
19 very long time, until I went to the BH court. And you simply don't want
20 to look at the transcript of my interview before the BH court. Many
21 prosecutors and judges were promoted by falsely presenting different
22 cases, including this one, Mr. President. So this one is included.
23 Q. That interview with the BH court or your statement in front of
24 the BH court, that happened in 2008. And that is the moment when justice
25 began --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- to be done in this case; correct?
3 A. Yes, that is correct. Yes, precisely. Now this is the right
4 question. The only right question you have put to me so far.
5 So this could have been dealt with. And you didn't ask me about
6 that. There was this dispatch of the president of the republic, there
7 was this dispatch from the minister of the interior and who was accused
8 here, poor man, for nothing. And that was stolen. They were waiting for
9 the establishment of the prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina on
10 orders from The Hague Tribunal, and then can you imagine this wonderland
11 where out of 100 persons 90 to 95 are being prosecuted? So out of 100
12 person there, 90 to 95 persons are being prosecuted, belonging to one
13 ethnicity only. So they were waiting. Some of them did know. And
14 that's why I have this suspicious regarding these foreign intelligence
15 services. Some people knew. And according to the law and the
16 constitution, this prosecutor's office cannot exist in such a way. And
17 if I'm a legalist, and indeed I am, in 1991, I acted -- no, sorry, 1992.
18 Q. Mr. Jankovic --
19 A. In 1992, I was supposed to -- no, just a moment, please.
20 I was supposed -- I'm saying this for the Trial Chamber not for
21 you. I was supposed to know what would happen in --
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm asking you to answer the
24 Yes [Overlapping speakers] Mr. --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm answering.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. File.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. I want to ask you about another suspicion that you have which you
4 state in paragraph 11 where you say that you later established -- this is
5 your statement. You later establish that:
6 "For reasons I do not know, video material and these two
7 dispatches went missing. This made me suspect that there was a
8 conspiracy afoot by persons unknown."
9 MR. FILE: I'd like to look at 65 ter 25166, please.
10 Q. When this comes up, what you will see is that this is an
11 Official Note dated 5th October, 1999, of the interview of Branko
12 Buhovac, the head of the forensic department of the RS MUP.
13 MR. FILE: If we could go to the last page, please.
14 Q. You'll see towards the very bottom it says:
15 "As for the videotape of the scene, I can tell you that it has
16 been erased using a VCR on the order of the UKP chief, Goran Macar."
17 Now, in the same ICTY signed witness statement from Mr. Pavicic,
18 you see a similar description in paragraphs 16 to 17.
19 So my question is: Were you aware of the possibility that this
20 tape may have been erased on the orders of someone inside the government?
21 A. I understand you. Again, an excellent question, and I'm glad for
22 the sake of my own public. I personally doubt that Buhovac wrote this.
23 This Pavicic, he would be prone to do anything. And I'm glad that this
24 will be heard here. Goran Macar on his order, no.
25 Now, what is it that happened? When there was this take-over of
1 the police in Banja Luka with the assistance of SFOR, one police came and
2 another police left. Then the police broke into the crime investigation
3 service and then they took everything. You know, they're policemen.
4 They don't know what things are. They just take everything. Now on
5 these slides, that's the technical term, you can see all the pictures of
6 Koricanske Stijene. I saw all of that, I was shown all of that. I don't
7 know what you're trying to say by putting this. I don't know Goran Macar
8 and I really doubt that he could have ordered this.
9 So this was kept in the crime prevention service and then SFOR
10 broke in and took everything. And also 54/92, Mico Stanisic's telegram,
11 and also President Karadzic dispatch, all of that was stolen. And I know
12 why, so that people could later get certain positions.
13 Now what you're asking me now that's a good question. That was
14 not just erased. It cannot be erased. There are five witnesses who
15 signed this in my office number 29. Where they were, what they did, how
16 they barely survived. I mean, it defies belief how they survived.
17 Now would somebody come and erase the slides? When live people
18 are saying what happened. Your question is not logical. I cannot give
19 you an answer in terms of something that somebody else had done.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But it's good for our public that
22 this question was put.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The transcript does not reflect
25 that his record 354 also went missing.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's 554?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Or 554.
