Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8339

1 Friday, 16 February 2001

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.28 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated. Good morning,

6 ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the technical booth, the

7 interpreters; good morning, counsel for the Prosecution and the Defence.

8 I don't know which clock we are governed by. I see on the

9 transcript it is 9.28. The clock in the courtroom shows 9.25. Anyway,

10 this is just a remark to say that we ought to be governed by the same

11 clock, and I don't know which one it should be.

12 So we're going to resume our work continuing with the

13 re-examination of Mr. Kvocka.

14 Mr. Kvocka, let me remind you that you are continuing to testify

15 under oath and you will be asked questions by your counsel.

16 Mr. Simic, you have the floor.

17 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, and

18 thank you.


20 [Witness answered through interpreter]

21 Re-examined by Mr. K. Simic: [Continued]

22 Q. Mr. Kvocka, we broke off yesterday when I asked you whether

23 Mr. Bob Reid had asked you about Mr. Prcac. You answered yes. So, as

24 advised by the President, let me say that on page 35 of your interview

25 with Mr. Reid, the Serbian version, and 31 of the English, I think, you

Page 8340

1 were asked whether, while you were in Omarska, Mr. Dragoljub Prcac was

2 working with you in Omarska.

3 A. Yes, that question was put to me and I said that he had not, and

4 he didn't work.

5 Q. Mr. Bob Reid went back to the person called Dragoljub Prcac on

6 page 136 of the Serbian version, and in the English version, 128 and 129.

7 He asked you, "Do you know a person by the name of Prcac?"

8 A. Yes, I said that I did.

9 Q. Do you know him?

10 A. Yes, I do. He has been a long-standing employee in the public

11 security station. Actually, he used to work there while it was called the

12 SUP, the Secretariat for Internal Affairs. After the change in 1990, I

13 don't think he continued working. He retired.

14 Q. Mr. Reid, he asked you whether you knew that he worked in the

15 investigations centre after you; do you remember that?

16 A. Yes, I do, and I remember saying that I didn't know, that we

17 didn't meet there ever, but that I heard later that he had worked there.

18 During the summer and autumn, in Prijedor, I heard that from someone.

19 Q. On the same page, Mr. Reid asked you whether you knew what his

20 role was in the investigations centre; do you remember that question?

21 A. I do, and I remember answering that I didn't know. I know that he

22 was a mobilised reserve policeman. That was the status he had at the

23 time.

24 Q. You said that Mr. Prcac had worked in the police structure before

25 the changes of 1990. Can you tell us whether you knew him as a policeman

Page 8341

1 and what kind of reputation he had?

2 A. Yes, I did. We met several times during the performance of our

3 duties. When I started working in the police, he held the position of

4 crime technician. In those days, as a policeman, if a criminal act had

5 been committed and if an on-site inspection was required, I would secure

6 the site until the inspection team arrived; I would also secure the

7 activities of that team until the completion of their work.

8 So he would usually be a member of the team consisting of the

9 crime inspector, sometimes an investigating judge, and a crime technician,

10 whose main task was to take photographs of the site, to take fingerprints,

11 to make a sketch of the location, and so on. I know these things from

12 theory.

13 Q. Thank you. Mr. Kvocka, during yesterday's hearing I showed you a

14 letter from Mr. Komarica, the Bishop of Banja Luka. I'm sorry, by the

15 Bishop to Simo Drljaca, and on that occasion mention is made of the

16 Honourable Stipo Sosic, the parish priest. Do you remember that name?

17 A. I remember it from yesterday, from the letter.

18 Q. Mr. Kvocka, were you aware that the priest Stipo Sosic was

19 detained in Omarska?

20 A. From this letter, it can be seen that he was arrested on the 15th

21 of June, 1992, which need not necessarily imply that he arrived in Omarska

22 on the same date. And as you know, from the 16th to the 19th, I was on

23 sick leave, in fact, I was off, and when I came back, the only change I

24 noticed was Jadranka Gavranovic, whom I knew well from the village of

25 Omarska, who was detained there, and she told me that she, her unmarried

Page 8342

1 husband Igor Kondic, also someone called Lujic, also called Lujo, had been

2 arrested, that they had been accused of smuggling weapons, and that they

3 had been put up there, and it was only her that I saw on that occasion.

4 It was easy to notice her because I knew her well and she was among the

5 women, the small group of women.

6 As for these other two, Lujic and Igor, I only saw Igor when I

7 visited my brothers-in-law, when he was covered in bruises, and this was

8 on the 26th or the 27th.

9 Q. Thank you. Where is Mrs. Jadranka from?

10 A. From Omarska.

11 Q. Mr. Kvocka, my learned friend showed you yesterday a document

12 marked 3/189. So could we please go back to that document.

13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Could Mr. Kvocka be shown this

14 document 3/189, please. Could the usher place on the ELMO the first page

15 of this document.

16 Q. Mr. Kvocka, would you please tell me the date when this document

17 was compiled?

18 A. On the 29th of June, 1992. And the list of employees, monthly

19 work results for the month of June.

20 Q. Mr. Kvocka, how many days does June have?

21 A. Thirty.

22 Q. Can you explain how can somebody compile a report while two

23 working days of the month still remain, the month for which the report is

24 being compiled?

25 A. That illustrates what I was saying yesterday. Two or three days

Page 8343

1 don't mean anything in terms of salaries. So salaries are not prepared

2 according to work schedules but simply to reflect the presence of the work

3 throughout the month or not, but not whether he actually worked every day

4 or not.

5 So what is important here, if somebody retired halfway, in the

6 middle of the month, or if he was on sick leave for ten days or more - I

7 don't know the exact limit - then he receives his personal incomes in two

8 parts. If somebody's away for two days upon permission of the

9 commander --

10 Q. Yes. We heard all about that yesterday. Mr. Kvocka, we spoke at

11 length about your status after taking back your brothers-in-law on the

12 24th of June and after being removed from Omarska.

13 It says the 24th of June. It should be the 23rd. I'm sorry.

14 What was your position during those days? Did anyone tell you

15 anything?

16 A. My first encounter with Dusko Jankovic ended by him saying, "Go

17 home and wait." However, I found that rather vague. If he had

18 immediately told me something more specific, then I would have something

19 to hope for. But the way in which he expressed himself told me that this

20 would be some kind of a suspension or even worse. So I couldn't -- I

21 didn't know what to do. I called up the secretary. She would say, "Call

22 back again." So I didn't know what kind of preparations had been made in

23 advance should I appear. Then suddenly they said, as if it was a hasty

24 decision, "Go to Tukovi on the 1st of July."

25 However - I must say thanks to the Prosecution who produced the

Page 8344

1 seized documents - I was able to establish exactly what happened.

2 Q. Would you explain to Their Honours what you discovered on the

3 basis of the documents that were seized during the investigations, which,

4 I fear, deprived the Defence to have all the documents it needed to

5 prepare its case properly, but we'll come back to that.

6 A. What it was was a de facto suspension, and the next step could

7 have been my total dismissal, and after that I could have been sent to the

8 front and all the other problems that would follow. However, the chief of

9 the security centre in Banja Luka, who is superior to the Public Security

10 Station in Prijedor, sent a dispatch ordering -- a circular letter to all

11 the police stations, including Prijedor, therefore, ordering that all

12 employees who have not firmly decided who they were as Serbs and that they

13 could be relied on and who have access to important information could not

14 be dismissed as had been done in some cases. Apparently, this had already

15 been done by someone somewhere.

16 So by his order --

17 Q. Mr. Kvocka, let me interrupt you.

18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] For the Chamber to be able to

19 follow what we're talking about, could I ask the usher -- D 39/1, could

20 that document be shown to the witness so he can refer to it.

21 Q. Mr. Kvocka, will you look at this document, please, though you

22 have had occasion to see it among the documents disclosed to you. Do you

23 have before you a decision of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of

24 Krajina, adopted on the 22nd of June, 1992, registered under 03-531/92?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8345

1 Q. Would you please answer my questions. Is this a decision of the

2 Crisis Staff of the 22nd of June, 1992?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Would you please carefully read out the first paragraph of the

5 decision as well as the second after that.

6 A. So: "The Crisis Staff issues the following decision:

7 "All executive posts, posts involving a likely flow of

8 information ..."

9 Q. Just read it, please.

10 A. "... posts involving the protection of public property, that is,

11 all posts of importance to the functioning of the economy may only be held

12 by personnel of Serbian nationality."

13 Q. Would you now please continue.

14 A. "These posts may not be held by employees of Serbian nationality

15 who have not confirmed that at the plebiscite or who in their minds are

16 not yet ideologically clear that the Serbian Democratic Party is the sole

17 representative of the Serbian people."

18 Q. Thank you. Would you please also read the order of Mr. Zupljanin

19 in relation to employees that need to be removed from places where they

20 are not welcome. In the first paragraph --

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, the witness is

22 reading the documents. What is the question? We're coming back to

23 yesterday's question. You have the document. Could you put the question

24 to the witness.

25 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] One, two, three.

Page 8346

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can you hear me? Can you hear

2 me, Mr. Simic? No? Can you hear me, Mr. Simic? Is there a problem with

3 the microphones of the B/C/S booth? I see the microphones are on. Can

4 you hear me? Perhaps it's a problem with the channel for Mr. Simic. Are

5 you hearing now? No? No?

6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] It's all right now. We can hear

7 now.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It's fine now. In any event,

9 something went wrong and was corrected, so we have to bear this in mind to

10 avoid it happening again.

11 What I was saying, Mr. Simic, was the witness is reading the

12 document but you are not putting questions to him. What are your

13 questions? So I think it's preferable to produce the document and then

14 put the question to the witness.

15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 Q. Mr. Kvocka, you are familiar with this document. Has

17 Mr. Zupljanin ordered that such persons cannot be dismissed but must be

18 retained in the police system?

19 A. That is what the order says, yes.

20 Q. Does the date of this order coincide with the beginning of your

21 work again?

22 A. Yes. It was issued on the 1st of July.

23 Q. Mr. Kvocka, was it regular practice for the chief of the CSB to

24 call police chiefs before making a decision?

25 A. These were so-called collegiate meetings. These were quite

Page 8347

1 frequent.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] We don't need the document any

4 more. Thank you.

5 Q. You just said that on the 1st of July, 1992 you were assigned to

6 Tukovi, where you went to work. My question is, so as to avoid three

7 questions: The command structure of the reserve police station at

8 Tukovi.

9 A. The commander was Mile Drazic, the deputy, Slavko Antonic, and the

10 assistant, Lazo or Lazar Basrak. Some people called him Lazo; others,

11 Lazar.

12 Q. Mr. Kvocka, my learned friend showed you an order from 1991 on

13 target shooting, signed by the Chief of the Public Security Station, Hasan

14 Talundzic. My question is: The process of target training, is that

15 regulated by the Rules of Service of the police?

16 A. No.

17 Q. How is it regulated?

18 A. There is a universal rule for target training which is applied in

19 the army, in the Territorial Defence, in the police, in the civil defence,

20 in so-called premilitary training for students at universities and

21 secondary schools, and even during sports contests with rifles. So these

22 are universal rules.

23 Q. Thank you. This type of exercise, is it carried out pursuant to

24 the orders of the appropriate superior?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8348

1 Q. Is he obliged, in his order, to observe these general rules for

2 all the persons participating in the training?

3 A. Yes. Whoever gives orders for such target training with live

4 ammunition is duty-bound to provide for all the other facilities.

5 Q. Mr. Kvocka, we have, quite a number of times, seen Mr. Drljaca's

6 order of the 31st of May, and also the daily schedule issued by

7 Mr. Kadiric.

8 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] So could documents D17/1 and 3/186

9 be shown to the witness.

10 MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, may I take a moment to --

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.

12 MS. SOMERS: Thank you. May I inform the Chamber, please, that

13 D17/1 is Prosecution Exhibit 2/4.11. It has been referred to fairly

14 consistently in the course of the Kvocka examination under that -- with

15 the Kvocka witnesses under that particular exhibit number.

