1 Thursday, 17 May 2001
2 [Evidentiary hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 10.12 a.m.
6 JUDGE WALD: Good morning, counsel, the accused, technical staff.
7 We will begin today's Rule 115 hearing by having the registrar call the
8 case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-95-16-A, the Prosecutor versus
10 Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic, and
11 Vladimir Santic.
12 JUDGE WALD: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I will now ask for the
13 appearances for the various accused, their counsel, and for the
14 Prosecution. Would you begin with the Prosecution, please.
15 MR. YAPA: May it please Your Honours, I'm Upawansa Yapa,
16 appearing for the Prosecution with Mr. Norman Farrell, Mr. Bill Smith.
17 Mr. David Leese, he's the case manager for the Prosecution today.
18 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
19 MR. YAPA: One other matter we wish to mention at this stage; it
20 may be necessary to join in another member of the Prosecution team in the
21 course of the day. I would seek Your Honour's permission to do that.
22 JUDGE WALD: Yes, you have that.
23 MR. YAPA: Thank you.
24 JUDGE WALD: We'll begin with the counsel for the accused. We'll
25 begin with -- go ahead.
1 MR. RADOVIC: [Interpretation] Ranko Radovic, Defence counsel for
2 Zoran Kupreskic.
3 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Good morning, Your Honour. I'm Jadranka
4 Slokovic-Glumac, Defence counsel for Mirjan Kupreskic.
5 MR. PAVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. I am
6 Petar Pavkovic, Defence counsel for Vladimir Santic.
7 MR. ABELL: Good morning, Your Honours. Anthony Abell appearing
8 on behalf of Vlatko Kupreskic, together with my learned co-counsel
9 Mr. John Livingston.
10 MR. CLEGG: I am William Clegg, and I appear with --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Mike, please. Microphone, sorry.
12 JUDGE WALD: Microphone, please.
13 MR. CLEGG: I'm sorry. My name is William Clegg, and I appear
14 with Goranka Herljevic for Drago Josipovic. I apologise to His Honour
15 Judge Vohrah, I'm afraid he's quite unable to see me --
16 JUDGE VOHRAH: That's all right.
17 MR. CLEGG: -- and I am him. He has the advantage and I have the
19 JUDGE WALD: Well, you'll be able to hear each other. All right,
20 I think we have the appearances now.
21 I'm going to make a few preliminary remarks about how we'll
22 conduct the hearing, also to apprise you of the Appeal Chamber's decision
23 on a few of the very late filed motions so you'll know how, how we intend
24 to proceed, and after that, we will begin with the calling of the Defence
1 Now, as you know, the purpose of today's proceeding is to hear the
2 testimony and to enable the Prosecution which has asked for the right to
3 challenge the credibility of witnesses whose statements and whose exhibits
4 have been admitted into evidence already by decisions of the Appeal
5 Chambers following the filing of an application by counsel for Vlatko
6 Kupreskic to admit additional evidence under Rule 115.
7 In our decision which was issued on 11th April 2001, the Appeals
8 Chamber admitted into evidence the statements of four witnesses. Now,
9 when I refer to some of these witnesses by pseudonyms - because I will get
10 to the point of the protective conditions in a few minutes - but the
11 statements of four witnesses who were then identified, one of them is
12 AVK 4 and, Mr. Lazarevic, and there were two other witnesses that the
13 Defence -- that Mr. Kupreskic desired, and we admitted their testimony.
14 Those other two witnesses in this proceeding will have pseudonyms, so I'm
15 not going to mention their names out loud. And we admitted the
16 accompanying exhibits, which were then identified as ML1, 2, 3, MT1, 2,
17 IC1, and 2, but which will have new designations which have been accorded
18 to you by the registrar's sheet here so that you will know how to refer to
19 them. We will give you, as they appear, the pseudonyms for the witnesses
20 who will be testifying by pseudonym.
21 We said in our decision that the admission was without prejudice
22 to any determination of the weight that would be afforded to the evidence
23 and we ordered an evidentiary hearing. Now, the Prosecution desired a
24 right to cross-examine some of the witnesses by whom the statements had
25 been proffered and also to submit some evidence in rebuttal. The Appeals
1 Chamber considered that, having admitted the statements and exhibits, that
2 the Prosecution be given some right to subject the makers of the
3 statements and exhibits to scrutiny so that we could determine the
5 I would emphasise here, however, that we do not view the 115
6 hearing as a mini trial or a trial in which all doors are open to bring up
7 matters which are not directly relevant to the testimony of the witnesses
8 who will be heard. Thus I caution both the Prosecution and the Defence,
9 when it comes time to hear Prosecution rebuttal witnesses, that the
10 rebuttal and the cross-examination should be limited to matters which the
11 witnesses have actually testified to or which directly impugn their
12 credibility, not the much broader area for cross-examination that Rule 90,
13 in the ordinary trial, permits, where one side may, having the witness on
14 the stand, use it as an opportunity to enhance that person's own case. We
15 will limit cross-examination to matters which directly affect the
16 testimony of the main witness or impugn his or her credibility.
17 In its Prosecution notice of cross-examination material, the
18 Prosecution stated that it wanted to cross-examine three of the witnesses
19 whose testimony was admitted in our decision. That was what was then
20 referred to as AVK 4, Mr. Lazarevic, and one of the other witnesses who
21 will be testifying under a pseudonym today. For that reason, in our
22 Scheduling Order issued on the 11th of May, we invited Vlatko Kupreskic's
23 Defence to call these three witnesses, and it's our understanding that
24 they will be testifying today.
25 In the same Scheduling Order, the procedure for this hearing was
1 set out. We said that in relation to each witness, counsel for Vlatko
2 Kupreskic would have one hour for the examination-in-chief. The
3 Prosecution would have one hour for cross-examination. Mr. Kupreskic's
4 counsel would have ten minutes for cross - I'm sorry - for redirect
6 Now, as far as the counsel for other appellants besides Vlatko
7 Kupreskic, they may ask to cross-examine the witness if the witness's
8 testimony implicates them directly in their case, but that testimony would
9 be more limited, obviously, than one hour. But if the witness directly
10 implicates another appellant, then the counsel for that appellant may ask
11 to cross-examine the witness.
12 At the close of the testimony of Vlatko Kupreskic's witnesses who
13 appear here, the Prosecution, we have said, has the right to present
14 evidence in rebuttal, again limited to the issue of the credibility of the
15 witness. We have put a limit on that of three hours. That includes
16 cross-examination of those rebuttal witnesses.
17 We are aware that the Prosecution has submitted for our
18 consideration a large number of written statements pursuant to 92 bis. We
19 have also received an objection to some of those from counsel for Mr.
20 Kupreskic. I want you to know that we will not rule on the admissibility
21 of the 92 bis statements during this hearing, but you will receive a
22 written decision on those very shortly thereafter. There simply has not
23 been time for us to make all of the due consideration that's necessary.
24 But you should have a decision on those exhibits, as well as anything else
25 that remains outstanding, and I'll get to that within a week to ten days
1 so that we can close up this phase.
2 Now, let me move on to the protective conditions. Counsel for
3 Mr. Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, filed a request for protective measures
4 under Rule 75 of the Rules for two of the three witnesses that will be
5 appearing today. We have decided that he has made out a sufficient case
6 so that the two witnesses, whose names, obviously, I will not mention
7 during the open part of the hearing but who will be given pseudonyms by
8 the registrar as they appear, will be heard in closed session. There is
9 also a request for three of the rebuttal witnesses to be given protective
10 measures. Because of the confidentiality necessary under closed session
11 rules for the two -- for the three -- two, I'm sorry, two Kupreskic
12 witnesses, the three rebuttal witnesses will also be heard in closed
14 The exhibits which relate to the Prosecution witnesses which have
15 been submitted, or the Defence witnesses, including the 92 bis statements,
16 will be also deemed, for the present, confidential.
17 If during the course of the hearing on the witnesses who are not
18 heard in closed session either counsel for Mr. Kupreskic or the
19 Prosecution considers it necessary for the Court to go into private
20 session for a particular portion dealing with the protection of
21 third-party witnesses, et cetera, I caution that they must make such a
23 Now, this hearing has been listed for two days. It's my fervent
24 hope that we will be able to finish by midday tomorrow, but we will have
25 to see. Let me give you our proposed work schedule. We're running -- we
1 started a little bit late, but hopefully within the next few minutes we
2 can call our first witness, and we would go then until that witness is
3 concluded, which may be in the vicinity of 12.30 or so, and take a lunch
4 break. We may have to take a, I'm told, a 10- to 15-minute break
5 somewhere in the middle because the translators have to change their tapes
6 every two hours.
7 From 12.30 to 1.30 or thereabouts will be our break, and from 1.30
8 till 3.30, approximately, or whenever the next witness is done, we'll take
9 a short break again to accommodate the translators, and then we will go
10 till the vicinity of 5.00, or if we finish earlier, in order to complete
11 the three Defence witnesses today. Tomorrow morning we will begin at 9.30
12 and go for the three hours until we have completed.
13 That's my optimistic schedule. I sincerely hope we can adhere to
14 it. I emphasise again, we are not in a second trial. We are here to test
15 the credibility of those witnesses which we have already decided are
16 worthy of having their testimony admitted under Rule 115.
17 Now, to close out, let me just tell you briefly what will ensue
18 after this hearing and then we'll move into it, because I know that there
19 are several still pending motions out there in this case.
20 Now, a decision -- number one, a decision on all pending Rule 115
21 applications relating to transcripts or interviews of Witness AT will be
22 rendered within the next ten days. Any other outstanding motions under
23 Rule 115 or similar applications for additional evidence will also be
24 decided within those ten days.