3 MR. FILE:
4 Q. Mr. Jankovic, you mentioned Mico Stanisic. I'd like to look
5 at --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- his statement in this case, draft statement, which is 1D9900,
8 at paragraphs 57 to 59.
9 A. All of this is empty. I cannot see a thing.
10 MR. FILE: Pardon me, 56 to 58.
11 Q. Here, as you'll see, it says:
12 "An investigative judge was assigned to the case and took
13 statements from victims. A criminal report against unknown perpetrators
14 was filed on 8 September, 1992. On 11 September, 1992, CSB Chief,
15 Stojan Zupljanin, ordered the Prijedor SJB to take full written
16 statements from policemen involved in this incident and provide him with
17 other information needed to identify the perpetrators. Exhibit D3763 is
18 the communication sent by Zupljanin.
19 "Once an investigative judge had taken charge of the
20 investigation, the obligation of the Ministry of Interior to investigate
21 ceased, subject to any orders of that investigating judge."
22 Now this statement appears to be blaming you for the lack of any
23 further action on this investigation. So my question is: Do you accept
24 blame for the failure to identify and prosecute any perpetrators during
25 the war?
1 A. Let us finally agree on something. By formally interpreting what
2 you read out, yes, I'm the one to be blamed. But in real terms, how
3 could I identify a policeman? I'm asking all of you. I'm asking myself.
4 In simple terms, an investigative judge just carried out an investigative
5 action which was an attempt to carry out an on-site investigation and an
6 autopsy and also he interviewed five persons in his office because he
7 didn't know what would happen afterwards. At the time when this action
8 was taken, the size was not known or the scale was not no known. To
9 identify these persons it only could have been done by somebody who had
10 force. Not somebody who had a notebook.
11 Do you understand what I'm saying? Now it's different in
12 peacetime. But, at that time, it could have been done only by someone
13 who had force. If I had force, wearing civilian clothes and carrying a
14 notebook - do you understand what I'm saying? - then that would be
15 logical but this is the first time I see this. If we were to look at all
16 this, then the conclusion would be different...
17 Q. Okay. I just have a couple of remaining questions about the
18 cases that you describe in your statement that you claim in
19 paragraph 7 --
20 JUDGE KWON: If you could bear with me just a second.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. File, please conclude in five minutes.
23 MR. FILE: Okay.
24 Q. In your statement, you refer to a number of cases that you claim
25 show that you worked on the basis of the law and regularly tried Serbs
1 who committed crimes against non-Serbs. I don't have time to cover all
2 of these cases right now, but I'd like to look at one of the ones that
3 you mention, which is 1D55188.
4 I don't have -- I haven't seen that there's been a translation
5 uploaded so we've translated just a couple of pages of this.
6 MR. FILE: If we could have number 25887, please.
7 And as this comes up, in your statement, you say that this case
8 file of Vedran Mandic clearly indicates that they were tried for crime
9 against non-Serbs in Banja Luka and at the end they were killed on the
10 attack on the Medjan police station.
11 Now if you look at this Official Note from the CSB, this tells a
12 story of Mr. Mandic sitting down in a police car after asking to speak
13 with two police inspectors and telling him that he has heard the police
14 are asking questions around town about him and his activities in the SOS,
15 and he says:
16 "In early April 1992, I heard from some friends that SOS special
17 units would be established in Banja Luka but also in other towns.
18 Volunteers were sought who would work in groups to defend the Serbian
19 people. One of the tasks was opposing the JNA which wanted to take away
20 weapons and leave the Serbs without the possibility of defence and the
21 second task was to drive Muslims, Croats and Albanians out of town.
22 "I don't want to talk much about the establishment of SOS units.
23 Everything was done in secret. Ringo and Panto talked to me at Laus and
24 later I met Nenad Stevandic."
25 Then he goes on to say:
1 "From that day on, as a member of the SOS I did as Panto, Ringo,
2 and Stevandic ordered.
3 "And what were those orders?"
4 He says:
5 "They told to us destroy buildings belonging to Muslims and other
6 ethnic groups who are against the Serbs and to intimidate them to move
7 out of the area."
8 Then as the statement goes on, he complains that he spent a lot
9 of his own money on weapons and explosives, and he says:
10 "When I compare how much money I have spent it is clear that all
11 this is not profitable for me. Everyone knows who will benefit from our
12 attempts to drive out Balijas. Those people will seize their shops and
13 houses and we will have nothing."