16 THE WITNESS: [In English] Not the B/C version. Not the B/C

17 version.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Susan Somers, but

19 we have this problem where we have documents that have two numbers, the

20 same document with two different numbers. We are now separating the

21 documents that have already been tendered by the Prosecution so as to

22 avoid having the same documents marked in two different ways.

23 In any event, please continue.

24 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

25 Q. Mr. Kvocka, will you please look at the daily schedule for the

Page 8349












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8350

1 18th of May, 1991. Without wasting time, please look at Mr. Drljaca's

2 order, dated the 31st of May, 1992.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do both these orders contain instructions about security?

5 A. Yes, they both contain instructions of that kind. We spoke

6 yesterday about document -- order number 480 --

7 Q. Is there another number?

8 A. Yes, there's another. Order number 417. I was focusing on the

9 one under which my name is included.

10 Q. So Simo Drljaca's order, does it contain similar instructions?

11 A. Yes. Under paragraph 6, "Security services shall be provided

12 by ..." that is the same order, in fact.

13 Q. If we go back to Mr. Kadiric's order, the work schedule for the

14 18th of May, 1992, we see that Mr. Kadiric authorised the commander to

15 assign those five men.

16 A. Yes, we explained that yesterday.

17 Q. I apologise. Because of the transcript, I'm going to repeat the

18 question, so please answer it once again.

19 In the daily work schedule issued by Mr. Kadiric, dated the 18th

20 of May, for the Omarska Police Station Department, it says, "Five

21 policemen." You told us there were five policemen who could be assigned,

22 according to the plan, by the department commander; is that correct?

23 A. It is.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, I'm sorry for

25 interrupting you, but when you say "in this order," when you use the

Page 8351

1 document, could you tell us the number of the document, please.

2 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. It is document 3/186.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please, whenever you mention a

4 document, mention its number, because that will facilitate our work later

5 on. If we have a number here, then we can find it easily. So please

6 proceed.

7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance, Your

8 Honour.

9 Q. Will you now look at paragraph 6 in Exhibit D17/1.

10 A. I've looked at it.

11 Q. Does this order contain a plan for providing security?

12 A. Yes, a plan of work, the plan for the entire Security Service.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, has the usher got

14 this document to place it under the ELMO?

15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I'm not getting the

16 interpretation.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Are we having the same problem

18 again? Please do whatever you did a moment ago to repair the problem.

19 You're hearing now?

20 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we can hear you, but not the

21 interpretation.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Document 17/1, D17/1, that needs

23 to be placed on the ELMO; is that right, Mr. Simic?

24 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Please put paragraph 6

25 on the ELMO.

Page 8352

1 Q. This order, does it also authorise the department commander to

2 assign policemen among those five that you mentioned?

3 A. Yes. An order has been given and further elaborated. The order

4 is given as to what shall be done and how.

5 Q. Mr. Kvocka, when you say an order was given as to what should be

6 done, does that apply to the point when you took over the defined guard

7 posts?

8 A. Yes. That implies that until then, everything had already been

9 carried out as ordered.

10 Q. Mr. Kvocka, you told us that you were an experienced policeman.

11 You have two documents before you. Will you please --

12 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] You can remove those documents.

13 Q. Could you please tell us the differences between these two

14 documents, that is, document D17/1 and 3/186, from the standpoint of the

15 service in which you were employed.

16 A. Well, in the security -- regarding the security segment, there is

17 absolutely no difference. The document dated the 18th of May is one in

18 which the station commander issues instructions because only the employees

19 from that station are included. In view of this other order, since some

20 other services from the public security area are included, such an order

21 could not be issued by the station commander as in the order of the 31st

22 of May. Orders are issued to others as well, like the crime service and

23 even the mine management.

24 So the chief of the public security station, in those days Simo

25 Drljaca, was the only one who could issue the order as he was issuing

Page 8353

1 orders to both the crime service and the police.

2 Since I see that he has issued an order to the mine management as

3 well and some others, I can't remember just now the addressees of this

4 order --

5 Q. Yes, to the army as well.

6 A. Yes, to certain military units as well. He did so because he was

7 a member of the Crisis Staff. And it was stated at the top of the order

8 that he was issuing that order pursuant to a conclusion of the Crisis

9 Staff. And being a member of the Crisis Staff, he acquired even greater

10 authority than he would have within the public security system.

11 Q. Mr. Kvocka, yesterday during your cross-examination, you stated

12 that for the first time in your life as a policeman -- that you handcuffed

13 somebody for the first time in your life as a policeman in 1994. What was

14 the reason for that handcuffing and when was it?

15 A. It was at the end of the spring, if my memory serves me right.

16 There was a series of murders in the town of Prijedor of individuals of

17 Muslim ethnicity. In one of the documents here, a document which was

18 submitted by an expert witness, Sophie Greve, I think she was the one who

19 mentioned that particular incident, and I read about it in that document.

20 At the beginning of June or maybe in mid-June 1994, a team of

21 inspectors from the Ministry of the Interior, from Bijeljina, arrived.

22 The seat of the Ministry was in Bijeljina at the time. And according to

23 what I thought, according to what I believe was happening, they actually

24 placed the station, police station in Prijedor -- they sidelined the

25 police station in Prijedor and took over as regards the investigation of

Page 8354

1 these murders.

2 Zivko Bojic which was a member of the crime section within the

3 Ministry of the Interior appeared, and he requested my superiors that for

4 the purposes of taking into custody the suspects for those murders, which

5 means that they already had some information to that effect, that he

6 should assign me, together with several others, to carry out that

7 particular task. I think the then chief Bogdan Delic was able to

8 cooperate with them, whereas other services in Prijedor were simply

9 sidelined by them. I was the one who received the task, and together with

10 Ratko Kecan, and Prvoslav Sekulic, I carried out that assignment. I don't

11 remember other policemen who worked with me on the case.

12 We took into custody over 20 individuals of Serb ethnicity from

13 the municipality of Prijedor within one week. They were the suspects.

14 They were processed at the time. Some of them were released and sent

15 home. Those -- that was the tactics of the crime department. Some of

16 them were later on taken to Banja Luka, to the investigation prison.

17 We were very successful in carrying out that assignment, according

18 to the assessment by Zivko Bojic and Bogdan Delic, because we managed to

19 take into custody all of them. I remember at least ten of them at this

20 point.

21 Q. Mr. Kvocka, did -- were all of the victims in these murder cases

22 members of the Muslim community?

23 A. I'm almost 100 per cent sure that all of them were Muslims. It

24 was a very big case. There was a lot of talk about it, and I never heard

25 that there was a Serb victim amongst them as well.

Page 8355

1 Q. Did you ever learn why you were chosen by Mr. Bojic from the

2 Ministry of the Interior? Why did he choose you to conduct the detention,

3 the process of taking into custody people who were suspected of having

4 committed murders of individuals of Muslim ethnicity?

5 A. According to my information, I think that he heard -- he said that

6 he had heard about a very dutiful and diligent policeman within that

7 centre and that he thought that he could rely on that police officer for

8 that kind of job because some of the suspects were also members of the

9 reserve police. So I was supposed to take into custody people who were my

10 ex-colleagues or people who were refugees and had come to Prijedor from

11 elsewhere and had to kill the owner of the house in which they were

12 supposed to be accommodated.

13 So it was a very complex and difficult job. From the professional

14 aspect, it was very hard because they were all carrying weapons, but it

15 was also difficult because of the general atmosphere and the environment

16 because people started talking about the fact that we started arresting

17 Serbs as well. The situation was rather complicated.

18 Q. Was that a dangerous assignment?

19 A. As I told you, they were all armed. And later during the

20 investigation, I heard that many of them had indeed perpetrated those

21 acts, some such acts. So they were all armed, and some were murderers.

22 So I don't think that there's anything else that I have to tell you about

23 how dangerous it was.

24 Q. You testified that in 1994 you became the shift leader in the

25 general police station in Prijedor. Is that correct?

Page 8356

1 A. Yes. There is a document to that effect.

2 Q. Do you remember who was the Minister who appointed you to that

3 position?

4 A. I believe it was Zivko Rakic, that that was the name of that

5 Minister. During those three or four years, there were very frequent

6 changes of the post, but I believe that Zivko Rakic was Minister at the

7 time.

8 Q. It's not very important anyway.

9 How did you become shift leader, in view of the fact that up until

10 that time, you had been a simple patrol sector chief and you had been

11 involved in the most ordinary, the simplest tasks when it comes to the

12 overall police structure?

13 A. You must know that sometime in 1993 --

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Somers.

15 MS. SOMERS: Counsel is testifying, and I would ask the Chamber to

16 ask to at least have the question rephrased so that the witness can

17 indicate what the nature of his tasks were, not counsel.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic. We always come

19 back to one and the same issue. Please refrain from making conclusions

20 and expressing your opinions here. Try to ask a simple question.

21 What I can read here from the record is the following -- I have to

22 read it in English because I don't have a transcript in French.

23 [In English] "You had been involved in the most ordinary, the simplest

24 tasks."

25 It's an opinion. "And you had been involved in the most ordinary,

Page 8357

1 ordinary, the simplest tasks." Always it's an opinion. It's an

2 evaluation. "When it comes to the overall police structure."

3 So you have to put the question asking, "What were the tasks you

4 did before and what are the tasks you are doing now?" If not, you are

5 testifying on behalf of the witness.

6 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,

7 I have to comment. I wasn't making any conclusions. I simply stated what

8 Mr. Kvocka said yesterday and what is contained in the document which has

9 been provided to me by my learned colleague, where it is clearly stated

10 that those tasks were the simplest tasks. It's the rules of service,

11 Exhibit number 3/206. But I accept your suggestion and I will rephrase my

12 question.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic. You're quite

14 right, but it's almost one and the same thing as using the expression such

15 as "war criminals" in some other document that we have seen here. If the

16 document states "simple tasks," then it has to be properly translated and

17 quoted. Otherwise, we risk making conclusions which we do not want to

18 do.

19 Let me consult with my colleagues.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, please continue.

22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will

23 accept your suggestion and rephrase my question in order to speed matters

24 up.

25 Q. Mr. Kvocka, what changed? What made it possible for you to be

Page 8358

1 appointed to the position of a shift leader?

2 A. I will have to explain this in some detail. In 1993, end of 1993,

3 in the area of Prijedor municipality, a lot of things started to change.

4 Simo Drljaca, for political reasons, was replaced. The new chief arrived;

5 it was Bogdan Delic, but I'm not sure about the exact dates.

6 After his arrival, the arrival of Bogdan Delic, one could feel

7 winds of change blowing in the police service. There was more

8 professionalism, and requests to that effect were being made, which was

9 not necessary in my case because I was a professional, experienced

10 policeman.

11 One of such cases was also that one, because Zivko Bojic, when he

12 came back from the Ministry, he made an assessment of my work, and Bogdan

13 Delic, who was the chief at that time, saw that for himself. In the next

14 organisation of the work of the service, there was a decision made whereby

15 I was appointed to the position of the shift leader at the Police Station

16 Prijedor 1. That was a new police station, because we also had at that

17 time Police Station Prijedor 2 which was established. Prijedor 2 was

18 established in the neighbourhood of Urije, and Prijedor 1, in the centre

19 of the town.

20 Q. Thank you. Mr. Kvocka, you, as well as many other witnesses,

21 testified about the time when Mr. Meakic was in the investigation centre.

22 Can you tell the Chamber how much time Mr. Meakic spent in the

23 investigation centre on a daily basis, please.

24 A. He was there every day. Very often he would spend the night in

25 the centre. When he was absent, he was absent for a couple of hours.

Page 8359












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8360

1 Sometimes he told me that he would go to Prijedor; sometimes he didn't

2 tell me anything about where he was going. I told you about that, and I

3 also told you about what he would usually say, that in his absence I

4 should be there. But he was there every day and almost every night.

5 Witnesses have testified also that he slept there somewhere, but I

6 don't know exactly where it was because I didn't see it.

7 Q. Mr. Kvocka, you said yesterday, and Ms. Somers also referred to an

8 incident with serious consequences. Could you tell us, could you be more

9 specific in terms of the time when the incident took place?