25 A decision, as I said before, on the 92 bis statements that have
1 been proffered here will be rendered at the same time, and finally, we
2 will proffer a final briefing schedule for the appeals briefs and oral
3 arguments. At the same time, we will accompany it with a cumulative list
4 of all the additional evidence which, as of that time, has been admitted
5 under Rule 115 with the identification designations that we will expect
6 people to use when referring to it in the appeals briefs.
7 Now, with that, I believe we can call our first witness. Now, am
8 I correct, Mr. Abell, that the first witness will be a closed session
10 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, that is indeed correct. The second
11 witness will not be.
12 JUDGE WALD: I understand that.
13 MR. ABELL: The third witness will also be a closed session
15 JUDGE WALD: I understand that.
16 Now, Madam Registrar, are we ready to go into closed session for
17 the first witness, and will you tell us the pseudonym?
18 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, just before --
19 JUDGE WALD: Yes.
20 MR. ABELL: -- we move into the witnesses, may I just indicate
21 that at an appropriate stage later today, I would like to briefly make an
22 oral submission expanding on what I said in our motion filed on the 14th
23 of May, that is, Monday of this week, which is titled "Appellants'
24 response to Prosecutor's evidence 92 bis statements."
25 JUDGE WALD: Yes, yes. I intended to offer you that opportunity.
1 My notion would be that during the Prosecution's rebuttal phase, which
2 will come after the Defence witnesses, then they will make a proffer of
3 the -- they have already, but of the 92 bis statements, and I will give
4 you and the Prosecution a brief period in which to make whatever remarks
5 you wish to make --
6 MR. ABELL: Yes.
7 JUDGE WALD: -- about those, and as I said, a written decision
8 will be tendered after the hearing on that.
9 MR. ABELL: I'm grateful for that, but can I just say so that it
10 can perhaps be considered over the luncheon adjournment, it may save time,
11 but what I am going to develop in my oral submission is what is set out in
12 paragraphs 4 and 5 of our motion, that is -- and I don't want to develop
13 it now and take up time by developing it now --
14 JUDGE WALD: No.
15 MR. ABELL: -- expressing concern that we received rebuttal
16 evidence as late as we did and dealing with whether we should deal with
17 it, in the circumstances, tomorrow. I don't want to raise it now, but I
18 will want to raise it later on today, perhaps.
19 JUDGE WALD: All right. We'll hear you on that matter.
20 MR. ABELL: I'm very grateful, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE WALD: Are we ready to go into closed session with the
23 MR. ABELL: Indeed.
24 JUDGE WALD: Then, Mr. Abell, you can proceed as soon as the
25 witness comes in and takes the oath.
1 [Closed session]
13 Pages 184-287 – redacted – closed session
7 --- Recess taken at 3.02 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 3.19 p.m.
9 [Open session]
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE WALD: We are reconvened now, and our next witness will
12 testify in open court.
13 Mr. Lazarevic, will you please recount the oath that's put before
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 WITNESS: MIRO LAZAREVIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. You may be seated and get your headphones
20 adjusted so that you're comfortable in testifying, and then Mr. Abell will
21 begin the questioning and later on you'll be cross-examined by the
23 Mr. Abell.
24 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 Examined by Mr. Abell:
1 Q. Is your name Miro Lazarevic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, I'm going to ask you a number of questions in the
4 time allotted to me. Please do your best to concentrate on my question
5 and try to keep your answer brief and to the point. All right?
6 A. I understand.
7 Q. Is this correct, that you have been a policeman for your entire
8 adult life? Is that correct?
9 A. No. I've been a policeman since 1987.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. Until that, for a while I worked in the economy.
12 Q. Thank you. And did you start work in 1987 in Vitez?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. At the police station in Vitez?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, before October of 1992, is this correct: Muslims and Croats
17 would work side by side together in the same police station?
18 A. Yes. There was a period, I don't remember exactly for how many
19 days it lasted, that neither worked, and then the Croatian and Serb
20 employees, policemen, returned, and then after that also the Bosniak or
21 Muslim policemen returned to work. I think this was in May or maybe June
22 of 1992, and I'm not sure exactly how many days this lasted.
23 Q. After that, did everyone return to work together?
24 A. More or less everyone. Those I knew. I was in the crime police
25 department; they all returned.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, can you help me about this: When the first
2 conflict occurred in Ahmici in October of 1992 and in that area, did that
3 cause a change at the Vitez police station?
4 A. Yes. After that conflict, after that conflict in Ahmici, I didn't
5 work for two or three days, and then I was called to return to the police
6 station, and only the Croats and some Serb policemen returned. I don't
7 know, maybe one or two were of Serb ethnicity. And we continued working,
8 whereas the Bosniaks did not return. The policemen who used to work in
9 that police station before the conflict, among the Bosniaks, did not
11 Q. Now, the Bosniaks or the Muslims, where did they work from,
12 please, then, after this split in October of 1992?
13 A. I think that a police station was formed in Stari Vitez, that is,
14 in another part of town, one or two kilometres away from this police
15 station where I worked.
16 Q. And the Croat police and the -- those Serb police officers who
17 remained with the Croats, where did they work from?
18 A. From the same police station, which was in the building where the
19 police was before the war. Ever since the building was erected, the
20 police has been there, and it is still there today.
21 Q. So the Croats and the Serbs remained in the police station they'd
22 always worked in; the Bosniaks a different police station, in Stari
23 Vitez. Have I got that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Just so that we know, just a matter of detail so that
1 we know, you are what, in fact, by -- you are what? A Serb?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Did this split have an effect on the posts which had
4 formerly been held by Bosniaks, by Muslims?
5 A. This split had the effect that until that conflict - I don't know
6 the exact date - but we all belonged to a unified police force of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And then with the split, after that I think it was
8 the Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna that was proclaimed, and thereby,
9 within the framework of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, the police
10 was established with its own organisational structure.
11 Q. What happened -- what I wish to get at, Mr. Lazarevic, is this:
12 What happened about the vacancies or the posts which had been filled by
13 Muslims before the split?
14 A. For a while they remained vacant, because before that split there
15 was five, six, or seven of us, and only three or four remained, I think.
16 Q. What effect did the short staffing and the vacancies have on the
17 quality of administration within Vitez police station?
18 A. In the police there's always a shortage, and when that becomes
19 extreme, there is more work for those who remain. Some specific jobs,
20 like crime technician, for that post you need to have at least two men,
21 and we only had one. Before that, one was a Croat, one was a Muslim. Now
22 we were left with only one technician who goes to collect traces on the
23 scene of the crime, and he actually had to be on duty for 24 hours. And
24 the effect was similar on other posts, such as those held by inspectors
25 and the like.
1 Q. Again, my question was really dealing with the administration and
2 paperwork. What effect did the short staffing have on the quality and
3 accuracy of the paperwork within the police station?
4 A. Throughout that period, in fact, there was a lot of improvising.
5 Not much attention was paid to paperwork. I think it was in Travnik the
6 police administration had only just been formed. That was the police
7 institution superior to us. And as far as I can recollect, they had two
8 or three men and they were supposed to prepare for us the administrative
9 part, but this didn't really function as it would normally function in
10 regulated countries.
11 Q. Were there inaccuracies in the paperwork?
12 A. There were quite a number of omissions and errors. I would really
13 have to look at a particular document to be able to tell you with
14 precision. I can't remember now any particular cases.
15 Q. We'll come to specific documents in due course, Mr. Lazarevic.
16 Help me about this, would you: Who was the head in Vitez police station?
17 A. For which period do you mean?
18 Q. After the split, from October 1992 onwards.
19 A. Mirko Samija, until the end of 1993, I think.
20 Q. Thank you. The period I'm going to be concentrating on is really
21 October 1992 until the second conflict, 16th of April, 1993, all right?
22 What was your job during that time?
23 A. I was an inspector for commercial crime, but as we were short of
24 staff, I did other things as well. I was the most experienced among all
25 the people working in the crime police at the time.
1 Q. Were you intending to stay in that post, inspector of commercial
2 crime, or was there talk of a move for you?
3 A. I was told by the chief at the time, Mirko Samija, that he had
4 certain plans to strengthen the crime police, and he inquired about
5 certain people. I knew some that he asked me about. That was the
6 procedure, as information on crime activity of all persons in the Vitez
7 area were in my department, and if he wanted to engage someone, to employ
8 someone, he would come to see me and ask me whether that person had any
9 criminal record, whether he was ever suspected of any crimes, and things
10 like that. And on that occasion, he told me that he would appoint me as
11 chief when this new man arrives, as, by years of service, qualifications,
12 I was the most experienced, and that he would look for another inspector
13 for commercial crime.
14 Q. So have I got this right: You were looking at a possible
15 promotion from inspector commercial crime to chief?
16 A. That's what the chief told me. I never actually got a decision of
18 Q. That's the next thing I was going to say. Did anything actually
19 happen? Did you ever actually get that promotion?
20 A. Never officially. I never got any document telling me that I
21 ceased to be an inspector for commercial crime and that I had been
22 appointed the chief.
23 Q. All right. Who, if anyone, was being spoken of as a possible
24 candidate to fill your post?
25 A. The last person mentioned was Vlatko Kupreskic. Before that, some
1 other names were mentioned. I don't know whether I need to mention them.
2 Q. I'm not going to --
3 A. I know the name of one at least.
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Did he fit the criteria in
5 the sense that he was someone with no criminal record, wasn't suspected of
6 any illegal activity?
7 A. Yes, he did fulfil those requirements.
8 Q. Was he in work?
9 A. I know that he owned a company called Sutra. I'm not sure whether
10 that company was in his name or in his wife's name. I know that before
11 the war he worked in a factory in Vitez. It was called Vitezit. That is
12 where I met him.
13 Q. Did you consider that Vlatko Kupreskic might be a good candidate
14 for that inspector's job vacancy, potential vacancy?