14 Then later he goes on to describe how he deals drugs to pay for
15 some of these explosives. So my -- my question is - because he is
16 released after this, he just leaves - don't you think that this is sort
17 of the moment where the police would want to arrest this person?
18 A. May I? May I answer?
19 Well, it's a good things that you read this out for the sake of
20 our own public and least of all for the Tribunal to have these facts
21 known. It is a fact that this man was killed during the attack on the
22 police station. It is a fact that Goran Bijelic was killed then, a
23 person from the DB, a Serb. To this day, no light has been shed on that.
24 Now, as for these persons, I know of them but I don't know what
25 they did. I don't know who compiled this. It wasn't this way. That
1 would be it, as briefly as possible.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. And just another thing - just a moment, please - it's very
4 important for all.
5 So we all lived together. The old Muslims were good people. Had
6 it not been for foreign interference none of this would have happened --
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jankovic, you're not answering the question.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Go ahead. Please say.
9 JUDGE KWON: Please listen to the questions put to you by
10 Mr. File.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will. I will now answer the
13 JUDGE KWON: No --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a good thing for the sake
15 of our public.
16 JUDGE KWON: No. We are not conducting this trial for the
17 benefit of the public. This is a serious criminal trial against
18 Mr. Radovan Karadzic. You are not assisting the Chamber.
19 Please. Please listen to the question.
20 MR. FILE: Could we please look at number 25929, please.
21 Q. This is going to be, when it comes up, another Official Note that
22 describes what happened regarding the attack at the police station.
23 And here you see this was not in connection with the police
24 attempting to pursue this individual for criminal activities against
25 Muslim businesses that he was perpetrating during this time. It says
2 "He approached the police station with dynamite and that he had
3 come to blow us up, because, as he put it, who had given us the right to
4 bring in his pregnant wife to the police station. Since I smelled
5 alcohol on his breath, I tried to talk to him nicely and explain to him
6 that his wife had been stopped by the military police as she was found to
7 be driving a Lada Niva car without number plates and a corresponding car
8 registration card. I also told him that the policemen had treated his
9 wife very courteously. However, Vedran began to insult the police,
10 saying we were chicken shits and that we should go to Motike and arrest
11 Ustashas and not his wife. I'm not going to read out the entire report,
12 but Vedran then leaves. The police try to call the special detachment
13 for back up, then he returns later with the rifle grenade and he is
14 confronted by the police and is killed in a shoot-out."
15 And the report also indicates as a side note that the police were
16 aware he had been conducting bombings all over the city, not because they
17 had any intent to arrest him, but, it says: "I am mentioning all of this
18 to show that in view of his activities up to that moment, there was a
19 real threat to safety of the members of the police."
20 So what this document actually shows is that the police were well
21 aware of his activities. They were not trying to arrest him. That's
22 correct, isn't it?
23 A. Again, I have to tell you this is the first I hear of this.
24 How can I give an answer when this is the very first time I hear
25 of this?
1 Q. Mr. Jankovic, this document --
2 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. President.
3 I don't think Mr. File is respecting the Trial Chamber's
4 time-limits at all, and I also don't think this is a particularly
5 important area of examination. So I think you should terminate the
6 direct -- the cross-examination and let -- let us finish with this
8 JUDGE KWON: I think he is coming to an end.
9 Yes, Mr. File.
10 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour, I am coming to the end, and I would
11 just actually -- well, first of all, I would point out that this comes
12 from the Defence exhibit 1D55188.
13 MR. ROBINSON: That wasn't admitted.
14 MR. FILE: It was referred to in the witness's witness statement
15 as clearly indicating that these individuals were tried for crimes
16 against non-Serbs and that they were killed in the attack on this police
17 station. And as evidence that they worked on the basis of law. So this
18 goes to the witness's credibility.
19 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure I'm following you. Did you mean to say
20 that you tender this document?
21 MR. FILE: I -- I will tender this document when this is
23 JUDGE KWON: My question was whether you are coming to an end.
24 MR. FILE: Yes, I -- I am, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE KWON: You're concluded.
1 MR. FILE: Yes. I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 And you said you are -- you meant to tender some documents?