10 A. On the day of the attack on Prijedor, that is, on the 30th of

11 May. Later on that day, in the afternoon.

12 JUDGE WALD: Could you tell us what incident you're talking

13 about? You just said "to an incident with serious consequences." Just

14 refer us to what specific incident it was.

15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The incident

16 which was testified about by witnesses, the shooting incident where three

17 individuals were killed and four were wounded.

18 JUDGE WALD: Okay.

19 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Wald, for

20 intervening in this matter.

21 Q. My last question for you, Mr. Kvocka: You were at the

22 investigations centre. You have received the documentation which was

23 inaccessible to us. You have heard a number of testimonies about it.

24 At the end of your testimony here, as far as the Defence is

25 concerned, could you tell us who the commander or the warden was and also

Page 8361

1 who the deputy commander or the deputy warden was of the camp or the

2 investigations centre of Omarska?

3 A. According to the documentation which was seized after the

4 indictment was issued, many things became clear, if you want my opinion

5 about that, and it became obvious who was issuing orders to whom.

6 On the other hand, you have the report which was composed by a

7 very qualified commission, including Bera Vojin, the Chief of Security

8 Service from Banja Luka, and also Rajko Mijic, the coordinator who was

9 well-versed in the circumstances and the situation in which the

10 investigations centre was functioning. According to that report, they did

11 not manage to find, to identify, that individual.

12 Moreover, the same commission established that in Sanski Most, it

13 was the Crisis Staff that appointed the prison commander to his post --

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Somers.

15 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the objection that I will interpose is

16 that the witness is not testifying from firsthand knowledge at all, by his

17 own admission, and the value of this, I think, is very questionable. This

18 is an opinion based on a reading of documents, and the question posed was,

19 "Who was the commander of the camp?" He obviously cannot tell you from

20 his own knowledge.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic.

22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I have to reply, Your Honour, to

23 the objection.

24 My learned colleague, in at least 60 per cent of her

25 cross-examination, asked Mr. Kvocka for his opinion about various matters,

Page 8362

1 and the same was the case with the interview of Mr. Reid.

2 We have heard that Mr. Kvocka was a policeman and that he was

3 familiar with the evidence that has been tendered. Why wouldn't he be

4 able to provide us with his opinion? Because he was there, he has heard

5 the evidence, and he can give us his opinion. I'm not asking for anything

6 more than what was amply used by my learned colleague during her

7 cross-examination. Very often she would begin questions with, "What do

8 you think?" or "What is your opinion?"

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do you wish to reply,

10 Ms. Somers?

11 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, yes, thank you very much.

12 Your Honour, the indictment proceeds from the position of the

13 Prosecution, at the minimum de facto, and very possibly de jure, deputy

14 camp commander status or the functional equivalent thereof. The issues of

15 professional action - "How did you view this? How did you view that?" -

16 was actions committed by this individual.

17 The issue here is an opinion on documentation. To ask him, "How

18 did you view this which you did? Tell us about this," it was referring,

19 if I understand what counsel is saying, to things that he did. How did he

20 view this? Situations in which he was personally involved.

21 What is happening, as I see the response that is coming forth, is

22 it is passing judgement on documentation over which he has no firsthand

23 knowledge, and I think they are very different situations.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 8363

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, the Chamber will

2 allow the witness to continue expressing himself. Because he said, "At

3 that time, I was not aware of those documents, and now that I have access

4 to those documents, I have to say the following," the Chamber believes

5 that it is a very important piece of information and that we need to hear

6 it. The objection is, therefore, overruled.

7 Mr. Simic, please continue.

8 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. In order

9 to follow the record easily, we are talking about document D38/1.

10 Q. Mr. Kvocka, please continue.

11 A. Where was I? Okay. So from those documents, it is obvious, as I

12 said, that highly qualified professionals took part in that work --

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Kvocka, sorry to interrupt

14 you. I just need some information. At that period of time, you were not

15 familiar with those documents?

16 A. I was not familiar with this particular report. I only received

17 it here during the proceedings.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Please

19 continue.

20 A. So from that document, one can see that highly qualified

21 operations officers established that it was the Crisis Staff in Sanski

22 Most that appointed the warden of the prison and his deputy. However, as

23 regards the municipality of Prijedor, that individual was not identified,

24 that is, who was appointed either by the Crisis Staff or some other body.

25 What they established was that there was a system which was in

Page 8364

1 place, in view of the orders and the overall structure; that a system of

2 reporting also existed; that the person who issued various orders was also

3 established, and that that individual established responsibilities for

4 various sectors. It was also established that those people from those

5 sectors were duty-bound to report to him on a daily basis.

6 From two documents, it also can be seen that that individual, that

7 is, the Chief of Public Security Station of Prijedor, on two occasions -

8 we have those documents at this point - that he informed the Crisis

9 Staff. One was an order to prohibit the release, and he issued a

10 follow-up order to the effect that the first one should be strictly

11 respected and obeyed.

12 As regards any further chain of command, I really cannot tell you

13 anything about it. I don't have any knowledge about that and I cannot

14 make any conclusions on the basis of the documents. Everything finished,

15 as far as I'm concerned, with the Chief of Public Security Station. And

16 also I know that he informed and he reported to the Crisis Staff. That is

17 all I know. I know also that the chief was also a member of the Crisis

18 Staff.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Kvocka, let me ask you

20 something. Is that all that you have to say, having seen the documents?

21 But forget the documents for a moment. Come back to your presence in the

22 camp. What was it that you yourself perceived or observed regarding the

23 camp structure? Who was the commander and so on?

24 Do you understand my question? Forget the documents for a moment

25 and place yourself in the place and in the time we're talking about and

Page 8365

1 tell us what was your perception of things. What were your conclusions in

2 relation to the camp structure?

3 A. I'll try to do that, Your Honour. Let me start from the place

4 that I'm most familiar with.

5 The only superior to us policemen was Zeljko Meakic, our immediate

6 superior who was there. He was not the only one but our immediate

7 superior. And according to my perception and observations, he could draw

8 up the work schedule for the policemen. He could give them specific

9 assignments.

10 I also noticed this Babic who was mentioned here, but there were

11 other engineers too who worked in two or three shifts, and their workers

12 referred to them as mine managers, as the managers of the mine. And I

13 noticed that they were superior to their staff, that is, the staff of the

14 mine, all the other workers ranging from the cleaning ladies to the

15 maintenance workers. That was the other segment.

16 Within the camp, in the course of my work, I noticed that there

17 were three inspectors or chiefs who were superior to the investigators,

18 and they gave them assignments, but they could also give assignments to

19 the policemen, especially those who were designated to serve them, in a

20 sense. They were part of the duty service. And they could also give them

21 specific assignments, as could the inspectors themselves.

22 So there were three chiefs of those services which belonged to the

23 state, public, and military security services. I didn't notice any other

24 chains of command.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another question based on your

Page 8366

1 observations, if you can answer it. How could Zeljko Meakic organise

2 himself to be at the same time in charge of the Omarska Police Station

3 department and in charge of the Omarska centre? Do you understand my

4 question? Because after all, you have told us that Zeljko Meakic spent

5 most of his time in the Omarska centre. What happened to the police

6 station department in Omarska then?

7 A. I have to tell you that when the investigations centre started

8 operating, almost the entire department staff was transferred to the

9 camp. There was only one or two policemen on duty in the department and

10 there was a connection to the camp. And should there be a problem, then

11 Zeljko Meakic could give orders from the investigation centre itself.

12 I mentioned yesterday that I went two or three times to intervene

13 on the ground. So there were very few people left. There was just one or

14 two officers on duty. The patrols were reduced to a minimum, and they

15 went out only when a problem arose. So one could say that the police

16 department itself hardly functioned at all.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may continue, Mr. Simic,

18 please.

19 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 Q. In answering His Honour President Rodrigues, let me ask you, was

21 there a military segment within the camp?

22 A. Yes. Yesterday when we were reading the list and somebody made a

23 list of ID cards for passes to be issued at the request of Zeljko Meakic,

24 I think there were 18 or 19 people on that list, they belonged to a unit

25 of Territorial Defence which were attached to the police workers to help

Page 8367

1 out in providing security. I think I explained that a little yesterday.

2 Q. Let me just add: Did they have a superior themselves?

3 A. They did have one, but I didn't notice him coming there, and I

4 don't know who he was. But I think that they were given assignments

5 beforehand. Now, whether Zeljko agreed with that superior, as to how they

6 would work, I don't know, but they were given guard posts and, afterwards,

7 they just took up their positions there.

8 Q. We heard here your testimony and the testimony of others about a

9 period when a special unit was there. Is that correct?

10 A. Yes. We repeated that several times. There were two groups that

11 spent about seven days each, until the 15th of June.

12 Q. Did they have their superiors that you were able to observe?

13 A. Yes. I mentioned the day before yesterday a name. The superior

14 was Maric, of the first group, and the other one was Strazivuk. I

15 said, "Lukic." It should be Maric. I made a mistake.

16 Q. Mr. Kvocka, were you ever able to see that Mr. Meakic, as the

17 Commander of the police station department, issuing any order to the other

18 superiors that you have listed just now, the investigators, the special

19 unit members, et cetera?

20 A. No. It is well known from before, the chains of work and command

21 differ. After all, an inspector is at a higher level, not to mention

22 special unit members. It is out of the question that orders could be

23 given to them and particularly not to their superiors, also to the mine

24 managers. They had very specific tasks of their own. This was not

25 possible in theory, nor did it happen in practice, as far as I could see.

Page 8368

1 Q. Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Meakic reported about the work

2 of the security? Did he submit any reports about security?

3 A. I can only make assumptions. I didn't see him do it, so I don't

4 know.

5 Q. And my final question now. When you mentioned the individual who

6 ordered everything and who ordered reports to be sent to him not later

7 than 12.00, who was that person?

8 A. The chief of the public security station, Simo Drljaca.

9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no

10 further questions.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Simic.

12 Mr. Nikolic, do you have any additional questions? No?

13 Mr. Fila? No.

14 Mr. Masic? No.

15 Mr. Stojanovic? No questions either because your client was not

16 mentioned.

17 As you know, we have allowed additional questions outside the

18 scope of the cross-examination, just as the cross-examination went beyond

19 the scope of the examination-in-chief. Consequently, it is possible that

20 in these additional questions, matters were raised as new issues. So I'm

21 going to ask Ms. Susan Somers whether she has any questions.

22 Specifically the Chamber noticed, for instance, this question of

23 handcuffing, which was elaborated at some length. So I don't know if you

24 have any questions about it.

25 Following on to what I said yesterday, we have to maintain the

Page 8369

1 equality of arms and always the possibility of challenging points.

2 So Ms. Susan Somers, do you have any additional questions?

3 MS. SOMERS: On the handcuffing, Your Honour, I do not. I would

4 ask perhaps one question about the habit of reading orders and keeping

5 current on chain of command issues, if I may, that would have been linked

6 to the comments on some of the documents from Prijedor. If I may, one

7 question.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, do you object to such

9 a question being put to the witness?

10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm afraid I don't

11 understand what Ms. Somers wants.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please, will you repeat that,

13 please.

14 MS. SOMERS: I would like, if the Chamber permits me, to ask a

15 question concerning familiarity, regularity, and familiarising oneself

16 with orders that come down, that had come down from either the Crisis

17 Staff or other higher levels in the policing chain of command.

18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this question was not

19 opened here at all, and Mr. Kvocka said very well that he saw all these

20 documents in the process of disclosure. So he has already provided the

21 answer that as a policeman, at the first level he would not have access to

22 those documents.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Never mind. We'll allow that

24 question, and if you have an additional question after that, we'll give

25 you a chance to put it.


Page 8370












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8371

1 So you have the floor, Ms. Somers.

2 Further cross-examination by Ms. Somers:

3 MS. SOMERS: Mr. Kvocka, in taking up your responsibilities during

4 the wartime situation in Omarska, both the police station and its transfer

5 being into the camp, its appearance as the principal police body in

6 Omarska camp, did you regularly seek, either on your own initiative or

7 during briefings with Zeljko Meakic, to know what was coming down from the

8 political beings in the ARK or in Prijedor itself? Did you stay current

9 with the orders from above?