15 A. Yes. Can I explain?
16 Q. Yes, just briefly.
17 A. I had a case linked to Vlatko's company. There were some
18 financial irregularities and I frequently had to go to Vitezit, to
19 Vlatko's company where he worked. He was head of the financial service
20 and I would take some documents linked to that case. They did not relate
21 to Vlatko's work but to other segments of that company. That is when I
22 met him, and he impressed me as a qualified person who understood
23 economics. This was a large company with a large number of employed. He
24 was a good economist.
25 So I believed that he would be a good choice if he were to come to
1 the police station.
2 Q. Did he -- was he approached with a view to him coming to the
3 police station at Vitez?
4 A. I did not directly contact him, but the chief told me that he had
5 taken upon himself to get in touch and approach Vlatko.
6 Q. Was he offered the inspector's job, as far as you are aware, at
7 that stage or not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did he agree to do it at that stage or not, or don't you know?
10 A. I think he agreed, but I don't know how firm his decision was to
11 stay there permanently. He probably wanted to have a go at it and see how
12 it would work, because for him this was something quite new, as it was for
13 me when I moved from the economy to the police. Those are two worlds.
14 Q. Was there any particular job that needed to be done at the police
15 station towards the end of 1992, early 1993?
16 A. Every year an inventory is made in police stations, so it was
17 supposed to be done that year, too. And an added reason for it was that
18 Mirko Samija had become the chief of that police station - I think it was
19 towards the end of summer of 1992 - and no handover and takeover of duty
20 had been done between him and the previous chief. And he wanted to know
21 how the inventory stood and everything else so as to know what he had at
22 his disposal, and if any shortages should be found, he wanted to make sure
23 what the situation was when he took over.
24 Q. Now, who was appointed to conduct that inventory?
25 A. I remember that Vlatko was there, I'm sure of that, and I think
1 also Slavko Franjic and Muhamed Trako.
2 Q. Very well. Now, can you help me about this, please: I want you
3 to have a look at a document which has some dates on it which is -- was
5 MR. ABELL: And I'm just trying to see what it is on the new
6 list. It is AD 4/3. I hope that's correct. Could he please be given
7 that in his own language. It should be at page 1429 in the filings, if
8 that helps at all, and you, Your Honours. Yes.
9 Q. Do you recognise that document, Mr. Lazarevic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. It is an official certificate, and does it state that Vlatko
12 Kupreskic, giving his date of birth and his -- the name of his father and
13 place of birth, was working at the police station in Vitez from the 18th
14 of January to the 23rd of February, 1993, as inspector for commercial
15 crime, and that he voluntarily left his job at the police station in
16 Vitez; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And does that document emanate from the Vitez police station?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, what took place from the 18th of January to the
21 23rd of February, please?
22 A. I don't know exactly what you mean. In relation to what?
23 Q. What work did Vlatko Kupreskic do in the police station between
24 the 18th of January and the 23rd of February of 1993?
25 A. In those days, I think that was the period also when the inventory
1 was done. I know that the inventory making took a long time, and as I was
2 not a member of the commission, I cannot tell you exactly the dates when
3 it started and when it ended.
4 Q. Very well. To the best of your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic do
5 any other police work whilst he was at Vitez police station, apart from
6 work on the inventory?
7 A. Apart from that, there is a customary procedure when there is a
8 newcomer. He has to familiarise himself with the regulations, especially
9 somebody who had nothing to do with policing. That was probably the first
10 time for him to see the Criminal Code, what the powers of the police are,
11 what the methods of work of the police are. All this is literature which
12 a person starting employment is given to study and read.
13 Apart from that, new employees, and I think also Vlatko, should
14 anything happen that needed to be -- for which an on-site inspection was
15 required, it was customary for him to go there, but not to be the leader,
16 but simply to familiarise himself through the work of the others how that
17 is done.
18 I remember only one such case. I remember a few details from
19 those -- that wartime period. They may be even bizarre. I know that he
20 went to see a fire, I think it was. I remember he was all dressed in
21 white with a white coat and white trousers. He was dressed in pure white,
22 and in the case of a fire, one has to see where it started, one needs to
23 enter the building, and one gets dirty. So when he returned to the police
24 station, we told him that we always wore old clothing because we never
25 knew what could happen, whether we would have to wade through mud or enter
1 into a burning building.
2 Q. Very well.
3 A. And usually those coming from high-level institutions dress up
4 when they come to our stations, not knowing what awaits them.
5 Q. It may be obvious from what you just said, but on that occasion
6 was he wearing any form of uniform, Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you ever see --
9 A. At the crime department --
10 Q. Yes, go on.
11 A. As I was saying, at the crime department of the police, we never
12 wore uniforms during that period of time that you are asking me about.
13 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic wearing any type of uniform
15 A. I don't remember. When the conflict broke out, I was at a
16 checkpoint, but I don't remember whether Vlatko passed through that
17 checkpoint. In those days, everybody wore uniforms. It was after the
18 16th of April, so practically speaking, all men wore uniforms in those
19 days. I was at one of the checkpoints at the entrance to the town, but I
20 don't remember whether Vlatko passed through that checkpoint.
21 Q. I'm asking about the period at the police station, when he worked
22 at the police station between the 18th of January and the 23rd of
23 February. Did you ever see him wearing any kind of uniform whatsoever?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, did you carry on being inspector of commercial
1 crime during the period we're concerned with, 18th of January to 23rd of
3 A. I still had the paper to the effect that I was an inspector for
4 commercial crime. I never received any other decision.
5 Q. To your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic do any work as an
6 inspector in commercial crime? In other words, did he investigate frauds
7 and commercial crime, to your knowledge, at all?
8 A. No. I think I would have known that. He was not able to do that,
9 though he had various other skills. He was able to inspect financial
10 documentation and do investigations of that kind, but he was not familiar
11 with other types of police work, starting, for example, with the way how
12 to write a report or -- I don't think that he knew in what situations one
13 could perform seizures, confiscations of documents and things like that,
14 so I don't think that he was able to do that.
15 Q. Would he have needed training to become an inspector in commercial
17 A. Yes. Before the war, we had courses, various forms of training
18 which lasted for several months, or it was on the basis of the experience
19 of other people who previously worked on that kind of assignments, they
20 would gain adequate experience.
21 Q. Did Vlatko Kupreskic go on any course or receive any training to
22 become an inspector in commercial crime?
23 A. No. At that time there were no such courses.
24 Q. Apart from attending a fire, what other work were you aware of
25 that Vlatko Kupreskic, if any, did at the Vitez police station between 18
1 of January and 23rd of February, when he left?
2 A. As I have already indicated, there was this inventory that took
3 place. I don't know how important it is, but I know that he was often on
4 the phone in connection with his work, that he sometimes applied to have
5 additional leave because of his work in the Sutra shop. As regards police
6 work specifically, I don't think that he did anything in particular,
7 except for the inventory that I already mentioned.
8 Q. Thank you very much. Now, you've mentioned his work, and it may
9 be obvious from the way you've just put it, but what do you mean when you
10 say "his work," in other words, Vlatko Kupreskic's work? What was his
11 real work?
12 A. You mean in the police?
13 Q. Well, you say he was on the phone relating to his work. What was
14 his work?
15 A. Oh, I see. As I have said, I don't know who was, officially
16 speaking, the owner of the Sutra shop, but I know that he did most of the
17 work in the shop, in that business, and I know that in that shop he was
18 able to earn the same amount of money in one day as we did in one month,
19 for example.
20 Q. So it was --
21 A. I'm really not sure about the exact amount.
22 Q. Well, don't worry about the exact amount of money that he was
23 earning. But when you talk about his work, therefore, you're talking
24 about work in relation to his Sutra shop?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, can I ask you this as well: Your job, did it
2 involve you working in the police station, in an office, or did it involve
3 you being out and about a lot, in the period of time --
4 A. It depended. Both at the police station and also outside the
6 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic at the police station in the
7 uniform of the HVO?
8 A. No, I don't remember that I did.
9 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic at the police station in a
10 camouflage jacket or camouflage uniform?
11 A. No. As far as I can remember, no.
12 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic at the police station, talking
13 to Mario Cerkez?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Let's be clear about this. If you saw Mario Cerkez, would you
16 recognise him?
17 A. I would, yes. I knew Mario Cerkez very well from before, because
18 I used to play basketball at the same club as he did, so I knew him from
19 our young days.
20 Q. So you knew him, and knew him to recognise, in 1992, 1993?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic working at the Vitez
23 police station after the 23rd of February of 1993?
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 Q. Did you ever see Vlatko Kupreskic working at the police station
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 before -- well, in 1992?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now, there are two earlier statements that you made which I'd just
4 like you to see, please, in your own language. They are AD 5/3 and AD
6 MR. ABELL: And if it assists Your Honours, they are filed at
7 page -- I think it's 1721 and 1719. I hope I read the handwritten
8 pagination correctly. It's very elegant, but it's difficult to read
10 Q. Could you see each of those statements, please. Do you have
11 them? One is written on the 8th of August of 1998 and the other on the
12 4th of April, 2000. Do you recognise those two statements?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And have you signed each of those statements?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Are they true?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. I want to show you now a document which was produced
19 at the trial of Vlatko Kupreskic by the Prosecution.
20 MR. ABELL: I have copies. I don't believe it's ever been filed
21 by the Prosecution in relation to these proceedings, so I have some
22 copies. I'm afraid they're not very clear, but it's the best that can be
23 done with the material available.
24 Could, please, the witness have a copy. And again, I'm afraid,
25 but they are in the Serbo-Croat language. But it's a list. I don't think
1 it's going to be a great difficulty. I'm sure we can manage.
2 Q. Take a moment to look at the document. If you'd read out the
3 title, in your own language, please. Read out the title of the document
4 in your own language.