4 MR. FILE: Yes. I would tender the pages of the transcript that
5 we've referred to. I may have to verify that with the Registrar to
6 ensure that we have the correct page references in the final version of
7 the transcript that's uploaded in e-court. But I would tender those
9 JUDGE KWON: In the future, I would like the Prosecutor to tender
10 as -- as we go on.
11 Yes. And? The intercept -- the transcript pages we -- we dealt
13 And what else?
14 MR. FILE: Actually, I think that's -- that's all, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE KWON: All right.
16 Any objections?
17 MR. ROBINSON: I think they should identify them to us by e-mail,
18 and we'll get back to the Chamber.
19 MR. FILE: I'm happy to do that.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll assign a number for that exhibit.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter number 25926 will be
22 Exhibit P6609.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, do you have re-examination?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Excellency. But I hope it
25 won't take too long.
1 So could we immediately call up this transcript of the interview?
2 I don't really have the number here right now.
3 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit P6609.
4 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Next page, please.
6 Mr. Jankovic, I'd like to clear up where you worked and from
7 where, what did you say, from -- on this transcript.
8 A. Precisely.
9 Q. Next page.
10 THE ACCUSED: Next page in Serbian and probably in English too.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Look at line 7. Is it true that you said that from 1988, you
13 were investigating judge?
14 A. Yes, yes. You see? Your Honours, it would never cross my mind
15 to say something that is not true. Here I just got it wrong, in terms of
16 dates. And I have all the papers to prove when I finished higher school,
17 law school, when I became investigating judge. Of course, I knew it
18 better at that time. I am able to say exactly how long I worked as a
19 judge, when I was replaced, and by whom.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 4, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are just particulars,
22 details, that everybody forgets with time.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Is this page 4? Yes, look at line 19. Year 1977 is mentioned.
25 We had understood that you became judge then; but, in fact, it's the year
1 when you returned to Banja Luka.
2 A. Yes. I returned to Banja Luka in 1977. I couldn't be judge
3 because I was then a student at the high school of criminology until
4 1985. That's true. And thank you for asking this. I repeat, I just
5 made a mistake.
6 Q. Page 5. 14 in English.
7 It says here you worked as crime investigation inspector until
9 A. That's exactly true, in the crime department.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender this page.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll add these pages.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 7. 7. The numbering of pages
14 is different, indeed.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. At the top of the page, you explain differences in the system.
17 A. Between the Anglo-Saxon system and continental law.
18 Q. Did that occur as a problem in your mutual understanding?
19 A. A major problem. And you heard today preliminary investigative
20 actions are not the same as investigation, as the Prosecutor persistently
21 tries to present it.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender pages 7 and 8 in English.
23 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure we are seeing the corresponding pages;
24 in particular, between the B/C/S and English --
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In English, it's 7. And I'm moving
1 onto 8.
2 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Yes, we'll add these two pages.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We'll leave this
5 Let us look at 65 ter 25183.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. You were shown a passage from the statement of this gentleman,
8 Pavicic, or a few passages.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 3, please.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. I'd like to ask you if these allegations made here --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is this page 3?
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. In the second paragraph, it says like this:
15 [In English] "Knezevo with the following personnel: Gordana
16 Radujko, a public prosecutor; Judge Jevto Jankovic; an inspector from CSB
17 whom I don't recall his name. We came to the public security station in
18 Knezevo to get further instructions, as we were not familiar with the
20 [Interpretation] Is this consistent with the truth?
21 A. No, it isn't. And for the sake of our public, it's good you ask
22 this question.
23 I never went anywhere with Gordana Radujko. This investigation
24 was done by Djordje Dujicic [phoen] or this Pavkovic simply made this up.
25 There is no third possibility.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Both speakers are kindly asked to observe a
2 pause between questions and answers.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. In paragraph 3, he mentions Peulic and so on:
5 [In English] "Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic was concerned about the
6 incident and told us that there had been a survivor found. I believe
7 that Judge Jevto Jankovic told me to take a video-recorded statement from
8 the survivor."
9 [Interpretation] Did you ask that everything be filmed?
