International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8630

1

2 Wednesday, 25 September 2002

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 [The witness entered court]

6 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. A very good morning to

8 everybody. Any obstacles to proceed immediately with the

9 examination-in-chief?

10 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.

11 WITNESS: EWAN BROWN [Resumed]

12 Examined by Mr. Cayley: [Continued]

13 Q. Mr. Brown, if you can please --

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I only asked for obstacles before really

15 starting because we should hear, no doubt, the case and the appearances.

16 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So please, let's hear the case.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is case number IT-97-24-T, the

19 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances, please, for the Defence.

21 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, may it please the Court, my name is Andrew

22 Cayley, I appear on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor with my

23 colleague Ann Sutherland and our case manager Miss Karper. Thank you.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, thank you. And for the Defence.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Your Honours. John Ostojic, along

Page 8631

1 with Danilo Cirkovic on behalf of the accused Dr. Milomir Stakic.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. From this point of view, it gives a

3 wrong impression, but just for the record, on the same line, so to speak,

4 we have the same gentleman as yesterday. Could you please, for the

5 record, give us the name again.

6 MR. HUDSON: Yes; Mr. John Hudson and Mr. Hedley Tomlyn.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning. Thank you.

8 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

9 Q. Mr. Brown, as you know, time is short, and I would like to try and

10 complete your examination-in-chief by the first break, if possible. So if

11 you can keep answers fairly short, we don't have that many more documents

12 to go through.

13 MR. CAYLEY: If you could display the Omarska slide, and you could

14 place on the ELMO the document that we were previously looking at. And

15 you had read significant portions of this document. And for the

16 interpreters, this document is ERN number 01108903, report by Prijedor

17 Public Security Station.

18 Q. Are there any other parts of this particular report, Mr. Brown, to

19 which you wish to draw the attention of the Judges? We were previously on

20 page 3 of that document yesterday.

21 A. Yes, Your Honours. I would like just to draw your attention to

22 the bottom paragraph and the part that I have highlighted here on page 3.

23 This reads, in relation to Omarska camp: "For this reason, the Crisis

24 Staff of Prijedor decided that all captives should be transferred from the

25 Keraterm facility in Prijedor to the premises of the administration

Page 8632

1 building and the workshop of the iron ore mine in Omarska where the mixed

2 teams of operatives continued the processing they had started. For this

3 reason, the facility got the working name of Omarska Prisoner of War

4 Investigation Centre. By the same decision, the facility was placed under

5 the control of the police and the army. The police were given the task of

6 providing immediate physical security, and the army took over in-depth

7 security in the form of two rings and the mining of prisoners' possible

8 escape routes."

9 On page 4 of document, I will not read it all out, however, the

10 first section states: "In the same Crisis Staff decision, it was ordered

11 that the Keraterm facility in Prijedor should be used only for transit

12 purposes, and that only the first selection of persons brought in should

13 be made there since for reasons of lack of space, this was not feasible in

14 Prijedor SJB." And then it makes another reference to the decision of the

15 27th of May in relation to Omarska.

16 It also indicates in the second paragraph the categorisation of

17 prisoners, in essence, into those who had been personally responsible for

18 the armed rebellion, those who had been suspected of organising, abetting,

19 or financing the armed rebellion, and those who had no interest but had

20 been captured because they were in the area of combat or in the area of

21 fighting.

22 The document also lists that from the 27th of May until the 16th

23 of August, a total of 3.334 people had been brought to Omarska, and it

24 makes some reference here to the breakdown. There is one or two other

25 small sections on paragraph 6 -- sorry, page 6. This is in relation to a

Page 8633

1 section on the activities of the police, and I just highlighted the fact

2 showing the cooperation that existed between the police and the army.

3 After the outbreak of the armed conflict, employees of the SJB, at the

4 request of the army and as a result of the situation they found themselves

5 in, took part in armed conflicts. And together with members of the

6 military units, police employees have taken part in searches of the

7 terrain and mopping up the remaining covert enemy groups and individuals.