5 A. Here it says "subject matter - information," and then further on,
6 "in relation to your document," and then probably reference is made to a
7 document from the Travnik police administration. Information is supplied
8 concerning the situation with the human resources at the Vitez police
10 Q. And the document appears to be dated the 28th of December, 1992,
11 is that right, first page?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And we see -- it's a list of names, and are there occupations next
14 to the names?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Above number 1, can you help me about this: Read that sentence,
18 A. "Reference to your document 03/9/111/182/92 of the 22nd of
19 December, 1992. We are hereby supplying you the information on the number
20 of employees of the police station in Vitez."
21 Q. Now, look, please, at number 55, the last name. Does it say
22 Vlatko Kupreskic?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then what does it say?
25 A. It says: "An operative officer for prevention of crime of special
1 state interest. Inspector --" I cannot read the text very well. Probably
2 "first-class inspector" or something to that effect.
3 Q. Thank you. Well, now, to your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic
4 ever hold such a job as that?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Firstly, did he work in 1992 for the Vitez police station?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Secondly, would a job such as the one described there require
10 A. I never did this kind of work, nor was this type of work ever
11 within the competence of the civilian police, from the time I was employed
12 in 1987 up until today. And it is my assumption that for the purposes of
13 this type of work, one should have appropriate training and knowledge,
14 because for every type of police work there is a special training.
15 Q. Had Vlatko Kupreskic ever undertaken any such special training?
16 A. Not to my knowledge, and I don't know where it would be possible
17 for him to undertake such training. I don't think it existed at the time,
18 any such institution which would have been in charge of this type of work.
19 I only have the general title of the work here, but I never saw any
20 staffing table with adequate job description and everything that falls
21 into that type of work. I believe this kind of work was once secured by
22 the State Security Service, but I'm not sure. It's just judging from the
23 title of the work that I think that it was under their jurisdiction.
24 Q. Can you help me about this: I think you were shown this document
25 very recently, apart from today. Do you have any recollection of seeing
1 this document at the time it purports to have been created, in other
2 words, December 1992?
3 A. No. This is not a document of the department where I used to
4 work. I had nothing to do with the drafting of this document. I can see
5 that it was signed by the commander, Mirko Samija, and I'm sure that I
6 didn't see this document, nor was there ever any reason for this document
7 to be shown to me personally.
8 Q. As far as you're concerned, is the entry on number 55 accurate and
9 correct, or inaccurate and incorrect?
10 A. In my opinion, it is incorrect that Vlatko did this kind of work.
11 I don't know whether he ever received an official paper, decision to that
12 effect. I don't know whether that job existed on the staffing table. I
13 was never contacted in respect of this type of work, that is, state
14 security work. I don't know that he was ever involved with this type of
16 Q. Thank you. Now, I want you to help me. I want you to look at one
17 or two other entries in this document to see if you can see if there are
18 any other inaccuracies in the document, and it may be quicker if I do it
19 this way. Look at number five, would you, first page, entry number five,
20 Ivo Perkovic, is it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you know Ivo Perkovic?
23 A. Yes, I know him.
24 Q. What was his job --
25 A. He was already working when I arrived.
1 Q. What is the job description down there for him?
2 A. Operative officer for patrol services, sector leader.
3 Q. Is that accurate or inaccurate?
4 A. Police officer of a higher rank. As far as I know, he was always
5 an operative duty officer. The work here, as it is specified here,
6 involves the field work, patrol work specifically. And while I was in the
7 police station, Ivo was always a duty officer at the police station, that
8 is, the officer who never actually leaves the station.
9 Q. So to be clear about it, to answer my question, my question was,
10 is that, as far as you're concerned, an accurate or inaccurate job
11 description for him on the document? Accurate or inaccurate, please.
12 A. In my view, this is an inaccurate job description.
13 Q. Thank you. Look at, for example, number 21, Viktor Grbic [sic].
14 A. Grgic.
15 Q. I'm so sorry. Do you know that person, Mr. Grgic?
16 A. Yes. He is still working at the police station in Vitez.
17 Q. What's his job description there?
18 A. Junior police officer.
19 Q. Is that accurate or inaccurate for the job you knew him to be
20 doing at the police station?
21 A. I am sure that this is an incorrect piece of information, for the
22 simple reason that Viktor Grgic at that time was only 15 or 16 years old,
23 and he could not be a police officer --
24 Q. How old was he?
25 A. -- at the time. He was attending secondary school for police
1 officers. He was either 15 or 16, I'm not sure.
2 I know that he was in the first or the second form of the police
3 academy, that is, the secondary police school. And the war had already
4 started in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so he must have interrupted his
5 schooling to become a policeman, and he came to the station.
6 So because of his age, he was not able to work as a police
7 officer. He never wore a uniform, but he helped the administration staff
8 with records and papers in order to gain some experience in police work
9 which would eventually, in future, help him with his further education.
10 Q. So the answer is that's an inaccurate job description, is it, I
11 think you just told us?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. ABELL: I want this, please, to be put on the overhead
14 projector. We've only very recently come by it because of the material
15 that was filed very recently by the Prosecution. It's still on yellow fax
16 paper. Could it be put on the overhead projector.
17 Q. Is that an identification card or document?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. For Viktor Grgic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is that the Viktor Grgic, number 21 on the list?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Does it show his date of birth as January the 27th --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- 1977?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We can work out what it is you just said, he would have been in
3 his mid-teens in 1992.
4 MR. ABELL: Thank you. I wonder if that could be made an exhibit,
5 Your Honours. Perhaps we can catch up at the end of the day on the
6 documents that have been exhibited. There have been one or two that have
7 been put in.
8 Q. The next one, please, number 24 on the list, Nikola Vrvilo?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know Nikola Vrvilo?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What does it say her job is there?
13 A. It says an operations duty officer at the police station, a senior
14 police officer.
15 Q. And what was her job in fact?
16 A. The job that is described here is a job that is carried out at the
17 police station, but I think that he was a sector leader, that he did
18 something outside the police station. And at some point in time he was a
19 manager of some sort for the traffic section of the police. I don't know
20 exactly whether it was, but I'm sure that he was not an operations officer
21 and that he did not actually physically sit at the police station.
22 Q. So again, for speed, you're -- compressing what you're saying,
23 that is another wrong entry, job description entry?
24 A. Yes, as far as I can remember.
25 Q. Thank you. Look now, please, at number 48 on the last page,
1 Slavo --
2 A. Slavko Franjic, yes.
3 Q. Did you know him?
4 A. Yes. I knew him very well.
5 Q. And what is his job description down there?
6 A. A serious administrations officer for conducting administrative
8 Q. What job did he actually do?
9 A. The job that is actually stated here, it is a civilian type of
10 work. It's not a job for a uniformed member of the police. I don't
11 exactly know what it was that Slavko did, but he was with the uniform
12 police. I don't know exactly what kind of job he had there.
13 Q. Is that accurate or inaccurate, so that we understand what you're
15 A. I think that Slavko Franjic didn't do this type of work. I don't
16 think anyone did, for that matter.
17 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Abell, I hesitate to interrupt you --
18 MR. ABELL: Yes.
19 JUDGE WALD: -- but I'm only apprising you of the fact that, by my
20 accounts, you've got about ten more minutes.
21 MR. ABELL: I'm very grateful.
22 JUDGE WALD: Because we want to finish this witness today. I'm
23 sure everybody wants to finish it.
24 MR. ABELL: I understand.
25 JUDGE WALD: And everybody else. Even at that, we'll be here
1 until almost 6.00 so --
2 MR. ABELL: I understand. I'm very grateful.
3 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
4 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honour. I think I'm on course, if I
5 may say so. Famous last words.
6 Q. And again, so I've given examples there, number 5, 21, 24, and 48,
7 are four, according to you, wrong, inaccurate, job descriptions, and
8 you've already spoken about number 55, Vlatko Kupreskic, and said that in
9 your opinion, that it is an inaccurate job description.
10 Help me about this, please: As somebody who's worked in that
11 police station since 1987 and through the period of 1992 to 1993, would
12 you place any reliance whatsoever on that document as proof that Vlatko
13 Kupreskic worked in the post alleged in the document, inspector first
14 class to do with special state crimes?
15 A. No.
16 Q. I know you say you've never seen the documents until very
17 recently, weren't aware of it. Can you assist as to what the purpose of
18 such a document with inaccurate entries might be, or can't you?
19 A. As far as I can see, this is merely a reply which was sent by our
20 police station to the administration department in Mostar via police
21 administration in Travnik, and reference is made to that document here.
22 So the document in question which is stated here, the document of the 22nd
23 of December, probably contains information as to the purpose of this
24 document. Judging from the document like this, I really cannot say.
25 There is only a number here.
1 Q. Very well. Can you help me about this: We've seen two documents,
2 really, which seem to suggest two different jobs in the police station for
3 Vlatko Kupreskic: one inspector commercial crime, and you say, as far as
4 you're concerned, he never did that job; and one as inspector first-class,
5 crimes of special state interest. So according to the documentation we've
6 seen, there seem to be two jobs at the same time. As far as you're aware,
7 was he doing either of them?
8 A. As far as I am aware, he wasn't doing any of those things
9 officially. But as I said before, I was sort of briefing him on what
10 economic crime is, but he didn't have any specific, concrete tasks to
11 investigate anyone or undertake any other police activity.
12 Q. Now, can you help me about this: Number 34 on that list is
13 someone by the name of Abdullah Abdic.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. ABELL:
16 Q. Are those both full-time jobs, on the face of them? I'm so
17 sorry. I moved on to Abdullah Abdic, and I'm just reminded by my learned
18 junior that I should have asked you this. The two inspector jobs, as far
19 as on the face of them, are they both full-time jobs?
20 A. I don't know what you mean by "full time."
21 Q. Well, are they both -- are they the sort of jobs you would expect
22 one person to be doing both of them, or not?