10 A. No. I never had any information about orders except some

11 information that Zeljko Meakic may pass on in the form of his order,

12 because when he would return from Prijedor, he would say, for instance,

13 "Simo told me that information is leaking." And he wouldn't say that to

14 me, he would say that to all of us policemen on duty or on guard duty.

15 "So don't let me see any one of you talking to the detainees." Zeljko

16 would be prone to say such a thing. And also to give a better impression,

17 he would say, "Simo tells me that information is leaking." So he would

18 say something like that.

19 I can't think of anything else to tell you as an illustration of

20 what I mean.

21 So that would be the order he would give us policemen. And it was

22 not part of my duty to inquire about orders. I am very aware of what my

23 duties were as a duty officer in security, as a police officer providing

24 security, and all the other activities of a police officer.

25 Q. You had indicated - this is part of this line of questioning - you

Page 8372

1 had indicated both to Investigator Reid, and I believe you conceded in

2 court, that the Omarska Police Station had resumed its structure which

3 would have authorised a deputy and an assistant; is that correct?

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, I'll give you the

5 floor later.

6 A. No, that is not correct. This is for the third time that you are

7 putting that in my mouth. I told Mr. Reid about a theory that existed

8 before the war and was adjusted to the system at the time should an

9 aggression occur. I said that that never happened. Everything changed.

10 All those theories fell apart.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Kvocka, that is

12 sufficient. We know all that.

13 Have you finished, Ms. Susan Somers?


15 Q. About the issue of Crisis Staff, you indicated to Mr. Simic that

16 Drljaca was giving this order as a person representing the Crisis Staff.

17 Now, may I ask you, item 17, the final paragraph, says:

18 "The implementation of this order shall be supervised by Police

19 Chief Dusan Jankovic in collaboration with the Banja Luka Security

20 Services Centre and with the support of authorised executive personnel."

21 Do you see any mention of Jankovic's, if any, affiliation with the

22 Crisis Staff, or do you see the Crisis Staff mentioned at all?

23 A. The Crisis Staff is mentioned at the beginning of that order,

24 where Simo Drljaca says, "Pursuant to the decision of the Crisis Staff, I

25 order the following." That is the link between the Crisis Staff and Simo

Page 8373

1 Drljaca. The members of the Crisis Staff were various leaders in various

2 institutions in various areas. So that is the link. This last paragraph

3 is his designation of somebody who would implement all that into

4 practice.

5 Q. Mr. Kvocka, is it not correct that a superior police officer such

6 as Drljaca could not issue an order that would be inconsistent with a

7 political body known as the Crisis Staff and, therefore, a police order,

8 issued by a police official at the level of Drljaca, would have to be

9 consistent with Crisis Staff decisions. Do you find that strange?

10 A. I'm afraid I haven't understood you properly. He is issuing an

11 order on the basis of a decision of the Crisis Staff. Therefore, one can

12 assume that the Crisis Staff took some general decisions, for instance, to

13 arrest people, to take care of refugees, to do this or that, and then, on

14 the basis of such a decision, Mr. Drljaca issues an order. So he was

15 authorised by the Crisis Staff for this segment, the segment of the police

16 activities - that is my impression - the whole police, not just uniformed

17 police. When I say "the police," I mean the whole service; the crime

18 service and the others.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Ms. Susan Somers, will you

20 finish, please?

21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you for one more question.

22 Q. Do you have absolutely no idea what decision of the Crisis Staff

23 Drljaca is referring to? Is that not the case, you have no idea?

24 A. I think in that document the number of the decision is referred

25 to. But you have it, you seized that document. It says, "On the basis of

Page 8374

1 the decision of the Crisis Staff." There may be a number there. I don't

2 have it in front of me.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In fact, in reality, did you

4 know what that order was?

5 A. No, no.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Ms. Susan Somers, we're

7 turning around in a circle.

8 Mr. Simic, do you have any questions about these questions?

9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, I have none.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. But remember that we

11 have respected the principle of equality of arms and the adversarial

12 principle.

13 I think that now it's time for a break before the questions of the

14 Judges. I think that Mr. Kvocka needs a rest too; it must be tiring for

15 him.

16 We will have a half-hour break, and I say a half hour based on

17 everybody's watches. All the clocks are showing different times. So half

18 an hour on the basis of your watch.

19 --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 11.23 a.m.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.

22 I have been informed that the clocks have been synchronised so we

23 can have an indication of the exact time now.

24 I will give the floor first to Judge Riad.

25 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 8375

1 Questioned by the Court:

2 JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Mr. Kvocka. Can you hear me?

3 A. Good morning, Your Honour. I can hear you.

4 JUDGE RIAD: I'd just like to have a few clarifications from you,

5 and you are the best one, of course, to clarify.

6 Throughout your testimony, I understood that it was a common

7 understanding and rule that no guard should hurt the prisoners and that as

8 a duty officer, you considered it your obligation to report any

9 violation.

10 How many reports did you make? Do you remember?

11 A. I do not remember the number. This was information, but you see

12 there's a problem. Whenever I wanted to inform Zeljko that there were

13 rumours that prisoners were being mistreated, Zeljko almost always

14 responded by saying that he was already aware of that. It was very

15 difficult to obtain information two or three days after the event. You

16 see, these were policemen or guards who hid such information out of

17 solidarity amongst themselves. So that information would reach you with a

18 great deal of delay.

19 It is, however, the obligation of every guard, if he notices

20 another guard doing something wrong, to report it. It is not just an

21 obligation of the duty officer, if I understand your question correctly.

22 JUDGE RIAD: Then let's speak of you as a guard also. What would

23 you do if the violation was committed by somebody superior? We understood

24 that you found it very difficult, but was there any prescribed rule in the

25 system which would allow you to reach higher authorities, to bring to

Page 8376

1 their attention a major violation or a violation which you saw?

2 A. To inform Zeljko Meakic, that was the only possibility I had as a

3 guard, as a duty officer, whatever. The only thing I could do was to

4 inform my superior, Zeljko Meakic, even if that person was superior to

5 him. So that's the only possibility I had. But I'm saying again, almost

6 every time he would say he was aware of it, but it was very difficult to

7 get to the root of the matter.

8 JUDGE RIAD: All right. Did you really report to Meakic about

9 every violation you saw? For instance, you saw, as I understood,

10 detainees being beaten going to the toilet. Did you report that?

11 A. I didn't see that ever in front of my eyes because if I had, I

12 would have intervened, even though it is risky to do so, as we are

13 colleagues.

14 These are not citizens who are doing it. If it had happened in my

15 presence, I would have intervened. But if I heard subsequently there were

16 such cases, I would inform Zeljko Meakic. And the two or three times I

17 intervened were things that he either saw or was informed about,

18 especially in respect to Djordjin, that incident.

19 So what I'm saying is that that did not happen in front of my very

20 eyes, that kind of mistreatment that you referred to.

21 JUDGE RIAD: Some witnesses, and I would like to know your opinion

22 about that, some witnesses stated, and we have their names even, that it

23 was inevitable to hear the cries and moans of beatings in the

24 interrogation room because it was on the same floor, I think, where you

25 would be. Whom did you report that to?

Page 8377

1 A. The only time I noticed that I have described, and I said exactly

2 what I did, how I intervened. And I overstepped my authority, in fact,

3 when I acted rather roughly in relation to the inspectors, and they

4 actually complained and said how dared I. That was the only time that I

5 heard it, and I intervened, in view of the limited amount of times I was

6 there, the number of shifts I actually worked there.

7 But I remember that particular occasion. That did indeed happen

8 when I came out of the duty office and acted in a rather rough manner in

9 relation to the inspectors who then complained, what gave me the right to

10 do that, and this had a certain part in the overall negative attitude

11 adopted towards me.

12 JUDGE RIAD: Yes. You told us that you interfered with them, but

13 what about an official report? Did you give any official report, a

14 follow-up?

15 A. Yes, I did convey the information to Zeljko Meakic.

16 JUDGE RIAD: And you stopped at that. You wouldn't pursue it

17 after that?

18 A. No.

19 JUDGE RIAD: Your responsibility would stop at that?

20 A. Yes.

21 JUDGE RIAD: And when Meakic was not there, was there any

22 superior? Did you have any superior?

23 A. No.

24 JUDGE RIAD: And your, let's say, jurisdiction covered the whole

25 camp?

Page 8378

1 A. I don't understand.

2 JUDGE RIAD: You don't understand.

3 A. I was a duty officer in a shift.

4 JUDGE RIAD: In a shift. For the whole camp? You would walk

5 everywhere?

6 A. No. It was my obligation to be in the duty room.

7 JUDGE RIAD: Because some witnesses, and I would like you to

8 comment about that, some witnesses, I think, saw you walking beside -- you

9 passed by dead people beside the "white house," when you were walking.

10 They said you were walking all over, and they saw you passing by dead

11 people beside the "white house."

12 You yourself said that you saw some dead people. Did you report

13 that?

14 A. Yes. It happened at the very beginning, once when we arrived at

15 work and when we found those dead bodies. And it is an obligation of a

16 police officer to secure the area, first of all, to secure all traces of

17 incident and the bodies themselves. After that, through the duty service,

18 an appropriate report is being made if Zeljko was not there. But Zeljko

19 was there at the time. And the line goes on to the duty service at the

20 police station in Prijedor, which, under normal circumstances, would have

21 to set up an inspection team. But as far as I know, no classical on-site

22 investigation was ever made. The bodies were simply taken to a morgue.

23 Whether anything had been done prior to our arrival, I don't know.

24 JUDGE RIAD: Once you discovered that such violations were

25 committed, while you were a duty officer, did you take any preventive

Page 8379

1 measures or I won't say orders, but you are the duty officer, you did not

2 inform or warn the guards not to ill-treat the detainees?

3 A. As I have already said, it was very difficult to get access to

4 information. Information was always a couple of days late. We would know

5 only a day or two days later that the beating had taken place, so you no

6 longer have a possibility to intervene. An incident had already taken

7 place at the time I heard about it.

8 As a police officer, as a duty officer, whenever I learned about

9 such an incident, I would always report because that is my obligation.

10 Every time I reported of such incidents to Zeljko Meakic, he would tell

11 me, almost all the time, that he knew about it but that he simply couldn't

12 get to the root of the matter. He didn't know where the origin -- what

13 the origin of the incident was. Whether he reported to someone else

14 further on, I don't know.

15 For him to be able to do something concrete, to do something

16 specific, I think that he would have to institute some disciplinary action

17 with an appropriate commission, a disciplinary commission. In view of the

18 fact that I know that two or three guards were dismissed, I can only

19 conclude that he, indeed, achieved some results to that effect, because I

20 know that two or three guards were sacked.

21 JUDGE RIAD: If I remember rightly, one of the witnesses, in fact,

22 testified to your advantage that the camp atmosphere was better when you

23 were a duty officer. Did you do something about it? Did you do anything,

24 in fact, to alleviate the suffering of the detainees?

25 A. Well, that was probably the impression and conclusion of the

Page 8380












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8381

1 detainees as regards the overall atmosphere. But I always tried, because

2 I was familiar with the work of the police and because I had an order to

3 that effect from Zeljko Meakic, to tell those reserve police officers that

4 they should behave themselves.

5 It was difficult for me to lecture them, but Zeljko told me that

6 it would be enough to tell them to just be quiet, to refrain from any

7 contact with the detainees. That was the kind of instruction that I had

8 from Zeljko, and he would repeat that instruction from time to time; that

9 is, he would tell me to remind the prisoners of that occasionally.

10 Because I had two or three interventions of some kind, maybe that created

11 the impression that while I was there, that in my presence, those

12 individuals refrained from such type of behaviour.

13 Those people knew me from before. They knew me as a policeman and

14 they knew that I would probably intervene, so they must have had some kind

15 of respect for me. But that is, of course, their opinion.