8 Those are some of the key issues in this document.

9 Q. If we could go back to the slide, please, I think this slide

10 essentially summarises the two previous documents we've referred to, the

11 one we referred to today and yesterday, and the one before that. But if

12 you could just go through that document.

13 A. I'm sorry, through the slide?

14 Q. Through the slide, I'm sorry.

15 A. This just, I think, tries to encapsulate some of the documentation

16 that we discussed yesterday: That prisoners were brought to Omarska as a

17 result of the attacks and disarmament operations; that the camp was

18 established by the Prijedor Crisis Staff in late May, 27th of May, as

19 indicated in the police documents; that security coordinators, including

20 military representation, Colonel Majstorovic, who was a security officer

21 at Prijedor Garrison, were involved in the processing of prisoners; that

22 the military provided external security to the camp; and that after

23 interrogation or processing, there was a categorisation of prisoners. The

24 prisoners themselves were eventually either sent to Trnopolje camp or sent

25 on to Manjaca camp, which was a military detention facility in Banja Luka

Page 8634

1 Municipality run by the 1st Krajina Corps. There's documentation, the

2 police documentation that I've highlighted there, indicates that prisoners

3 were transferred to Manjaca. It is also known from a military document in

4 August, I believe August the 6th, that when they checked the prisoners in

5 Manjaca, it was stated that a large number did not deserve to be treated

6 as prisoners of war and did not deserve to be there.

7 MR. CAYLEY: If, Mr. President, I could apply for that document to

8 be admitted into evidence, I think it would be 353. That's the report

9 that we've just been referring to.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Already been provisionally marked yesterday as

11 353. Objections?

12 MR. OSTOJIC: No, objections, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Admitted into evidence as 353.

14 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.

15 Q. If we could move on to the next slide, Mr. Brown, Keraterm camp.

16 And again, I think here you rely on a MUP report, and that if that could

17 be placed on the ELMO and if you could highlight the relevant portions of

18 that report. And this, for the benefit of the interpreters, is ERN

19 01108891.

20 MR. CAYLEY: And Your Honours, this is a document which states at

21 the top: "Serbian Republic Ministry of the Interior Security Services

22 Centre, Banja Luka."

23 Q. Mr. Brown, what is this document?

24 A. This was the Banja Luka CSB's compilation of the reports that came

25 from Prijedor Municipality, Sanski Most Municipality, and Bosanski Novi

Page 8635

1 Municipality, in relation to the issues we discussed yesterday on

2 detention camps and the role of the police and their activities.

3 Q. Where did we get this document from?

4 A. This document was seized by the OTP in Banja Luka.

5 Q. If you'd highlight the relevant portions for Their Honours.

6 A. In essence, the document is simply a summary, transferring on

7 Prijedor Municipality's -- or the Prijedor SJB report, and it summarises

8 very much the same material discussed in Drljaca's report.

9 Q. That's the previous document we have been referring to?

10 A. That's correct, yes.

11 Q. Could you place a copy of this document on the ELMO.

12 A. I won't read out the whole of the highlighted section, but you can

13 see, for example, the part that relates to Trnopolje is very much the same

14 as the section that related to -- that was lifted from the Prijedor

15 report.

16 I draw your attention to page 2 of the report in relation to

17 Keraterm. Again, it highlights some details in relation to Keraterm and

18 its makeup. It references, pursuant to the decision of the Prijedor

19 Municipality Crisis Staff, the army brought prisoners of war to this

20 facility. Highlights the roles of the SJB, indicates that both the CSB

21 and Banja Luka Corps Command were informed about the capture of persons

22 and were actively involved in the solution of the situation. References

23 again mixed operational teams of public, military, and security service

24 personnel.

25 At the bottom of the document and on to the following page, page

Page 8636

1 3, again it references the 27th of May decision in relation to Keraterm

2 facility and the transferring of persons from Keraterm facility to

3 Omarska. It is of note that in this document, there is a slight change in

4 wording. The Prijedor states Omarska was placed under the direct control

5 of the police and the army. The Banja Luka CSB reports states, in the

6 same decision, the Omarska facility was placed under the direct

7 supervision of the police and army. I cannot account for that change in

8 language.