23 A. These are two entirely different jobs, by definition, and it's
24 quite certain that one person could not be doing both jobs at the same
1 Q. Thank you very much. And what about if a person was working
2 anyway at their own shop, the Sutra shop?
3 A. Then particularly so.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. He couldn't be --
6 Q. Thank you. Now, Abdullah Abdic, do you know him? Does his name
7 ring a bell with you or not?
8 A. I see him on this list. I don't remember some of the people on
9 this list; others I do. But I do know, for instance, that in this
10 period - I don't know exactly when - five or six persons of Bosniak
11 ethnicity started working in the Vitez police station as policemen, so
12 Abdullah Abdic is probably one of them.
13 Q. To your knowledge, did you ever meet him?
14 A. By name, I'm afraid I can't remember that I ever spoke to him.
15 It's possible. Policemen come to see us in the crime police department if
16 we need them or they need us, but I do not remember Abdullah Abdic coming.
17 Q. Yes. So you have no recollection in particular of meeting that
19 A. I cannot remember by name. Maybe if I were to see him, I might be
20 able to recognise him, but just by name, no.
21 Q. One final thing. Maybe you've already answered it, but just to
22 make sure. To your knowledge, did Vlatko Kupreskic, at any stage whilst
23 at the police station at Vitez, do anything that could be described as
24 intelligence collection for the police?
25 A. As far as I know, no.
1 Q. And help me about this, please: Why, as far as you are aware, did
2 Vlatko Kupreskic leave on the 23rd of February? You've told us you didn't
3 see him working at the police station after that. Why did he leave? And
4 indeed that's the last date, according to the certificate, that he worked
5 there, 23rd of February of 1993. Why did he leave?
6 A. I think it was because of his duties in the company. I think that
7 the chief told him repeatedly that it was impossible to coordinate the
8 two, and he probably realised that and he left the police. So he
9 terminated his employment voluntarily.
10 JUDGE WALD: I think your time is up, Mr. Abell.
11 MR. ABELL: And that was my last question.
12 JUDGE WALD: Very good. I believe that we will now have
13 cross-examination by -- will it be Mr. Farrell or will it be another
15 MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honours. It's Bill Smith, and
16 I'll appear for the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE WALD: All right, Mr. Smith.
18 MR. SMITH: Your Honour, perhaps if I can just ask that we go into
19 closed session for one moment.
20 JUDGE WALD: Yes. We're going into private or closed session for
21 just a few minutes here.
22 [Closed session]
13 Page 315 – redacted – closed session
19 [Open session]
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Smith:
21 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, good afternoon. My name is Bill Smith and I'm here
22 on behalf of --
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. I will be asking you a few questions about what you remember about
25 the police station back in 1992.
1 A. Very well.
2 Q. You mentioned that Vlatko Kupreskic's name came up at the end of
3 October 1992 in relation to being an investigator of economic crimes.
4 A. No, not at the end of October. I don't think that I mentioned the
5 end of October at all linked to Vlatko Kupreskic in 1992.
6 Q. Sorry. I meant the end of 1992.
7 A. The end of 1992? I said to the effect that somebody was needed,
8 and towards the end of that year Mirko Samija inquired with me what kind
9 of a man he was, whether he had any criminal record, and that sort of
11 Q. And was it Mr. Samija's, the commander's, recommendation that he
12 be employed as an inspector for commercial crime, or did you raise him as
13 a candidate first?
14 A. Mr. Samija decided who would be employed, and I was just assisting
15 him in the sense that he should not admit somebody who had a criminal
16 record. Since Mr. Samija, though he was a judge, he started working only
17 three or four months previously, and I had the records about all persons
18 who had been punished or who had been charged or suspected of any
19 misdemeanours in Vitez municipality.
20 Q. And when Mr. Kupreskic first started to work at the police
21 station, it was on the basis of his being an inspector for commercial
22 crime. He was going to take over your job; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what type of work does an inspector for commercial crime do?
25 I assume it's an investigator in relation to financial dishonesty.
1 A. Yes. According to the Criminal Code that was in force then, and
2 according to the new one too, there are a group of criminal offences
3 related to the economy. They are abuse of power, fraud, and there's a
4 whole list, illicit trade, et cetera.
5 Q. And so for that particular job there would be two types of
6 experience or qualifications required to do it well, and that would be
7 investigative experience as well as an understanding of accounting and
8 finances; would you agree?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Even though Mr. Kupreskic didn't have the experience, the
11 investigative police experience, he was still employed at the Vitez police
12 station for the purpose of being an investigator in relation to financial
13 crime, initially?
14 A. Yes. The same applies to me. I too had no police experience in
15 1987 when I started working. I used to work in a socially owned company,
16 where I worked in the financial department. And when I transferred to the
17 police station in Vitez, it was only then that I became familiar with
18 police work.
19 Q. So in a sense, we all have to start somewhere, and he was going to
20 learn on the job; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And it was at some later time that the inventory came up. At some
23 later time after he was employed, then it was discussed that, "Look, an
24 inventory needs to be done. You would be a good man to do it because of
25 your experience in accounting and auditing," is that correct?
1 A. Not me, but that Vlatko could do the job well, not me, though I,
2 too, before the war and after the war did do inventory work at times. Not
4 Q. And the inventory that was to be done at the police station was a
5 regular thing, and it would be done on at least a yearly basis; is that
7 A. Every year, yes, with the final date being the 31st of December, a
8 list is made of the inventory belonging to the police: vehicles, the
9 building, money, the entire property and assets of the police.
10 Q. And you mentioned when Mr. Kupreskic started working at the police
11 station, that he spent his first days acquainting himself, I think, with
12 the law, the procedure, and the type of work that he would be doing in
13 financial crime investigations; is that correct?
14 A. Yes. I wouldn't say the first days. When he came, I would tell
15 him roughly what the job was about, what offences we were responsible for,
16 when you -- police can carry out a search, when documents can be seized,
17 when the police may take people into custody on the basis of judicial
18 decisions, and things like that, things he had probably never encountered
20 We had certain handbooks to assist us regarding the methods
21 applied in police work. I gave him those books. I don't know how much he
22 read. And in those books, there was quite a detailed description of how
23 the police should act.
24 Q. And how long after he was employed at the police station as a
25 financial investigator did it arise that he would be a suitable person to
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 do the inventory?
2 A. When the chief said that an inventory had to be made, he probably
3 immediately proposed him as he had come from the economy, and this was
4 usually done by people who had skills in accounting and making these
5 inventory lists. I didn't take part in designating the commission, but I
6 was told that Vlatko was coming.
7 Usually every sector appoints somebody, somebody from the crime
8 police, from -- somebody from the administration and somebody from the
9 uniformed police. Usually one would come from each of these departments,
10 and one of them would be the commission chairman. And I think that year,
11 Vlatko was appointed to represent the crime police in that commission.
12 Q. And for how long had he been working in the crime police before he
13 was put forward or started the inventory? How long had he been working in
14 the police station?
15 A. Not long. I really don't know. I can't remember those details to
16 be able to tell you with any certainty how many days this was.
17 Q. But just so that we're clear about this, the purpose of his
18 employment wasn't to do the inventory; it was to become a criminal
19 investigator for financial crime.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I think you said earlier that the inventory needs to be done
22 by someone that works at the police station, not someone from outside; is
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You mentioned that Mr. Kupreskic in the early days when he first
1 started at the police station as a financial investigator, he wouldn't
2 conduct the complete investigation himself. He wouldn't -- couldn't do
3 searches and seizures, et cetera, but he would more analyse documents and
4 perhaps prepare criminal cases in relation to financial fraud, et cetera?
5 A. Yes. He certainly in that period could not be in charge of any
6 particular case alone. I don't remember all the cases from that period so
7 I can't tell you, but I am 100 per cent sure that he could not have been
8 in charge of any particular case.
9 Q. And you also mentioned that he -- on one occasion he went to the
10 scene of a fire in a suit, and people at the police station told him not
11 to wear that type of clothing because, obviously because of the hygiene,
12 the fact that his clothes would get filthy; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. And you remember making a statement to the lawyers in this case on
15 the 24th of July, 2000?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And in that statement you mention that Mr. Kupreskic, he performed
18 other work that wasn't of any real significance on a few occasions. Do
19 you remember saying that?
20 A. That is what I mean when I said not significant, because he
21 went -- if he went to the scene, he went with other colleagues just to see
22 how those investigations are conducted. And they are not important from
23 the standpoint of the police because he is not in charge of the
24 investigation. But I happen to remember this particular scene.
25 I can't go back to that whole period. So many things happened
1 during the war, so I cannot ascertain or maintain with certainty about any
2 other events. It just so happened that I have remembered this one with
3 his white suit.
4 Q. And you were there with him on this occasion?
5 A. No. No, no, I wasn't.
6 Q. You were in the police station when he came back from attending
7 the scene of the fire?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And did he tell you what he did at that scene of the fire?
10 A. No. No, the other colleagues told me. I remember Zoran Strukar
11 was the crime technician. I can't remember which inspector it was,
12 whether it was Anto or Franjo, but I spoke with Zoran. As he is a crime
13 technician, he examined the area, and he told me that Vlatko was wearing a
14 suit and that he didn't really get close to the scene.
15 Q. And this was an arson and a deliberate fire; is that correct?
16 A. I don't remember now. It was a long time ago. I don't remember
17 the building or anything.
18 Q. And what was his purpose of being there? I mean, he's -- you
19 mentioned that he was employed as a financial crime investigator. What
20 was the purpose for him being at the scene of a fire?
21 A. All of us inspectors in the crime service, whether we're working
22 on financial or other crimes, have to know how to carry out an on-site
23 inspection because we have duty service. This always existed in the crime
24 police, now and before the war and always, as inspectors are sometimes on
25 duty, and they have to know how to conduct an investigation which need not
1 necessarily be linked to economic crime.
2 Q. So on that particular case, he was there in relation to an
3 investigation of general crime, not financial crime?