16 JUDGE RIAD: But the fact, in their opinion, that the guards were

17 nicer to them under you as duty guard?

18 A. It's possible.

19 JUDGE RIAD: We had enough evidence that you helped your

20 brothers-in-law as much as you could. Did you help others too? And to

21 what extent, really, did you try to alleviate their suffering?

22 A. There was not ample opportunity for me to act that way. I could

23 have given them a cigarette or two from time to time. I never spared any

24 effort to give them food.

25 But as regards my brothers-in-law, whenever I tried to distance

Page 8382

1 myself from the detainees, because if anyone noticed that I was paying

2 special attention to one of the detainees, then some of the guards,

3 because they were angry or they wanted to avenge themselves, could perhaps

4 then harm the individual in question. They would usually then say -- they

5 would have said, "You are now under Kvocka's protection, but now he is

6 gone."

7 So you had to be very careful, very prudent. I wanted to help as

8 much as I could, but it was very difficult for me to find the appropriate

9 ways of helping the detainees in order to avoid any countereffect of my

10 conduct.

11 JUDGE RIAD: Can you really affirm that you never saw a beating

12 and accepted to let it go? You never saw a beating and just stood aside,

13 stood aside? Because some witnesses testified that they were beaten and

14 you were standing against the wall. Would you be helpless and not be able

15 to stop it, as a duty guard?

16 A. In terms of how the service was organised, I was helpless. I

17 would have intervened, speaking personally, but there were no such cases

18 that happened before my very eyes, except for the incident that was

19 mentioned by (redacted), when some people were brought there and lined up

20 against the wall, when he wasn't lined up against the wall. It was a very

21 humiliating search, I know that. And also except for these interventions

22 that I do not wish to repeat. But there were no other cases of anyone

23 being beaten before my very eyes.

24 Yesterday, I think I mentioned the incident involving the singing

25 of songs which I could observe from a window. But there was a very large

Page 8383

1 group of military police there and it would have been very difficult for

2 me to do anything.

3 I can claim with full responsibility that nothing happened before

4 my very eyes without my intervening in that; although it was a very risky

5 thing to do because I would have had to intervene in respect of one of my

6 colleagues and not citizens.

7 JUDGE RIAD: Speaking of intervening, would any other guard also

8 have this prerogative to intervene?

9 A. Yes, in principle, of course a colleague is entitled to warn a

10 colleague of this type of behaviour and to prevent it as well. However,

11 in view of the circumstances and the overall tension, it could happen that

12 they helped each other in that, in beatings, for example. That's why I'm

13 saying that it was very difficult to have access to such information, the

14 information about such incidents.

15 JUDGE RIAD: Because according to some witnesses, you could

16 order -- for instance, they say that once on their way, two witnesses were

17 going to the "white house," and then you told the person taking them,

18 "Bring them back to me afterwards." Whatever the reason was, you could

19 tell the guards to do that or that, according to this incident, being the

20 duty officer. Is my understanding right?

21 A. I think I know what specific event you have in mind, but I cannot

22 remember exactly what happened. However, I know that the military police

23 came on that occasion and called out certain names. They wanted to take

24 those people for interrogation. It is possible that some of them may have

25 inquired about where they were to be taken after the interrogation and

Page 8384

1 that I could have said in passing that they should be returned to the same

2 place as they were initially. They didn't ask me that as a kind of

3 superior officer but as a simple guard. They just wanted to know where

4 the individuals should be taken to after the interrogation.

5 It happened at the beginning when there was a large number of

6 members of the military police there, including their own investigators,

7 because they had investigators of their own and they came at the beginning

8 to ask for some people to be taken for interrogation. But we had our own

9 interrogations which were taking place within the centre, but that was in

10 addition to that.

11 So it may have happened, but I'm just sorry I cannot remember

12 exactly how it went.

13 The principle and the method was the same as in the case of that

14 gentleman who asked whether he was allowed to go to such-and-such room.

15 So wishing to help him, and this is, I believe, what he stated here in his

16 testimony, that's what I did.

17 JUDGE RIAD: You mentioned that you are a simple guard, but when

18 Meakic was not there and you were the duty guard, didn't you have the same

19 powers as Meakic, being his representative?

20 A. No. No. Zeljko was the department commander. There were no

21 other superiors, and he could not be represented by anyone. A duty

22 officer acts in his own capacity.

23 JUDGE RIAD: But you were his deputy when he was away.

24 A. No. No.

25 JUDGE RIAD: You have the same responsibilities or is it different

Page 8385

1 in your police system? I mean, in an institution, would a deputy replace

2 his boss in all his authorities?

3 A. Where such a provision exists. There is not a deputy commander

4 position within a police station department. The duty officer does not

5 have authority to replace the commander. If Zeljko Meakic is absent, then

6 the duty officer can report or convey information further on to his

7 superior, to the chief of -- to the chief of the public security station

8 in Prijedor.

9 The thing is that Zeljko Meakic does not have a deputy. There is

10 no provision for that post within a police station department [as

11 interpreted].

12 JUDGE RIAD: Let's not use any words, but you replaced him, and

13 according to what we heard also from you, that he would confide in you and

14 ask you to be his representative.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, the witness is going

16 to answer the question.

17 A. No. No. I never said that, nor did that happen.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm very sorry to interrupt you,

19 Judge Riad, but you cannot see, perhaps from where you are, that Mr. Simic

20 is on his feet.

21 Mr. Simic.

22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. There is an error in

23 the transcript. Can we have some clarification as regards the status of

24 the deputy commander? The transcript says that there is no provision for

25 the post of deputy commander, and Mr. Kvocka said that actually in

Page 8386

1 reality, that was not the case either.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, after all of the

3 suggestions we had regarding this issue, I talked to the people who are in

4 charge of the transcript, and I have to say once again the transcript is

5 always revised. So what you're getting now is just a provisional version

6 with a delay and no corrections have already been made, but this

7 transcript is going to be reviewed by the court reporters and checked once

8 again. So your intervention in this case has, so to speak, corrected the

9 transcript, but the court reporters will once again, of course, check the

10 transcript and the original.

11 It is true that the transcript is authentic, is the authoritative

12 version, but you have helped us by saying that there has been an error in

13 the transcript. However, I think I will have to ask you at one point in

14 time that you would have to point to the problem in the original language

15 and compare it with the translation. At least that is how I understand

16 the procedure.

17 With your intervention, the appropriate correction has been made,

18 and I think that we can continue.

19 Judge Riad, please proceed with your questions.

20 JUDGE RIAD: All right. Let us not speak about what a deputy is

21 or was. Let's speak about your effective authority when Meakic was not

22 there.

23 You said that you were the duty officer, you had no superior, and

24 some detainees said the atmosphere was better. So would you agree that

25 you were in charge of the situation?

Page 8387

1 A. I really don't know how to comment on the impression of other

2 people. When Zeljko was absent, all others were equal, both the guards

3 and the duty officer.

4 Well, it was -- the work of all individual guards is provided for

5 in the rules of service. When Zeljko Meakic was absent, and that didn't

6 happen very often, that is what we heard from all witnesses, witnesses of

7 all -- both parties, all other guards are equal. No one could issue

8 orders to anyone else, nor could the duty officer issue orders to a guard,

9 nor a guard to the duty officer, nor could the guards issue orders to each

10 other.

11 Some guards were better at their jobs and some were perhaps not as

12 good in accomplishing their tasks, so that also affected the overall

13 situation, because we have heard a lot of testimony here and a lot of

14 statements which were not presented by the Prosecution. This was said in

15 respect of many other people, that things were better when so-and-so was

16 on this guard post and things like that. So that is what we're talking

17 about.

18 So it was perfectly logical that when I was on guard duty that I

19 would act in accordance with my moral principles and my professional

20 police expertise and knowledge. It was possible that during that period

21 of time while I was on duty that things were better.

22 JUDGE RIAD: So the guards were the same under Meakic and under

23 you as the duty officer. Without giving orders, they had to abide by the

24 code they have, which is, as you said, you should not hurt the prisoners.

25 So they knew that. You would not allow it.

Page 8388

1 Would you accept this conclusion to their statement that the

2 atmosphere was better? Because it was the same guards.

3 A. Well, at the beginning of the work of the investigation centre, an

4 incident occurred, and I believe I showed some of my professional

5 qualities as a police officer during that incident, which probably gave a

6 certain impression, created a certain impression amongst the guards.

7 They knew that I would prevent them in their misconduct, and they

8 probably knew that I would inform Zeljko about everything that I

9 observed. Their assumption was that I probably would not hide anything,

10 because when they saw what my attitude towards Muslims was, their

11 assumption was I would not hide anything from Zeljko, any information that

12 I come across.

13 JUDGE RIAD: During your being a duty officer, you said also that

14 you have to ensure the security of the camp with regard to people coming

15 in. Of course, coming out-- of course prisoners running away, but also

16 people coming in. Was it easy for people to come in?

17 A. That was the job of each particular guard, to prevent such entries

18 into the compound. In view of the fact that the duty services performed

19 from an office, it is impossible for a duty officer to do that. However,

20 if a guard behaved himself in accordance with the rules, appropriately,

21 then he would prevent such entries; if he couldn't prevent such entries

22 but wanted to do so, then he would probably call for help.

23 JUDGE RIAD: Yes. You yourself were able to stop somebody?

24 A. Yes, Djordjin, for example, whom I mentioned earlier on. I

25 stopped him because he passed through the guard post. The guard did not

Page 8389

1 react, didn't do his job. I noticed him, and knowing that -- although it

2 was very difficult to tell in such situations whether he was there

3 officially or unofficially, but I happened to know him as a criminal, and

4 I realised that he was drunk, that he was making a lot of noise, cursing,

5 I realised that he was not there on any official business. So as a police

6 officer, I intervened, of course, regardless of the fact that, in

7 accordance with the rules, I would have had to call the military police.

8 But then it would have been too late and he would have already done

9 something. So in order to protect people, sometimes you had to bypass the

10 usual procedure.

11 JUDGE RIAD: And you had the authority to do it? As the duty

12 officer, it was your right?

13 A. As a policeman, regardless what position he holds at that

14 particular time, whether he's on duty or a guard at a particular guard

15 post, a policeman can always do that. But as this was a military person,

16 a military officer, the proper procedure would be to inform the military

17 police to deal with it. But by the time the military police arrives, he

18 could have killed ten people.

19 JUDGE RIAD: During this period, were you ever informed that Zigic

20 came into the camp?

21 A. No.

22 JUDGE RIAD: There are some testimonies I would like to know your

23 comment about. One concerned the fire hose. Some witnesses, as you must

24 have heard too, they said that the detainees were taken to be bathed with

25 a fire hose and that you were sitting in a chair against the wall and gave

Page 8390












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8391

1 orders to the guards about how to wash them, and said things like,

2 "Increase the jet," and that sort of thing. Do you remember something

3 like that, for any purpose?

4 A. I just remember the testimony about that, but I think that in the

5 cross, it was cleared up. The person was referring to Milojica Kvocka,

6 and it was at a time after I had left Omarska. There was no bathing while

7 I was there in Omarska in that way. I said here that I would notice

8 people washing at the water taps in front of the administration building,

9 from the waist up.

10 JUDGE RIAD: And another witness, I'll help to say his name, I

11 don't know if it was -- I won't say it; perhaps it was a closed session.

12 He testified that the guard who was beating him told him that he was

13 instructed by you to kill him and throw him into one of the mine shafts,

14 but the guard changed his mind. Does this remind you of any incident?

15 What's your comment on that?

16 A. Something like that never happened, I'm quite sure of that. If

17 necessary, I can read the solemn declaration again here. Such a thing

18 simply did not exist during my stay there.

19 I think I remember who it was who said it here and why he said it,

20 and again in the cross-examination, it was cleared up that he was

21 referring to a date around St. Peter's Day, a time when I had been working

22 at Tukovi for some time. I remember fires being lit at Tukovi and traffic

23 stopped at the time. So I feel embarrassed to comment on that testimony,

24 but I think it is quite clear. The person who mistreated him was a person

25 who had come from the outside and not a guard, as he said himself, and it

Page 8392

1 was prompted by personal reasons of revenge.