9 Again, it just continues by talking about the establishment of the

10 centre and details, and in the centre and at the bottom of the report, it

11 once again talks about numbers and the categorisation of prisoners. So

12 this document, in essence, is a synthesis of the Prijedor report that was,

13 I believe, sent up to the Ministry of the Interior.

14 MR. CAYLEY: And this, Your Honour, is an existing exhibit, S152.

15 Q. If you could go back to the side, Mr. Brown, and if you could take

16 us through that, I think it essentially shows similar matters referred to

17 on the slide on Omarska.

18 A. Yes, again this just highlights some of the issues that I've just

19 discussed in the report. It also highlights a couple of other references

20 indicating that the military police were involved or engaged in the

21 security of Keraterm camp, and there is documentary reference that the 1st

22 Krajina Corps were aware of maltreatment of prisoners in Keraterm and that

23 killings had occurred during a reported escape attempt in July 1992.

24 Q. We can move now to the next slide.

25 I think most of the documentary references that support this slide

Page 8637

1 have already been referred to, but if you can just take Their Honours

2 through this slide. I know there's one document that we need to refer to

3 at the end, but perhaps we can go through the slide first.

4 A. Again, this is simply a synthesis of some of the information which

5 came from the police report. A figure of 5.000 was indicated in the 1st

6 Krajina Corps report of the 1st of June. The police reports indicate the

7 reception centre was established in late May. Again, security was

8 provided by the military. I think I made reference to that yesterday.

9 There's documentary evidence that joint military police convoys taking

10 persons from Trnopolje to Central Bosnia occurred, and one of the

11 references I think we're going to look at indicates that.

12 Q. And if we could go to that document, that is a document of the

13 18th of July of 1992 from Prijedor Public Security Station. And for the

14 benefit of the interpreters, this is, in English, 00916561, and the

15 Serbian version follows immediately thereafter.

16 First of all, Mr. Brown, where does this document come from?

17 A. This document was seized by the OTP in Prijedor.

18 Q. If you could highlight the relevant part of this document.

19 A. This is a Prijedor Public Security Station document dated the 18th

20 of July, to the Banja Luka Security Services Centre and the duty

21 operations officer. And it states: "It has been arranged that a convoy

22 of five (5) buses with women and children from the war-stricken area of

23 Prijedor depart from the reception centre in Trnopolje (Prijedor

24 Municipality) on the 18th of July, 1992, at 1000 hours. This has been

25 arranged with Colonel Arsic of the Prijedor Garrison, and

Page 8638

1 Lieutenant-Colonel Bosko Peulic, commander of the 122nd Brigade. Since

2 the destination of the convoy is Skender Vakuf, a police patrol from the

3 Banja Luka Public Security Station will need to meet with the convoy at

4 Tunjice and take it by safe road to the designated destination. A patrol

5 car from the Prijedor SJB and policemen serving as escorts will be leading

6 the way for the convoy.

7 Q. And there's a Duty Officer signature block. Lieutenant-Colonel

8 Bosko Peulic, commander of the 122nd Brigade, why would he need to be

9 involved in the arrangements for this convoy?

10 A. Colonel Bosko Peulic was concurrently commander of operational

11 group Vlasic. That was an operational group discussed yesterday, a number

12 of groups below the corps. He commanded that 122 brigade, and was as well

13 commander of operation group Vlasic in the Mount Vlasic feature in that

14 area. I believe he was referenced in this document because the convoy was

15 travelling through his zone. And Skender Vakuf was where Colonel Peulic's

16 headquarters was located.

17 Q. We have to slow down a bit, Mr. Brown. It's probably my fault;

18 I'm going too quickly.

19 MR. CAYLEY: If, Mr. President, this document could be admitted

20 into evidence, I believe it's 354.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objection?

22 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence as S354.

24 MR. CAYLEY:

25 Q. If, Mr. Brown, we could now move to your next slide. Now here, I

Page 8639

1 believe this slide is a sort of bullet point representation of events that

2 took place in Prijedor after the end of May.

3 A. Yes, that's correct, military activity did not stop with the

4 events at Kozarac but continued after that period.