10 A. No, I'm hearing this for the first time. This little Pavlicic
11 could not have approached Bosko Peulic and talk to him. He wasn't able
12 to talk even to Jevto Jankovic. And it was -- it's not possible that I
13 gave him as, an outsider, any orders. I could have given instructions
14 only to Radovan Sukalo --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch all the names.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This man either took money to say
17 this, or he is completely crazy. Or this is a forgery. There is no
18 other way. You'll see, the truth will out.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. The interpreter did not catch all the names. But did -- were you
21 the one who ordered that everything be documented?
22 A. I didn't order him anything. He was a pipsqueak. He was
23 insignificant. Yes, I did give orders to Orljaca, Sukalo, and the third
24 one, Buhovac.
25 People who know about this will laugh. The man who survived is
1 called Midhat Mujkanovic. A soldier brought him and said, Here, we found
2 one survivor.
3 At that point, I still didn't know what the scale of this
4 civil/religious war would be. And the survivor asks me, Are you going to
5 kill me? I said no. I put him in my own car. We took him to the
6 hospital. I later questioned him in my office at the court, and he got
7 out through the organisation, Merhamet. And now he is still alive, thank
8 God. But I cannot explain this because foreign intelligence services are
9 ruling Bosnia-Herzegovina, this country of miracles.
10 Q. Page 4, please. I'll read from paragraph 13 in English:
11 [In English] "I should mention some rumours that I heard that
12 during this time about Radovan Karadzic. We heard that Karadzic had
13 ordered that the bodies that were at Koricanske Stijene were to be
14 recovered and that the incident was clearly a crime. There was never the
15 atmosphere amongst us that Simo Drljaca had done a good job (in killing
16 the Muslims)."
17 [Interpretation] Did you hear at the scene that I had already
18 sent certain messages to Knezevo regarding this incident?
19 A. I've said this a hundred times. This is a crime that blemishes
20 Serbian people. And Karadzic was not out to prejudice Serbian people.
21 Even if he were completely crazy, he wouldn't order something like this.
22 I told you what happened. And you will see. Nothing could
23 happen in Bosnia-Herzegovina without foreign intelligence services.
24 Prosecutor Tieger, please pay attention to what I'm saying.
25 There was a clear plan to portray one side as the only culprit, the
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the number.
3 Mr. Karadzic is overlapping with the witness.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please repeat.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D4236. 4236 has already been
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. But since the translation is wrong, please read slowly the text
9 so our interpreters can translate it. And tell us also how this document
10 is related to your evidence about your powers and your duties? The
11 Serbian version, please.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we remove the English so that
13 interpreters could interpret from Mr. Jankovic's words.
14 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I would object to this as just --
15 JUDGE KWON: I will take a look into the English.
16 MR. FILE: Okay. We have -- we have -- we have them in e-court.
17 I think --
18 What's the basis of your objection, Mr. File?
19 MR. FILE: That's fine. I'll withdraw it, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Was this part of the associated exhibits?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This was admitted a long time ago.
22 In some other case.
23 JUDGE KWON: This is what we admitted at the beginning of this
24 witness's evidence as part of associate exhibit, I take it.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: If you could read out.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Lower court in Banja Luka,
4 24 September 1992. To the basic public prosecutor, Banja Luka.
5 Attention: Deputy Marinko Kovacevic. Having conducted the preliminary
6 investigating procedures."
7 You have to believe me, Mr. President, I mentioned this in 1992.
8 Why wouldn't I mention it in 2014?
10 "Having conducted the preliminary investigating procedures, upon
11 the request from your file, KTM 2293/92 dated 14 September 1992, we are
12 returning to you the file for the public prosecutor to make his decision.
13 We emphasise that out of the possible seven persons, we have questioned
14 five persons whose statements are identical. So I believe that
15 questioning the remaining two who are seriously injured and are
16 undergoing treatment is pointless. Hereby we make available to you the
17 entire file."
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. I draw everyone's attention to the fact that in the English
20 translation the reference is to investigation, not to preliminary
21 investigating procedures, which is important.
22 What does this mean, Mr. Jankovic?
23 A. The prosecutor needs to ask the police to identify possible
24 perpetrators of the Koricanske Stijene killings. An investigation can
25 start only when perpetrators are known. This was just an on-site
1 investigation, and there the whole procedure hit a snag.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The witness needs to repeat the last thing. He
3 is speaking much too fast.
4 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. The interpreters were not available
5 to catch up with you.
6 Could you -- could you repeat from the beginning [Overlapping
7 speakers] ...