2 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Kvocka, thank you very much. Thank you.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge

4 Riad.

5 Madam Judge Wald.

6 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Kvocka, while you were at the camp, did you hear

7 stories, rumours, information, about outsiders coming in and abusing the

8 prisoners? People who were not authorised employees or members of the

9 military or security patrol coming in at night, usually, and abusing the

10 prisoners, did you hear about any of that?

11 A. There were stories to that effect among the guards, because at the

12 beginning there was general confusion regarding entry. It was sufficient

13 for someone to be in uniform and to have a military booklet to be able to

14 enter the investigations centre, allegedly on some sort of business.

15 JUDGE WALD: Did that situation clear up or get better during the

16 time that you were in the camp, or did it stay during the month of June

17 until you left?

18 A. Well, I did not have the impression that there were many or

19 frequent such instances. I heard two or three accounts of that kind, that

20 the military policemen had come to conduct some investigation.

21 JUDGE WALD: Was any bulletins or lectures made to the guards who

22 were guarding the outside perimeter of the camp by either you or

23 Mr. Meakic in order to try to stop these outsiders from coming in who were

24 abusing the prisoners? Were any steps taken to stop that, to your

25 knowledge?

Page 8393

1 A. Regarding the outside perimeter, if you are referring to the

2 second circle that was referred to here, I believe that Zeljko did not

3 have any contacts with them. As for the guards who were directly posted

4 around the buildings, Zeljko would tell them their tasks every day in a

5 couple of sentences, saying that no one unauthorised should get close to

6 the detainees. He did ask me a couple of times, as the officer on duty,

7 to go to a particular area, and for someone else to go to another part of

8 the camp, to pass on these instructions to the guards.

9 JUDGE WALD: To your knowledge, when he was doing that or when he

10 was requesting that you do it, was reference ever made specifically to the

11 fact that he had heard stories that unauthorised outsiders were coming in

12 and abusing prisoners and he wanted to tell the guards that they should be

13 careful not to let that happen? Did he say something like that or ask you

14 to say something like that to the guards, that "We have heard that some of

15 this has been happening and we want it to stop"?

16 A. He would say that, "It appears that people from the outside are

17 entering without any authority, and I have to tell the guards to try to

18 prevent that, to seek assistance if they are unable to prevent it

19 themselves," he did say things like that. But he didn't explain how he

20 learnt about it. He would just say to a guard, "Be careful. Do not let

21 anyone approach the detainees."

22 JUDGE WALD: We have heard testimony, and you have been present in

23 the courtroom and heard it too, that sometimes the camp's own guards would

24 call people out, and then those people would be taken elsewhere and when

25 they were brought back they would show signs of being beaten. I'm not

Page 8394

1 talking about into the interrogation; leave that out now. Just at night

2 or other times.

3 My question to you would be: If one guard in the camp came to the

4 hangar or some other place where the prisoners were being kept, called out

5 a prisoner, would the other guard who was guarding the hangar or guarding

6 the other place have to let the first guard take the prisoner away? I

7 mean, would that guard who was in charge of the hangar have any authority

8 to question the guard who came and said, "I want this person to take

9 away"? How would that work? If they were all of an equal status, could

10 one guard say, when someone else said, "I'm here to take this person out,"

11 could he say, "Well, by what authority?" or "Where are you going to take

12 him?" or that sort of thing?

13 A. In principle, yes. The guard on watch should not allow anyone to

14 approach that place, except for those cases during the daytime when there

15 were interrogations --

16 JUDGE WALD: I understand.

17 A. -- then there was a group of guards who could go to any part of

18 the camp. The question now is whether every guard acted as he should.

19 JUDGE WALD: Do you know whether or not the guards were ever

20 specifically told that their duty was to guard the prisoners in whatever

21 rooms they were guarding and that they had a duty to at least inquire as

22 to the authority of any other guard who came to remove those prisoners?

23 Was that subject ever talked about, to your knowledge?

24 A. Zeljko would sometimes address us with a couple of sentences when

25 we came to work and when we were lined up. He would be angry, he had

Page 8395

1 probably heard something, and then he would say something to the effect,

2 "Don't let anyone interfere with your guard post," something to that

3 effect. He would keep repeating such instructions. "Avoid all contact

4 with detainees, and do not allow anyone to approach the detainees where

5 you are on guard."

6 There were such instructions. When there was a takeover of

7 shifts, we would all be lined up, and he would make such -- give such

8 instructions or orders to us.

9 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, you told us that, in your view, there

10 were no shift leaders in the camp, that everybody under Meakic was on par

11 with each other, there were not shift leaders.

12 On the other hand, we have had, I would say, dozens of witnesses

13 who were detainees in the camp who did tell us that their view, widely

14 pervasive view, among the detainees is that there were three shift

15 leaders. I think it was Kos, Krkan, Gruban, and Radic. There were four

16 shift leaders.

17 Can you think -- based on your experience at the camp, do you have

18 any explanation for why so many prisoners would believe that the same four

19 people were indeed shift commanders and had some extra authority over and

20 above being police officers, that all the prisoners picked out the same

21 people?

22 A. First of all, I should like to say that there were quite a number

23 of witnesses who, in their earlier statements to the Prosecution, referred

24 to many other people as leaders, like Mico Hrvacanin, like Rajko Marmat,

25 and the Prosecution reduced that number to these four. They didn't

Page 8396

1 produce the others.

2 So these are impressions guided by the work post. The fact that

3 you're in an office puts you apart from the guards visually, and it gives

4 people the impression that you may be doing something else.

5 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, you mentioned, I believe, that at the

6 time that the Omarska Police Station took over some responsibility, the

7 question is some or all responsibility for guarding the camp, that you had

8 not only your several active police officers but you had up to something

9 like 65 reserve officers or some large number. Sixty-five may be wrong,

10 but you had a large number of reserve officers coming in.

11 You also mentioned on at least one or maybe several times that

12 some of these, not all but some of these would be new, without a lot of

13 experience, and you even mentioned that some few you thought may have had

14 criminal backgrounds in the past.

15 Now, my question is: Were these reserve officers on a complete

16 par with the active officers once you got to the camp? In other words, if

17 a reserve officer, a new reserve officer was guarding the hangar, would he

18 be fully -- would he have fully as much authority as a much more

19 experienced police officer who might be performing the guarding function

20 in some other part of the camp? I mean, his words, his actions would be

21 given the same weight as a more experienced active officer, and there

22 would be no supervision, nobody could tell him to do or not to do

23 something except Meakic.

24 Is that a proper understanding, and if so, can you give us some

25 idea why that would be good police practice to do it that way, not to have

Page 8397

1 some kind of shift commanders or some kind of intermediary officers who

2 would at least keep some track of such a large number of new people coming

3 to the job for the first time?

4 A. There are many questions that I have to answer now. There were

5 newly-admitted reserve officers. Talking about the number, 50 or 60, I

6 always included the 20 that we mentioned today that were helping out as

7 guards.

8 If we're talking about reserve policemen, those who used to be

9 policemen before and those who were newly admitted, they are completely

10 equal in terms of rights and duties with active policemen. These new ones

11 didn't even have a proper ID card, but former policemen had an identical

12 official card as us active policemen. The difference could be noted,

13 however, in the method of work, of course.

14 When talking about shift leaders - I think a part of your question

15 referred to that - that duty officer would be the link between the

16 policeman and the commander, either the immediate superior commander or

17 the police station and a shift leader in Prijedor. So the shift leader in

18 the camp does not exist.

19 JUDGE WALD: Now, were you -- you have, I believe, described the

20 functions you were performing in the camp as roughly approximate to those

21 of a duty officer in a regular police station or department; is that

22 right? I mean, I think you've used that as an analogy several times.

23 So you were the duty officer, if I understood your testimony

24 correctly, whenever Meakic -- in the few instances when he was not in the

25 camp. The time when he was not in the camp, you were performing the

Page 8398

1 functions of a duty officer; is that correct?

2 A. [No audible response]

3 JUDGE WALD: Okay. In a regular police station, in a peacetime

4 police station or a police department, does the position of duty officer

5 rotate or does one person have it all the time?

6 A. They rotate.

7 JUDGE WALD: So this was different in that respect, that you were

8 the only duty officer authorised to be a duty officer when Meakic was not

9 there. That was different from a normal police --

10 A. No.

11 JUDGE WALD: No? Why? Why?

12 A. No. Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't the only duty

13 officer. In a shift, there would be several duty officers.

14 JUDGE WALD: At the camp?

15 A. Yes, and otherwise, in a police department.

16 JUDGE WALD: Let's talk about the camp now. So you're saying that

17 at the camp, you were a duty officer but there were other duty officers

18 too. Now, were they the same duty officers or was there constant change?

19 And were their functions as duty officers different from your function?

20 You have told us many times that Meakic, when he wasn't there,

21 wanted you to be the duty officer in his place. I'm not saying you were

22 the commander, I'm just saying that when he wasn't there, you were the

23 duty officer. Okay? So when you were that duty officer and he wasn't

24 there, were these other duty officers just duty officers for what

25 purpose? I mean, for part of the camp or a shift or what?

Page 8399

1 I don't understand, because we haven't -- I don't remember

2 reference to them before. How did their functions as duty officers be the

3 same or different from your function as the duty officer when Meakic

4 wasn't around?

5 A. All duty officers are equal, and there were three shifts of duty

6 officers, and in principle, they were the same men. There could have been

7 certain changes. So in one shift, you would have as duty officers myself,

8 Radic, and one of these persons I have mentioned. So there could be

9 changes, but because of the shifts and off-duty time, once you enter a

10 certain system of rotation, the same people usually come up again so that

11 in the duty service, there were several duty officers, and in a single

12 shift there were several duties officers. There wasn't just one duty

13 officer per shift.

14 JUDGE WALD: But I go back to the fact that I think you have said,

15 both before in the statement, allegedly, of Mr. Reid, and I think here as

16 well that Meakic did say to you, "When I'm gone, I want you to be here and

17 be the duty officer." But if Mr. Radic was also a duty officer at the

18 same time, let's just say it happened to be his time to come up on his

19 shift and so he was a duty officer at the same time, you're saying that

20 you and Mr. Radic would both be duty officers and you would be exactly

21 equal. If something happened and somebody had to report to a duty

22 officer, they could report to either one of you?

23 A. Yes, I said, in principle, but probably Zeljko thought if Radic

24 was there, I was not necessary. But if some others were on duty who were

25 not active policemen or who didn't have the same amount of experience or

Page 8400












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8401

1 those he thought would not inform him properly, then he might say that one

2 of those, that number, that circle of policemen would stay when he was not

3 there. So I was talking in general.

4 So it wasn't always that whenever he was not there, I should be

5 there. That wasn't a 100 per cent rule. He tried to achieve that, but it

6 couldn't be done 100 per cent. It was probably his wish to make sure that

7 he would be regularly informed and nothing would be held from him.

8 JUDGE WALD: Okay. You told us that when you had to return your

9 brothers-in-law to the camp and you did so, you talked to some of your

10 friends, defendant Kos, and you mentioned some others, and asked them, in

11 effect, to keep an eye on your brothers-in-law so that, quote, "something

12 stupid would not happen." Then when asked to elaborate what "something

13 stupid" was, you said, "Well, it could be beatings, it could even be

14 killing."

15 Where would you have expected, from what source, not necessarily

16 an individual to name, but just from what source would you have expected

17 those beatings or possible killings to come, outsiders coming into the

18 camp, guards in the camp, where? What source were you worried about with

19 respect to your brothers-in-law?

20 A. First of all, because of a certain number of guards with whom I

21 did not get on at all at work and possibly beyond them as well, and in

22 view of the fact that I had heard that there were guards who were inclined

23 to beat, that was the source of my concern.

24 JUDGE WALD: Okay. I have one more specific question and then

25 three very general questions and I'll be through.