4 A. Not to conduct the investigation, but simply to see how it is
5 done, how it should be done, how the police behaves when a fire breaks
6 out, what the police should do, so that perhaps sometime in the future, in
7 a few months, it's usually two months -- I, for instance, started working
8 independently only after working for three months, and I did the kind of
9 investigations at first that were not so important, and later on as I
10 gained more experience, I would take on increasingly responsible jobs
12 Q. And on what -- you mentioned there was a few occasions, and you
13 remember specifically the occasion when he attended the scene of a fire.
14 What other occasions or occasion do you remember him assisting the police
15 in its work? And you mentioned that in your statement. I'm just
16 wondering why you stated that. What other jobs did he do?
17 A. When you said "other jobs," in relation to what? I don't
19 Q. In your statement, you say that on a few occasions, Vlatko
20 Kupreskic assisted the police, and you remembered one occasion where he
21 attended the scene of a fire. When you made that statement, what other
22 occasions were you referring to, or is it the case that you know that he
23 was involved in other investigative-type work, but you can't pinpoint it
24 now exactly what he did?
25 A. I don't know. I cannot remember. And when I mentioned other
1 occasions, it might be inventory work. If you have that statement,
2 perhaps I should look at it and see because when I said "other jobs," did
3 you mean financial crime or what? I don't know. I gave three
4 statements. I claim they are truthful, correct, but I can't remember now
5 what you -- exactly you're referring to.
6 Q. I'll just ask this one last question on this topic, but if I just
7 read out the passage in the statement, and then firstly if you could say
8 whether you agree to it, and then if you agree to it, what you meant by
10 You've stated, "The idea both Mirko Samija and I had was that
11 Vlatko Kupreskic in due course might take over my job and I would be
12 promoted. However, that is not how it worked out. Vlatko Kupreskic was
13 committed to a future with the Sutra company and in fact the only real
14 work of significance that he carved out for the police was the inventory.
15 The reason I say `work of real significance' is that on a few occasions he
16 did assist us with other work. By way of example, I remember one occasion
17 when he came with us to the scene of a fire."
18 What other occasions do you remember that he assisted you or the
19 police with other work?
20 JUDGE NIET0-NAVIA: [Realtime transcript read in error "Judge
21 Vohrah"] Mr. Smith, sorry, do we have that statement?
22 MR. SMITH: Yes, we do, Your Honour. It's --
23 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Realtime transcript read in error "Judge
24 Vohrah"] Do we?
25 JUDGE WALD: Do we.
1 MR. SMITH: Yes, you do. I apologise.
2 JUDGE WALD: Is it in the Prosecution's bundle?
3 MR. SMITH: It's in the Defence filing, and it's marked 1429,
4 1428, to 1425. We have copies for Your Honours, if you would like.
5 MR. ABELL: If I can assist, it's in the Rule 115 filing, if that
7 MR. SMITH: Your Honours, we do have copies if you would like.
8 JUDGE WALD: I think that would probably be helpful because,
9 although it may be in the filings, there's so many of them that it's --
10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Realtime transcript read in error "Judge
11 Vohrah"] For the transcript, I'm not Judge Vohrah.
12 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, I apologise.
13 MR. SMITH:
14 Q. Do you remember making that statement?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you remember now what other types of things he did, other than
17 the inventory and attending at the fire?
18 A. I don't remember, but it is customary. That is the procedure if
19 something happens, for instance, there might have been a traffic accident,
20 for a new man to go to the scene. I don't remember whether Vlatko had
21 such an occasion. There must be some documents somewhere for me to look
22 at to jog my memory. I happen to remember this particular case because he
23 was wearing this white suit; otherwise, I probably wouldn't have
24 remembered that, either. Whether there were other cases, I simply cannot
1 Q. If you can help us understand the layout of the Vitez police
2 station. This is after the conflict in October 1992, after it had become
3 an HVO police station with the majority of the staff there being Croats,
4 was it -- did the police just occupy the ground floor or the first floor
5 of that building?
6 A. No, it was not an HVO police. I think that the Croatian Republic
7 of Herceg-Bosna had been declared. HVO is a military organisation, and
8 the police belonged to the civilian authorities. We were civilian police
9 still, and after several months, maybe sometime in March or April 1993, it
10 was only then that we received a special kind of police uniform. There
11 were no longer old police uniform but new types of police uniform. We
12 never wore any military insignia whatsoever.
13 Q. In any event, you were -- after the conflict in October 1992, two
14 police forces were quite distinct. One was the Bosniak police force and
15 one was the Croat police force, that operated within the concept, the
16 legal structure of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna; is that
18 A. No, the Bosniak force didn't belong to that structure. They
19 didn't recognise Herceg-Bosna.
20 Q. If I could just interrupt. The police force that you were with,
21 the civilian police, was in the structure of the Croatian community of
22 Herceg-Bosna; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How many people were working in the police station after the
25 conflict in October? You referred to a document earlier where
1 you -- there were 55 names, and it outlined a number of the people that
2 worked in the police station. Was it about that number that worked in the
3 police station after October 1992?
4 A. No. I didn't mention that document. I saw it here only. I can
5 give you information about the crime department as to how many people they
6 were. As regards other employees, they were in charge of the head of the
7 section, so he was the one who signed the document. Everybody was
8 responsible for their departments. There was this uniformed police. I
9 don't know how many policemen in uniform there were. There was the
10 administration department, and they had a certain number of employees, and
11 so on and so forth. I know that as regards the crime police, there were
12 four of us, three inspectors, and up until the arrival of Vlatko
13 Kupreskic, yes, there were three of us. So after October 1992, three
14 inspectors, including myself, remained, and one crime technician.
15 Q. And the three inspectors -- is it three inspectors plus Vlatko
17 A. That was in October, and Vlatko came in January 1993.
18 Q. And did you all work in the same area, the same room?
19 A. There were three offices. Two had a connecting door in between.
20 There was the crime department, where Zoran was, and another office with
21 the chief and inspector for commercial crime, and an office with
22 inspectors for general crime working in it. And there was an
23 administration officer, a clerk who was in charge of keeping the records
24 and typing work.
25 Q. Did you and Vlatko Kupreskic work in the same office?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In the same room?
3 A. Yes, in the same room.
4 Q. And you mentioned that your job took you out of the police station
5 on a number of occasions. Was most of your time spent outside the police
6 station or within it?
7 A. I think that in those days, I was mostly inside the police
8 station. Only from time to time, when there were onsite investigations,
9 one hour or two, but after that, I would be back, and I stayed most of the
10 time in the police station.
11 Q. And Vlatko Kupreskic's work, was that mainly spent inside the
12 police station or outside it?
13 A. Inside the police station. As regards the commercial crime, the
14 work was generally done inside the police station. But the economy was
15 very weak in those days. Only certain seizures of documents would take
16 place from time to time, but they would be handed over in the police
17 station and not actually on the location itself.
18 Q. And you mentioned that the wage that the civilian police earned
19 was quite small compared to the wage that Vlatko -- you believed that
20 Vlatko Kupreskic earned as a result of his business. In your testimony
21 you said that you felt that he would earn more in one day than perhaps you
22 would in one month. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes. Well, that is what I said a moment ago, but I'm not a
24 hundred per cent sure. But in view of what I knew, I think that he could
25 earn much more at the Sutra business than at the police. The salaries at
1 the police were very low at the time.
2 Q. So as far as you know, Vlatko Kupreskic didn't accept the job at
3 the police station for financial reasons, because it wasn't a very good
4 financial arrangement for him. He accepted the job for some other
5 reasons; do you agree?
6 A. No. As far as I know, he was unable to carry out both his
7 obligations with the Sutra business and the police. His work at the Sutra
8 business was time-consuming, and the station chief would tell him from
9 time to time that he should dedicate himself more at the police station.
10 But he wasn't able to do that, so that was the reason why his employment
11 was terminated, by mutual consent.
12 Q. And you stated in your examination that you believed that he
13 worked at the police station from the 18th of January to the 23rd of
14 February, 1993.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you couldn't tell us exactly the dates that he worked on the
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if you worked in the same office as him, why can't you tell us
20 exactly the dates that he worked on the inventory?
21 A. I did the inventory two years before that, so it was ten years
22 ago, and it would be very hard for me to remember when it was exactly when
23 I did the inventory. It may have been in January. But if you should now
24 ask me about the date and whether I worked on the inventory every day, I
25 don't think I would be able to answer that question. It's very difficult
1 for me to remember exactly when Vlatko did it. You know, compared to
2 other events that were taking place at the time, for me it was a rather
3 insignificant event, and I'm trying hard to remember those events. The
4 only reason I remember that particular inventory was because it lasted for
5 very long. The person who was in charge of the warehouse at the police
6 station came to see me and told him [as interpreted] that Vlatko was being
7 too picky about it and that he was spending too much time working on
8 that. I told her that I had nothing to do with it, that it was actually
9 the chief who appointed him to that job.
10 Q. In any event, you didn't see him conduct the inventory, did you?
11 A. What I saw was -- for example, during the inventory, the
12 commission is in charge of inspecting all of the rooms and offices in
13 question, so the same happened with my office. So whoever happened to be
14 in the office had to be present at the inventory taking so that everything
15 could be coordinated, and I was, for example, responsible for the state of
16 affairs until the next inventory took place.
17 Q. So the answer to my question is that you didn't see him do the
18 inventory; do you agree? Just yes or no.
19 A. No, no, I don't agree with you. I saw him when he did the
20 inventory in my office, because I had to be present while he was doing
21 it. Because he had the list from the previous year with him, stating what
22 particular items were there, for example, for the 1st of December, 1992,
23 and what items were in my office on the 31st of December, 1991. So he was
24 supposed to compare that with the present state of affairs. I don't know
25 what it was, what kind of items there were - the filing cabinet, the
1 curtains - and I had to be present as he was doing the inventory.