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... if I
9 may, Your Excellencies, my question is not recorded.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. What does this mean: "We are returning for you the file for the
12 public prosecutor to make a decision."
13 It's interpreted well.
14 So you returned this for the prosecutor to make further
15 decisions. Please briefly and slowly answer the question.
16 A. It means, quite simply, the prosecution had to ask for the
17 perpetrators of the Koricanske Stijene killings to be identified.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. And when they are identified, when they are known, a request has
20 to be made by the prosecution to conduct an investigation. Only then
21 could the investigation start. Not at this moment when nobody, including
22 the prosecutor, knows who they are, at the stage of on-site
24 Q. Can you tell us which five persons out of the possible seven did
25 you hear? Who are these people?
1 A. Just a moment. I'll tell you now exactly.
2 Q. I don't need the names. Who were they?
3 A. I don't know. Ordinary mortals. Bakrija Jakupovic,
4 Sulejman Kahrimanovic, Emsud Garibovic, Midhet Mujanovic. The latter was
5 the one whom I brought in my car.
6 Q. Mr. Jankovic, I'm just asking are they victims or perpetrators?
7 A. These are survivors. Those who survived the massacre. Only God
8 could have saved them. No one short of God.
9 Q. Mr. Jankovic, did you ever notice, did you have any indication or
10 information that anybody from the authorities, be it central or local
11 authorities, did not wish the perpetrators to be identified and caught?
12 A. No. No, I did not. And I tried to explain it in my own words.
13 Only a fool who wishes evil upon Republika Srpska could have done
14 that. Because all these people were on the list, and the list was in the
15 hands of the UNPROFOR, the ICRC, the Muslims as a party to the conflict,
16 the Croats as a party to the conflict, and we had a copy of the list.
17 Nine buses set out accompanied with these lists, and three failed to
19 Even during a genocide, somebody survives. So it couldn't be
20 hidden. If I had known about this, I would have dropped everything to
21 identify these persons. If I had known that in 2014 this would be a case
22 before The Hague Tribunal, we would have identified and apprehended all
23 these people. These are our criminals whom you should not under
24 estimate, by the way, in cahoots with foreign intelligence services.
25 Somebody needed to do this for their own political aims. It was
1 certainly not to the advantage of the Serbian leadership and our people.
2 This is quite clear.
3 Q. Mr. Jankovic, thank you. I have no further questions.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something to the
5 president of the Chamber?
6 JUDGE KWON: No, thank you, Mr. Jankovic.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 JUDGE KWON: That concludes your evidence. On behalf of the
9 Chamber, I thank you for your coming to The Hague. Now you are free to
11 Please [Overlapping speakers] ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hope that the truth will prevail.
13 Thank you.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger, I'm coming back to the point you raised
16 earlier on today. I was confused -- I was confused with the pending
17 motion before the Tribunal; that is, with respect to KW426. But your
18 point was with respect to Dusko Jaksic.
19 MR. TIEGER: That's right, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE KWON: I think that issue was resolved by Mr. Robinson's
21 e-mail on the same date which was sent to parties at 7.04 p.m. on 16th --
22 25th of June, in which Mr. Robinson said -- I will quote: "We will
23 delete the paragraphs in question from the final statement of the
25 So --
1 MR. TIEGER: The confusing part is caused by the fact that that
2 wasn't followed up, and I presume Mr. Robinson will do so.
3 JUDGE KWON: So I take it the revised version of the statement
4 has yet to be redacted.
5 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct. And it will be, Mr. President.
6 Thank you for calling that to my attention because I completely forgot
7 about that.
8 JUDGE KWON: Tomorrow we will begin with General Mladic's
10 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE KWON: And then the format, the Scheduling Order -- it
12 will -- if it lasts more than a day, it will -- we will hear from him
13 just for one session and continue to the day after?
14 MR. ROBINSON: That's our proposal, Mr. President, that we hear
15 from him between 9.00 and 10.30, and then if we do not conclude his
16 testimony, we resume his testimony at 9.00 the following day.
17 JUDGE KWON: That's the plan.
18 MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
19 JUDGE KWON: Any observation with respect to that, Mr. Tieger?
20 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We stand adjourned till tomorrow.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.49 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 28th day of
24 January, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.