Page 8402

1 You told us about two different incidents, one in which you saw,

2 in the early days, prisoners being taken off of the bus and having to go

3 through a cordon, and yesterday you said that involved some slaps and

4 singing of Serbian songs. In the earlier interview with Mr. Reid, when

5 you were asked, "Did you ever see cordons or lines of police and escorts

6 lining up and the prisoners having to pass through?" page 42 of the

7 English, I'm sorry I don't have the B/C/S, but I think you'll remember,

8 "and being beaten while we were passing through," and you said, "I think

9 in the beginning there were situations." "Did you see that?" "Yes, in

10 the beginning, at least once."

11 My only question is: In that instance, you told us that you

12 didn't think it would be wise to intervene. You certainly couldn't use

13 firearms and worry about people getting shot in the process.

14 You also told us about an incident in the early days too in which,

15 I believe, the Banja Luka contingent from the army that was doing

16 security, or some outside army group like that, was searching the

17 prisoners very roughly and you did intervene, you did intervene.

18 I'm wondering if you would tell us why -- and in both cases, you

19 were dealing with people who were outside of the regular camp guards. In

20 the first, you told us that these were the people who escorted the people

21 there, and you thought they had jurisdiction over the prisoners until they

22 actually got accommodated in housing, at which time the regular guards

23 took over. But in both of those cases, you were dealing with outside

24 groups that were in charge of the prisoners. In one, you intervened to

25 try to stop the rough searching; in the other, you decided you wouldn't

Page 8403

1 intervene, it wasn't necessary or wise.

2 Can you tell us why you drew that distinction?

3 A. Well, the first intervention, I said, consisted, really, of a

4 comment on my part because the superior was nearby and I wanted him to

5 hear it, regarding the search which was not done properly. That is the

6 first incident. I simply couldn't keep quiet so I opened my mouth. But

7 it wasn't too drastic, that is true.

8 In the second case, I saw that they were bringing in people by

9 buses. I saw this through the window, and this took about ten seconds.

10 Get off the bus, running between cordons, and then a slap or two, and then

11 they would shut them up in the garage, which is the first premise from the

12 entrance to the camp facing the administration building. So it didn't

13 last long.

14 You would have to go round the building, and to shoot from a

15 window at a mass of people, at a crowd of people, to stop them singing is

16 something that I really couldn't do. That's all I can say.

17 JUDGE WALD: Okay. You have told us on many occasions that if you

18 actually saw an assault on a prisoner, you would, and you did on a few

19 occasions, intervene. But you've also told us that sometimes you would

20 see injuries on prisoners but you wouldn't see any actual assault. You

21 would report that on many occasions to Meakic, but, if I remember your

22 testimony, you never heard or knew of any formal investigation being

23 initiated to find out about any of those things.

24 If that testimony is correct, as I heard it, what, in your mind,

25 would be the solution? I mean, how, in the camp situation, would you ever

Page 8404

1 be able to stop these attacks if you only found out about them later, you

2 reported them to your superior, but apparently nothing was happening? I

3 mean, what, in your own mind, did you think it would take to change the

4 situation? How could it be changed?

5 A. Zeljko should have gone further up and requested a change among

6 the guards from somebody who had the authority to do that, or I don't know

7 myself what other possibilities he had.

8 As for me, seeing that this did not have much effect, because you

9 would hear every four or five days that somebody had been beaten up, and

10 because of all the other reasons I gave, I would get out of the office so

11 that at least my presence might have some effect in stopping it.

12 JUDGE WALD: My last two questions. Were you aware, during the

13 month that you were at Omarska camp, that when you looked around at the

14 total situation, at everything that was happening that you could see,

15 everything that you could see, were you aware or did you believe that

16 these prisoners were being held or detained in violation of international

17 humanitarian standards, like the Geneva Convention or any others? Not

18 your responsibility, but that in general they were being held in

19 conditions that were violative of the humanitarian laws.

20 A. If I take into account the regulations themselves, I believe that

21 they are for sure in accordance with the Conventions, and I can say that

22 they were violated, the regulations, that is. But we couldn't know

23 whether an investigative magistrate had ordered a detention or not.

24 As regards the conditions of the detention, there were probably

25 violations. That could be observed; one could see that the conditions

Page 8405

1 were not such as to justify the treatment.

2 JUDGE WALD: Okay. My very last question, then - and I thank you

3 for your patience - is: If the incident which provoked your leaving the

4 camp had not happened, suppose that just did not happen, and things went

5 along exactly the way they had been going along before the incident with

6 your brothers-in-law came up or any retaliation to you, do you believe

7 that you would have stayed on in the camp until it closed? Would you have

8 continued to serve in the camp until it closed down or until you were

9 assigned some place else?

10 A. My opinion is that I would have stayed if I hadn't done what I

11 did. However, in view of my methods and my attitude, my conduct, I think

12 that I was a black sheep amongst the guards as well, amongst the

13 administration, the population, that they all considered me to be a black

14 sheep. That is my general opinion of my situation.

15 JUDGE WALD: But from your own point of view, you would not have

16 been -- you would not have felt that you had to leave for any reason, for

17 any personal reason of your own?

18 A. You see, it's, again, a matter of striking the right balance. In

19 my mind, I was tormented with two possibilities. On the one hand, I

20 wanted to leave and abandon it all; however, when I thought of what could

21 happen if I should leave, I didn't have any possibilities, any future. On

22 the other hand, nothing would happen, nothing would change in the

23 investigations centre. Nobody would gain with my departure. On the other

24 hand, I was also faced with the choice of staying, for all of the reasons

25 I have mentioned here.

Page 8406

1 So that was the kind of struggle that went on in my mind all the

2 time. I wanted to leave it all behind, and on the other hand, I wanted to

3 stay on because, if nothing else, I was willing to help other people. But

4 I was perhaps able to do so only in respect of my friends and relatives

5 who were there.

6 So I was confused. I wanted to leave but I knew that I had no

7 place to leave; I couldn't go further than Banja Luka at that time. Plus

8 the overall situation, the wartime, the front which I would have been sent

9 to if I had left the police. And then I would also leave all my family

10 behind. I didn't know what to do with my wife, with her brothers, with my

11 children. So those were the two options that were conflicting in my mind

12 at that time.

13 JUDGE WALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Kvocka.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you

15 too.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge

17 Wald.

18 I hope, Mr. Kvocka, that you still have enough energy to

19 continue.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

22 To follow up on a question which was asked of you by Madam Judge

23 Wald, it regards your departure. Was it a kind of relief for you or not?

24 A. Yes. Actually, I did -- it was a kind of relief. But I was also

25 worried about the people who had stayed behind and the people whom I was

Page 8407

1 supposed to take back.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have been asked a number of

3 questions after your testimony and during your examination in general, but

4 I still have a few questions for the purposes of clarification.

5 You remember the incident involving an individual by the name of

6 Djordjin. You told us at one point in time that you had seen this

7 individual in front of the window of your office. Do you remember when

8 you saw him for the first time? Where was he? Where was this individual?

9 A. He was approaching the administration building from the direction

10 of the entrance, and if, looking from the window of the duty room, you can

11 see that portion of the road, he had almost reached the building itself.

12 So I think that, as the crow flies, we can talk about a distance of

13 perhaps 20 metres. At that point, I saw him. I saw that he was making

14 noise -- actually, I must have heard the noise before which prompted me to

15 look through the window.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,

17 Mr. Kvocka.

18 We have spoken about shifts at length here. You have already

19 vigorously contested the notion of shift leaders itself and wanted us to

20 use the term "shift duty officers." Do I understand you correctly?

21 A. Yes. That was the title that we used officially, and those who

22 understood the system used that term.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Kvocka, can you tell us your

24 opinion - maybe you have already told us that, but it is very important

25 for us to be clear on this issue - what is the difference, as far as you

Page 8408

1 are concerned, between shift leaders and shift duty officers? I'm sorry

2 that I have to mix French and English, and I know that that confuses the

3 interpreters a little bit. I hope that you will eventually get the

4 translation. Do you see the difference between these two terms? What do

5 you think the difference is?

6 A. The duty officer, as I have already indicated, is a link between

7 the guards and the commander of the department. The duty officer has to

8 transmit the information he has had access to to the commander of the

9 police station department. That constitutes the task of the duty officer,

10 in addition to what I have already said, that he had to be on duty at the

11 telephone, at the radio, and so on and so forth.

12 As regards shift leaders, they have a wider scope of duties. He

13 is not -- his is not a managerial type of position. He is in charge of

14 drafting a daily schedule which is decided upon by the department

15 commander.

16 As regards the profession itself, his position is supposed to be a

17 more professional one than that of the duty officer because the duty

18 officer must consult the shift leader in the station, and the shift leader

19 has wider authority as regards certain orders that he can issue to police

20 officers. For example, he can call on the radio, he can call a policeman

21 from one particular area and tell him that something is happening in

22 another street, that he should go there and check on what is going on.

23 This is the kind of authority that he has while he's on duty.

24 A shift leader is also the one who is to inform the inspection

25 team of the necessity to go and conduct an on-site investigation in case

Page 8409

1 of, for example, traffic accidents. He is the one who has to call the

2 inspector on duty, to gather the team and to dispatch them on the site of

3 the incident. He is also the one who dispatches patrols in cases of

4 intervention. He has wider authority in terms of command as well,

5 although his position is not to be considered a managerial position. He

6 is the one who is doing the work schedule for that day.

7 There is a difference. It's very difficult to measure it, but

8 there is a big difference between a shift leader and a duty officer.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have already spoken about

10 you, Mr. Mladjo Radic, Mr. Kos, and Marmat being in the same category

11 while you were talking about the duty service, but you know that the

12 witnesses that have testified here and that you yourself have heard have

13 given us an impression that Mr. Radic was there on a given place with his

14 rifle, that he was watching, observing the situation, and as regards

15 Mr. Kvocka, they said that he was from time to time moving around but that

16 he would be in his office most of the time.

17 The impression that the witnesses have given us, does it have some

18 kind of justification as far as you are concerned? Was there really such

19 a difference in accordance with what the witnesses have told us or not?

20 A. Their impression is partly justified. However, I must say once

21 again that we all used one and the same duty room, all of us duty

22 officers. There were no other rooms like that. That was the only duty

23 room. So the very fact that the duty officer was there in his room, he

24 was not on guard. If on his own he should leave the room and talk to a

25 guard, that I can agree perhaps gives an impression of difference of work

Page 8410












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8411

1 that the individual did. Now you have to see who was more prominent in

2 that.

3 We have heard testimony that Rade Ritan was some kind of leader,

4 some kind of chief. Neso Janjic, for example. I remember a statement to

5 that effect. I don't know whether it was entered in the record, but to

6 some witnesses, Neso Janjic appeared to be a chief.

7 So in respect of some people, some witnesses said that they were

8 chiefs or leaders or some kind of bosses, shift leaders also. So I can

9 agree with you that perhaps such an impression could be created, in

10 particular in cases of those people who are not familiar with the work of

11 the police and the kind of tasks that the police had.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I've a very simple question now

13 for you, Mr. Kvocka, and I will have to take an example involving my

14 colleagues. I apologise for that.

15 You can see here that the Judges are equal when you look at the

16 Bench, but who are you looking at at this point?

17 A. Well, I am looking at you, Your Honour, because you are seeking at

18 this moment. You're sitting in the middle, so that creates some kind of

19 impression as well.

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What is that impression?

21 A. Well, my impression is that you are in charge. You are conducting

22 proceedings.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So one can perhaps conclude that

24 I am more equal than the others, because according to the Statute, all

25 judges are equal.

Page 8412

1 I think your Defence counsel, Mr. Simic, can explain this to you

2 later on. According to the Statute, all judges are equal. However, there

3 is an impression that's created here that I am somewhat more equal than

4 others in this case.

5 So can we envisage a possibility in the Rules and also on the

6 ground in how things actually stood -- so can we envisage the possibility

7 of having one situation prescribed for in the Rules and one situation that

8 was actually taking place on the ground, in practice?