2 Q. Apart from your office, you didn't see him perform the inventory
3 around the rest of the police station or in the warehouse; is that
5 A. Not in the warehouse, but, for example, in the adjacent office,
6 the one next to mine, the door was always open, I mean the office where
7 the typist was and the inspectors for general crime. Those two offices
8 were connected. It was like one very large room with one door connecting
9 two separate offices.
10 Q. Thank you. And you referred my learned friend to a certificate
11 that states that on the 18th of January to the 23rd of February, it's
12 recorded that the police administration in Vitez - that's ADA/4 - that
13 that's when Vlatko worked as an inspector for commercial crime. Now, you
14 typed out that certificate yourself, didn't you? You made that
16 A. No. It was issued by the Vitez police administration, and the
17 document was signed by the head of the department. I didn't have
18 authority to sign the document. But the certificate was compiled on the
19 basis of my records. I was in charge of keeping records for every
20 employee. It was a very small logbook with relevant information taken in
21 for all employees so that salaries can be paid out and so that the years
22 of service are adequately recorded and counted. So I was in charge of
23 taking care of that, and I never thought that it would be necessary for
24 the Court. I just thought that one day it might be necessary for the
25 purposes of pension and things like that.
1 Q. Sorry. I don't want to interrupt you, but if you can just answer
2 the specific question, because we have a short, short time to have some
4 And the certificate -- the documents on which the certificate was
5 based, did you bring them to The Hague with you? The information from
6 which the certificate was based, did you bring it to The Hague?
7 A. No. No.
8 Q. Where is the information that supports this information on this
9 certificate? Where is this logbook?
10 A. I think it's with the police administration in Vitez.
11 Q. After -- the last act that Vlatko Kupreskic did at the police
12 station in terms of task, do you agree that that was the filling out of
13 the inventory report and the completion of the inventory, and then he left
14 the police station? Is that correct? Is that the last thing he did at
15 the police station?
16 A. I don't know exactly when the inventory was completed. Do you
17 know? Can you tell me?
18 Q. Well, firstly I'll just ask you the question. Was that the last
19 thing that you remember he did at the police station, was complete the
20 inventory report?
21 A. Yes. If my memory serves me right, he completed that.
22 Q. And did he continue to work as a criminal financial investigator
23 after the completion of that inventory?
24 A. No, as far as I can remember, but I'm not sure. I don't think he
1 Q. The document that you referred to earlier, which is the -- perhaps
2 if I show it to you. It's the document dated the 12th of February - it's
3 number 22 - 1993. It's the inventory report by Vlatko Kupreskic. And
4 I'll just show it to you and see whether or not you've seen it before.
5 MR. SMITH: It's tagged as MT 2, but the Prosecution has a better
6 translation of it, because the Defence copy was a summary translation.
7 And we also have copies for Your Honours.
8 JUDGE WALD: Is this one of the filings that you gave us
9 previously or not?
10 MR. SMITH: I believe not, Your Honours. It was one of the
11 Defence filings, but it's in a summary translation form. Defence filing
12 from last September.
13 Q. Have you got that report in front of you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... 12th of February, 1993?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And at the bottom of the report it's signed by Vlatko Kupreskic,
18 and it encloses two inventory lists, or one inventory list is attached to
19 it, but it mentions that there are two inventory lists attached.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do you agree that the report relates to the process in which
22 the inventory was conducted?
23 A. Yes. That's what it says here.
24 Q. So in fact, the report was completed on the 12th of February,
25 1993, and as far as you believe, that was his last -- the last act that he
1 did, he exercised at the police station, and yet you say that he continued
2 to work at the police station until the 23rd of January [sic], 1993 in
3 your certificate. What other work did he do after the filing of the
5 JUDGE WALD: Excuse me, Counsel. Do you want to -- I think the
6 transcript is carrying that until the 23rd of January. Is that --
7 MR. SMITH: Sorry. That's my mistake, Your Honour. I mean the
8 23rd of February, 1993.
9 Q. Do you understand the question, the inventory report is finished
10 on the 12th of February --
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. -- and you have him listed as working until the 23rd of February.
13 What work did he do after completing the inventory, or do you know that?
14 A. I don't remember that he did anything in particular. I don't
15 remember these dates. I have never seen these documents before. I don't
16 remember him doing anything in particular after he had completed the work
17 with the inventory.
18 Q. But on your records, you still have him recorded as working there
19 doing something other than the inventory; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. He came to work, yes, he did. I have him in the records,
21 that is, he is in my records until the chief, Mr. Samija, told me to
22 strike him from the records. Even if he didn't come to work for several
23 days, I don't think it was important. It was some kind of improvisation,
24 you know. I don't remember how it really went in those days.
25 MR. SMITH: I'd now like you to look at the Prosecution exhibit in
1 the trial, Your Honours, P378, which is document number 10.
2 JUDGE WALD: Where we would find that?
3 MR. SMITH: Your Honours, we have copies coming for you -- to you
4 now. If the English could be placed on the ELMO.
5 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, do you have a copy of the report in front of you
6 dated the 22nd of February, 1993?
7 A. Yes, but it's in English.
8 Q. We now have the B/C/S version coming to you. Have you seen a copy
9 of this report before? This is a report compiled on an inspection of the
10 Vitez police station by the assistant chief of the operation service for
11 criminal investigations of the Travnik police administration.
12 A. This document was issued by the Travnik police administration and
13 not the police station at Vitez where I worked.
14 Q. That's correct. And you mentioned that the Vitez police station
15 in the reorganisation after October 1992 came under the administration of
16 the Travnik police administration. Do you agree?
17 A. Yes, yes. That is correct.
18 Q. And at that stage, did you remember Anto Simic to being in the
19 Travnik police administration? Yes or no.
20 A. No, I don't remember.
21 Q. In that report, it states that there was a visit to the Vitez
22 police station on the 19th of February, and Anto Simic and Anto Rajic, who
23 is the head of the section for the prevention of crimes of particular
24 state interest, they inspected the Vitez police station, coming down from
25 the Travnik administration. Were you at the police station on the 19th of
1 February, 1993?
2 A. I assume I was. I don't know. I may have gone out on some task
3 or something, I don't know.
4 I just wanted to mention, I don't know what kind of translation
5 you have received. My translation is that it was a review, and here it
6 says that it was an inspection, which is completely different in meaning
7 and it implies a tour of all the premises and everything, so that could
8 have been only carried out only with the chief or some other superior
10 Q. In this report, it states that Anto Simic and Anto Rajic, who is
11 the head of this prevention of crimes of particular state interest in
12 Travnik, met with Mirko Samija about the staffing in the police station,
13 and it appears as a result of that discussion with Mr. Samija, it states
14 that the function of officer for the prevention of crimes of particular
15 state interest is being formed -- performed by Vlatko Kupreskic. Are you
16 aware of that conversation with Mirko Samija and Mr. Simic and Mr. Rajic?
17 Yes or no.
18 A. No.
19 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Smith, I just want to interrupt you to remind you
20 that you've got about 10 minutes more. I know you want to go into private
21 session for some -- and we really can't give you much leeway here
22 because --
23 MR. SMITH: I don't think I'll discuss that topic, in light of the
25 JUDGE WALD: All right, all right. Okay.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 MR. SMITH:
2 Q. Did you know Mr. Anto Rajic?
3 A. I met him sometime during the war. I believe it was in 1993.
4 When the conflict erupted in the area of Travnik, Anto Rajic came to Vitez
5 as a refugee. I didn't know him before that. And in late 1993 when the
6 police administration in Travnik was reestablished, he was supposed to
7 work there but in Vitez where Samija and Simic worked.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. And he was later on the chief of that particular police section.
10 It all took place in late 1993.
11 Q. Now, in February 1993, did he tell you, or did you learn through
12 someone else, that he had the position of leader of the section of
13 prevention of crimes of particular state interest in the Travnik
14 administration, which is the parent body of the Vitez police station? Did
15 he tell you that or did you learn of that by any other means? Yes or no.
16 A. You see, I was not familiar with the staffing of the police
17 station in Vitez, let alone with the staffing of the police administration
18 in Travnik. It was above us. It was a piece of information that simply
19 wasn't accessible to me. I wasn't aware of it.
20 Q. I don't mean to rush you, but if you could just listen to the
21 question and answer it as specifically as you can, that would be helpful.
22 The document is dated the 22nd of February, 1993, and it states
23 the information that Vlatko Kupreskic performed this particular job of
24 crimes of particular state interest was recorded -- or that information
25 was obtained on the 19th of February, 1993. Is that why the date of the
1 23rd of February, 1993, appears on your document as to the time that
2 Vlatko Kupreskic finished at the police station, because it was a day
3 after this document had been produced?
4 A. No. I am not familiar at all with this document. I couldn't have
5 known of this document because I didn't know about the meeting, either.
6 And I'm sure that on the 23rd of February, and I have records for all
7 other employees at the time, that Vlatko Kupreskic left the police
9 Q. Did you think it would have been a good idea to bring those
10 records here to the Tribunal today? Did you think of your own accord or
11 did your lawyers ask you to bring your records as to when he worked at the
12 police station to the Tribunal? Yes or no.
13 A. No, I didn't think about it. I never thought that, even then when
14 I kept those records, nor later did I think that this would be something
15 of particular importance, except for what I have already said, that it
16 might come in handy to someone when he retires and for his salary.
17 Q. But you have got access to those records and you can obtain those
18 records. As far as you know, they're still in Vitez and they can be
19 brought to the Tribunal. Yes or no; do they still exist?
20 A. Yes. When I was drafting that certificate, I looked at the
22 Q. Mirko Samija was the commander of the Vitez police station. He
23 would be in a better position than you, do you agree, to know what jobs
24 particularly every person did in the Vitez police station in 1992 and 1993
25 because he was the commander?