9 A. Well, it is possible to envisage all kinds of situations. One can

10 perhaps think of the possibility of someone having authority under the

11 rule but not actually exercising that authority in practice. It is also

12 possible to think of an individual doing his job very well and taking

13 active part in it and also to have another individual who, according to

14 the rules, might be even higher up in the chain of command not doing that,

15 not behaving in that way. So one can draw different conclusions on the

16 basis of that possibility.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] One other question, Mr. Kvocka.

18 Do you have any indication which would permit you to conclude that you

19 were not a deputy to Meakic and, theoretically speaking, you did not have

20 a possibility to be an assistant either. However, do you have any

21 indication as to the fact that the detainees might have perceived you as

22 having some kind of authority that would have been superior to other

23 guards although, theoretically speaking, you were equal with others? Does

24 anything make you think or conclude that they might think that you were

25 different from others?

Page 8413

1 A. I think they might have on the basis of my conduct in my work, on

2 the basis of the fact that I respected rules and on the basis of their

3 wish to be in my presence and because of the fact that they felt more safe

4 in my presence. So certain conclusions could have been drawn on the basis

5 of that.

6 It was not my ambition to hide anywhere. I made myself visible.

7 Everything that I did, I did in public and it could be observed.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me take an example,

9 Mr. Kvocka. Were you ever with a colleague or several colleagues and a

10 detainee came to talk about a certain problem, and did he ever in such a

11 case choose you to address himself to in order to solve that problem?

12 A. Yes. Some of the people that I knew, some of the detainees, would

13 address themselves to me and not to my colleague, especially if that

14 colleague was a reserve police officer, and if they had any negative

15 experience with that other policeman, other guard, then they would address

16 themselves to me.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have told us about an

18 incident, that is, an event when you distributed cigarettes belonging to

19 detainees. Do you remember that?

20 A. You mean belonging to the guards. Yes, I remember that. Zeljko

21 gave me cigarettes which I was supposed to distribute to the guards, and I

22 hid some of those cigarettes and gave them to detainees. That was the

23 event that you refer to, I believe.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I would like to know

25 whether the guards, your colleagues who had cigarettes, also distributed

Page 8414

1 cigarettes to detainees.

2 A. Some of them probably did if they had any. There was a shortage

3 of cigarettes at that time. But some probably didn't want to give them

4 away.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I am afraid I'm taking too much

6 time with my questions, but I have just a few questions left.

7 You have mentioned three types of security service within the

8 camp, security service personnel. Those three types of security

9 personnel, did they have anything to do with territorial borders of

10 jurisdiction? If you remember that incident involving the arrival of

11 prisoners, the prisoners who were under escort, you couldn't approach

12 them. I would like to know in view of that, was there any territorial --

13 were there any territorial borders applying -- that were assigned to those

14 three types of security personnel?

15 Maybe it's a complicated question, but I believe that you will

16 understand what I mean.

17 A. I'll try. If I understand you correctly, if we are talking about

18 the three types of services, state, public, and military security service,

19 they each worked in their respective areas; however, they compiled the

20 results of their work. I know about that because there were three

21 coordinators of those services who work together and exchange

22 information. So their competence was interrogation and further reporting

23 to higher bodies to inform of criminal reports to courts and the

24 prosecutors.

25 As regards the territorial domain, it was possible for them to ask

Page 8415

1 for specific detainees because at the beginning there were no lists of

2 detainees in the camp at all and the interrogations were conducted in

3 order. They would, first of all, ask the guards or the policemen who were

4 at their disposal to call out people from a given room, and then after

5 awhile, after they have established something through their investigation,

6 they would usually ask for a specific individual and then the guards would

7 have problems locating the individual because at the time there were no

8 records whatsoever. So that was what they did, that was their job.

9 Once the interrogation was over, then they would tell the guard

10 where to take the detainee that has just been interrogated; not to mix him

11 up with those who have already been interrogated or those who haven't, but

12 should be separated, and so on and so forth. So those were the kinds of

13 requests that they made.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Kvocka. You know

15 that there were times when we gave witnesses the opportunity to say

16 something that hasn't been said, so I'm giving you that opportunity. Is

17 there something that has not been said and that you would like to say now

18 as a witness? It's a difficult question, isn't it, Mr. Kvocka?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. After everything

20 that we've heard and gone through here, it is difficult to find something

21 intelligent to say. I don't think I have glossed over anything

22 important. There may be some detail because our thoughts were led in a

23 particular direction. In any event, I wish to thank you for listening to

24 me over the past few days. I do apologise if I was a bit sharp at times.

25 I will be very happy if I have helped to establish the truth.

Page 8416

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you for having made that

2 contribution, Mr. Kvocka, in the clarification of points and the rendering

3 of justice.

4 I see that Mr. Simic has something to say.

5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the earlier

6 practice that was observed once or twice, I would beg to be allowed to ask

7 a couple of questions regarding a document that was shown in the courtroom

8 twice. I have questions for the witness, of course, not for you.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That has to do with the

10 questions of the Judges?

11 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. You have allowed that to

12 happen earlier on.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But tell me, so as to

14 allow you to put the question, tell me, what is the question you wish to

15 raise?

16 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] My questions are related to the

17 organisation of the Trial Chamber, either in the national system or the

18 system of this Tribunal.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Does that have anything to do

20 with the Statute that I quoted from regarding the equality of Judges,

21 Mr. Simic?

22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. That is not in dispute, but I

23 should like to ask a question regarding the organisation of a Chamber. I

24 think this question was put to the witness as a test.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 8417

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic, let us be practical,

2 and I will appeal to your ability to synthesise. I will also give the

3 floor to the Prosecutor. So you have two minutes only. Please go ahead

4 and put your question.

5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Further re-examination by Mr. K. Simic:

7 Q. Mr. Kvocka, how many members does a Trial Chamber have?

8 A. Three.

9 Q. Does a Trial Chamber have a President?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Is that specified by the Rules?

12 A. I believe it is.

13 Q. Does the President have all authority to run the proceedings?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is the situation the same in our own national courts?

16 A. Yes.

17 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I have no

18 further questions.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.

20 Further cross-examination by Ms. Somers:


22 Q. Mr. Kvocka, is it your perception, having just acknowledged your

23 views on the structure, that the President has additional responsibilities

24 that the other two Judges may or may not have? Having nothing to do with

25 equality of status as Judges, but simply responsibilities as President of

Page 8418

1 the Chamber.

2 A. It is difficult to talk about understandings or perceptions. My

3 impression would be that those who put more questions and better

4 questions, perhaps, have greater responsibilities or obligations. So it's

5 very difficult for me to reply. I would say that there's probably

6 somebody who has much greater responsibilities and is not seen here at all

7 and who is part of a Chamber and who has the right to make very important

8 decisions.

9 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honours. No further

10 questions.

11 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Somers.

12 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE WALD: I can't not make the comment that I think your

14 reluctance to pursue this line of inquiry any further shows great wisdom.

15 MS. SOMERS: I appreciate your observation, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm not going to ask

17 Mr. Simic which is the Rule that says that our Judges are equal. It is

18 Rule 17 which says that all Judges are equal [In English] "regardless of

19 dates of election, appointment, age, or period of service."

20 [Interpretation] I saw that Mr. O'Sullivan had something to say.

21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes. I don't have a question for the witness,

22 nor to the Bench on how things appear or how they actually function.

23 But I do have a request, given that the Kos Defence case begins on

24 Monday, and the request that we have refers to our filing of February

25 12th, which is the request for admission of documentary evidence. Your

Page 8419

1 Honours, I believe, have that request in front of you. We would be very

2 grateful if you could give us a decision on that before we commence our

3 presentation of evidence Monday, to provide us some guidance.

4 JUDGE WALD: Do we have any response from the Prosecution yet?

5 We're aware of your filing. Has the Prosecution responded?

6 MS. SOMERS: We have no objection to the admission. There were

7 some documents as well that were presented earlier last week, and we spoke

8 inter partes about it and have no --

9 JUDGE WALD: But you're indicating to us now that you have no

10 objections.

11 MS. SOMERS: Right.

12 JUDGE WALD: All right.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We were just about to clear up

14 that matter, because the Defence told us that they spoke to the

15 Prosecution which had no objections and now that is confirmed. It is true

16 that we, of course, believed what we were told by the Defence, but we were

17 waiting for an opportunity to have it officially confirmed.

18 So, Mr. O'Sullivan or Mr. Nikolic, everything is fine in terms of

19 the beginning of your case on Monday. Perhaps we can work a little longer

20 so we don't have to come back this afternoon.

21 Mr. Nikolic.

22 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I can just

23 convey what Mrs. Nikolic has found out from the ground. All the planned

24 witnesses have visas and passports, and today they are leaving Banja Luka

25 at 2.30 to go to Vienna, from Vienna to Amsterdam, and they should be here

Page 8420












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8421

1 this evening. Therefore, the witnesses will be ready for Monday, at 9.20,

2 to begin to testify before you, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Nikolic, that's

4 very good. Let me just check a moment.

5 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think, Mr. Nikolic, everything

7 is fine, as far as you are concerned, for us to be able to begin on

8 Monday; is that right?

9 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very

11 much.

12 Ms. Susan Somers, I think you were going to speak about

13 documents. I think that, Mr. Simic and Ms. Susan Somers, you could

14 perhaps delay that a little because otherwise we'll be working late, and

15 at the Status Conference next week, we can address all those matters. So

16 this is simply a practical issue. Either we have a break and come back

17 this afternoon or we can consider the question of the tendering of

18 documents at the Status Conference which we have planned for next week.

19 In that case, we can break without having to come back in the afternoon.

20 Do you agree with that suggestion, Ms. Susan Somers?

21 MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, as long as I understand that we are

22 continuing, that this effectively will be a continuation of this portion

23 of the Kvocka cross-examination; that I'm not finished with it and that I

24 can, in fact, at least for the record, request that the documents that I

25 have sought to have marked - some of them, not every one of them - would

Page 8422

1 be moved into evidence, yes, that's fine. I just want to make sure that

2 this is effectively a continuation during the Status Conference.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers, we have

4 often resorted to this. We release the witness, allow him to leave, and

5 then we address that question afterwards. If we need to have the witness

6 present, then that is something else. But as Mr. Kvocka is always here in

7 the courtroom, there is no problem.

8 Are you agreeable, Mr. Simic, with this suggestion?

9 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Your Honour, at least

10 for once.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.

12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very briefly, could I

13 request that the Status Conference be held during the first three days so

14 that I can leave for Prijedor as soon as possible? Because my case comes

15 after Mr. Kos and Mr. Kos will be through by Wednesday with his case.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I was planning to hold it

17 on Thursday or Friday. But, nevertheless, we could have the Status

18 Conference on Monday or Tuesday so you will be able to leave then.

19 Ms. Susan Somers, have you finished?

20 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Chamber would

22 like to tell the Kos Defence that their case will take place on Monday,

23 Tuesday, and Wednesday. If we carry over into Thursday, the Chamber has

24 other obligations, I think. I don't know whether I may say it, or maybe

25 Madam Judge Wald would like to express herself.

Page 8423

1 JUDGE WALD: I'm a member of the Appeals Chamber on the Jelisic

2 case which is hearing argument on Thursday. So if it goes over till

3 Thursday, unavoidably, I cannot be here, and possibly into Friday

4 morning.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You see, in that case, the

6 Chamber can sit incomplete, that is, a Bench of two, according to the

7 Rules. This is just by way of information. But as I have said, Rule 15

8 bis provides for the possibility of two Judges sitting, if that is

9 unavoidable.

10 I think that Judge Fouad Riad asked for the floor, just briefly.

11 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, the opportunity

12 has passed, but I do wish to say a few words.

13 When we were talking about equalities and about the possibility of

14 some people being more equal, I should just like to point out that there

15 are cases when people are less equal, which are referred to as grey

16 eminencies in French, who could be more powerful than the king. So that,

17 too, can exist, that somebody can hide behind the scenes and pull the

18 strings. That is just a theoretical observation I wanted to make.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That is a good thought for the

20 weekend, what I would say in my language. It's poetry, I'm afraid, so I

21 apologise. So we will have our weekend and we will meet again here on

22 Monday, at 9.20.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.15 p.m.,

24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of

25 February, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.