1 A. That depends. He probably knew about all the significant events
2 affecting the police station. We're divided into departments. He didn't
3 enter into the details. A chief in a department might be better informed
4 on certain events of lesser significance than the chief of the whole
5 police station.
6 Q. But bearing in mind that he employed Vlatko Kupreskic, do you
7 agree that he would be in a better position to say what position he, in
8 fact, occupied - yes or no - than you?
9 A. I don't know. I doubt that. Regarding the actual position, he
10 told me exactly. I know what he told me, that it was the position of
11 inspector for economic crime, so I don't see that it would be any
13 Q. I apologise. Who told you that Mirko Samija or --
14 A. The chief.
15 Q. -- [Previous translation continues]...
16 A. Mirko Samija.
17 Q. And Mr. Anto Rajic, does he still live in Vitez or in Central
18 Bosnia at the moment?
19 A. No, no.
20 Q. Is he still alive today?
21 A. As far as I know. I know that he moved to Croatia, maybe two or
22 three years ago, I don't know exactly. And I don't even know exactly
23 which town he moved to. I wasn't so close to him to maintain contact with
24 him after he left the police station. As far as I know, he went to
25 Croatia. He is by training a forestry engineer, something like that, so
1 that he is not doing police work at all, as far as I know. But I'm not
2 certain of any of that.
3 Q. And that's the case, isn't it: Anto Rajic, who appears to have
4 the job of the section leader of the prevention of crimes of particular
5 state interest in February 1993 at the parent body, at the Travnik police
6 department, he only had the qualifications as a forester, study and
7 experience as a forester, but he did not have any qualifications as a
8 police investigator, nor did he have any qualifications in relation to
9 law; and yet on this information that appears in this document, it appears
10 that he held that position of the leader of the section of prevention of
11 crimes of particular state interest. You agree that that was -- that is
12 Mr. Rajic's qualifications, a forester, before the war?
13 A. Let me tell you, before the war those State Security Services,
14 people with different profiles were engaged before. Some of them didn't
15 have university education or anything. I am totally unfamiliar with that
16 kind of work, the work done by the state security. I don't know whether
17 they need experts of various qualifications, whether they have any
18 particular training or anything. My experience with him throughout the
19 time I worked in the police was that they would come to us, ask
20 information about certain individuals, whether they had been convicted,
21 who they are related to. They look into our records. They don't even
22 tell us what is involved. And by law, we were duty-bound to provide that
23 information, so that I never really knew what those people were doing nor
24 what kind of qualifications they needed to have.
25 Q. So when you say in your statement that Mr. Kupreskic doesn't have
1 the experience or the qualifications for the job of an officer or
2 inspector for the prevention of crimes of particular state interest, that
3 really doesn't apply in relation to what was happening in Central Bosnia
4 in 1992, if it is the case that Anto Rajic did, in fact, hold that
6 I didn't receive a translation.
7 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand that. Could you repeat it, please.
8 JUDGE WALD: Witness, would you repeat that.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
10 JUDGE WALD: Witness, would you please repeat just your answer to
11 the last question. The translators didn't receive it.
12 A. I did not understand the question put to me by the lawyer.
13 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
14 A. By the Prosecutor.
15 JUDGE WALD: Before you repeat it, I'm reminding you of the time,
16 but go ahead and repeat this question.
17 MR. SMITH: Thank you.
18 Q. If it is the case that Mr. Anto Rajic in fact held the position of
19 officer or the leader for the prevention of crimes of particular state
20 interest in Travnik, as the document purports to say, then the fact that a
21 person in 1993 or 1992 hasn't got the particular experience that you would
22 expect someone to have for that position doesn't mean that they wouldn't
23 occupy it or a position of that type.
24 A. I'm quite certain that a person without experience could not be
25 able to do that job. However, as to whether he can be appointed
1 schematically to a particular post, that is something else.
2 MR. SMITH: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
4 I believe now, Witness, we will have redirect, and it says ten
5 minutes here, but really no more than 12.
6 MR. ABELL: Very well, Your Honours.
7 Re-examined by Mr. Abell:
8 Q. Mr. Lazarevic, you were asked some questions about Mr. Samija who
9 was your chief. Samija, my pronunciation is not good. Is he still alive?
10 A. No.
11 Q. When did he die, please?
12 A. He was killed at the end of December, I think, 1993. Either end
13 of December 1993 or beginning of January 1994, I'm not quite sure.
14 Q. Thank you. You've been shown this letter which was admitted in
15 the trial, P378. Do you still have it in front of you? Do you still have
16 it in front of you?
17 A. Could you repeat the number, please.
18 Q. P378 in the top right-hand corner.
19 A. Yes, I have it.
20 Q. Thank you. Before you were shown it today, had you ever seen it?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you know Anto -- I'm so sorry, do you know Anto Rajic?
23 A. At the time I didn't know him. He is not from Vitez, he's from
24 Travnik. But I met him when the conflict had already broken out, I told
25 the Prosecutor that, when the conflict broke out in Vitez. First the
1 conflict started in Vitez and then in Travnik. And then maybe in
2 mid-1993, it was only then that I met this man.
3 Q. Did he have the job described in that letter, in the first
4 paragraph, or not, to your knowledge?
5 A. I don't know who was doing what in the Travnik police
6 administration. I never went there. I've never been there. So as to
7 avoid any confusion, we still have a Travnik police administration, but in
8 those days it was a police body that was superior to the Vitez police
9 station. And in that period, I never went to Travnik to that police
10 administration, nor do I know who was doing what. I do know Anto Simic
11 because I'd known him from before the war, a policeman.
12 Q. Yes. But Vlatko Kupreskic, as you've told us, did some work in
13 the Vitez police station. Did he do any work in relation to what is in
14 the second paragraph, officer for the prevention of crimes of particular
15 state interest? Did he do that job?
16 A. I don't know that he did anything that could be described in this
17 way. I don't know how this word has been translated for you. Here it
18 says that he was acting. That can mean that he was employed. That need
19 not be actually doing that work because the term need not necessarily mean
20 that he had any daily tasks in that area. He may just have been appointed
21 to that position.
22 Q. Help me about this: I showed you, when I was last asking you
23 questions, that list of employees, and number 55 on that list describes
24 Vlatko Kupreskic in a similar way. You told us that was wrong. Do you
25 understand that that was inaccurate?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. As far as you are concerned, is that still inaccurate?
3 A. Yes, as far as I am aware.
4 Q. Thank you. So as far as you are concerned, what is said in this
5 letter that you've now been shown, P378, is that accurate or inaccurate,
6 as far as you know and are concerned, about Vlatko Kupreskic?
7 A. As far as I know, this is inaccurate.
8 Q. Thank you. The certificate that you were asked about, which is
9 our AD 43, which shows him, that is, Vlatko Kupreskic, as leaving the
10 police station on the 23rd of February -- I think you still have that in
11 front of you.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Why did he leave the police station, as far as you are concerned?
14 A. I've already said - I don't know how many times - because he
15 couldn't coordinate his work in the Sutra company with his police work.
16 Q. During the period of time that we are concerned with, from late
17 1992 up until April of 1993, were you working as the inspector for
18 commercial crime?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. And were you doing that full time?
21 A. Yes. That is the only decision on employment that I had at that
23 Q. And can you assist us in this way: Can you think of any reason
24 why it may be that on the certificate that I've just been asking you
25 about, AD 43, it has Mr. Kupreskic down as inspector for commercial crime?
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 Can you think of any reason that should be, that job title, if it's
3 A. Because the certificate was issued on the basis of my records, and
4 as far as I was aware, he was inspector for commercial crime, and that is
5 what I put there. I had the exact dates when he started working and when
6 he stopped working, and nothing was -- nothing else was ever mentioned
7 until quite recently. All I knew was that he was an inspector for
8 commercial crime. Other people, like Mirko Samija, is no longer alive.
9 We have a new chief now. So it was I who issued the certificate because I
10 was the one, the only one, who had the necessary information.
11 Q. Who physically dealt with payment for Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic for his
12 work? Was it you or was it someone else? Just don't give a name at the
13 moment if it's not you. You or someone else?
14 A. It wasn't me. There was a particular person who paid out salaries
15 to everyone, and that wasn't me. If you need the name ...
16 Q. I'd like you to write the name down, if you would, on a piece of
17 paper. That may be the best way of doing it.
18 JUDGE WALD: Are you winding down, Mr. Abell?
19 MR. ABELL: Yes, I am.
20 Q. You were asked some questions about the inventory, and it was
21 suggested to you, well, did you ever see him doing any inventory work.
22 Let's be quite clear about this: Did you see him compiling the inventory
23 list or working on the inventory?
24 A. What I said to the Prosecutor: I saw him when he came into my
25 office, I do not recall seeing him somewhere else, because an inventory
1 had to be made of my office as well as all the other in the police
3 Q. And did he do an inventory of your office?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Is there --
6 MR. ABELL: No, that deals with it. And that is, in fact, my last
7 question, I'm pleased to say.
8 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. Do the Judges have any questions? No
10 All right, thank you very much, Mr. Lazarevic, for coming to
11 testify before us, and we appreciate your sharing your information with
12 us, and we wish you good luck in your future. Perhaps the usher will
13 escort ...
14 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, could I raise something very briefly?
15 JUDGE WALD: Well, let's let the witness get out of the room.
16 MR. ABELL: Of course, of course. But I just wanted to indicate
17 that there was something I wanted to raise.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE WALD: What is it?
20 MR. ABELL: It should be in private session, if that could be
21 done, please.
22 JUDGE WALD: Will it take very long?
23 MR. ABELL: No, it won't, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE WALD: All right. Let's go into private session.
25 [Private session]
13 Pages 350-356 – redacted – private session
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.47 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 18th day of May,
3 2001, at 9.30 a.m.