5 Q. And in terms of the first event, attack in Prijedor, by about 80

6 non-Serbs, if you could place on the ELMO the 1st Krajina Corps command

7 report of the 30th of May of 1992.

8 Again, this is a 1st Krajina Corps command regular combat report

9 to the main staff. This is a seized document from the Bosnian Serb

10 military authorities in Banja Luka. Correct?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. Could you highlight the relevant portion of this document.

13 A. This document makes reference to the attack on Prijedor by

14 non-Serbs on the 30th of May. Section 1 states: "At 0400 hours on the

15 30th of May, paramilitaries of Muslim nationality attacked a position on

16 the Sana River bridge, killing two sentries and then moving on to the

17 hotel where they killed a member of the security and attempted to set the

18 hotel on fire but were prevented from doing so. These events were

19 followed by intensive actions in the town of Prijedor, and the Muslim

20 extremists are attacking most fiercely from Donja and Gornja Puharska."

21 The report makes additional references in paragraph 3. There's a

22 small reference in paragraph 2 which I won't read out. Paragraph 3

23 states: "In the morning at about 0400 hours, a group of Muslim extremists

24 neutralised a position at the Sana River bridge (killing two sentries),

25 overpowered the Hotel Prijedor security guards and, using a molotov

Page 8640

1 cocktail, set fire to the hotel where the military police was

2 accommodated. After that, sniper fire was opened from several firing

3 positions in the vicinity of the hotel until 0730 hours. At the same

4 time, a group of eight extremists from the area of Donja Puharska opened

5 fire on the targets in the barracks compound. Heavy fighting is taking

6 place in the town of Prijedor itself. The assault was carried out by a

7 group of about 18 Muslim extremists. In the wider area of Prijedor,

8 mopping up and the process of disarming is continuing."

9 The report also, in page 3, made reference that there had been

10 some killed and several wounded, but because fighting had been -- was

11 still in progress, they couldn't submit concrete data.

12 Q. The report states that: "In the wider area of Prijedor, mopping

13 up and the process of disarming is continuing." Do you have any idea what

14 "mopping up" means? I mean, it's clear what the process of disarming is,

15 but do you know what "mopping up" is?

16 A. The documents themselves don't give a definition of what "mopping

17 up" is, but it's a phrase that is routinely used throughout the military

18 reports. Mopping up, for example, is referenced in the latter stages of

19 Kozarac. I believe it's also referenced when they discuss the attack on

20 Hambarine. I imagine it's joint military and police operations in order

21 -- directed against non-Serb areas, in the municipality.

22 Q. You've already referred in the documents, as regards the camps,

23 that large numbers of individuals of various categories ended up in those

24 camps. Would they have ended up in those camps as a result of these

25 mopping up operations?

Page 8641

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you want to make any further references in this document?

3 A. There is a reference in paragraph 12 of page 3 which is a

4 recommendation and stating that: "...the disarming of paramilitary

5 formations and in the area of Prijedor, the surrounding and destroying of

6 the Green Beret forces should be continued." And I believe that is what

7 happened in the days after this.

8 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if I could apply for this document to

9 be admitted into evidence. It's 355, I believe.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, S355.

12 MR. CAYLEY:

13 Q. If we can go back to the slide. Now the next two entries we're

14 not going to use those particular documents, but we'll see later documents

15 which essentially reflect the same information. But if you could explain

16 to the Judges what you believe was taking place, looking at the documents,

17 from the end of May into the beginning of June of 1992 in Prijedor.

18 A. By the 31st of May, the 1st Krajina Corps was reporting that the

19 area of Prijedor was under control of its forces, indicating that the

20 attack on Prijedor was not a particularly successful one.

21 Q. And here you're talking of the attack by non-Serb forces on

22 Prijedor?

23 A. Yes, that is correct. There are a number of documents into June

24 in many of the combat reports indicating that the police and the military

25 were engaged in mopping up operations, operations to neutralise, smash, or

Page 8642

1 eliminate individual groups in the wider Prijedor area and that there were

2 continuing military operations in the municipality into July.

3 Q. If we could look at the next document, which is the document dated

4 the 4th of June of 1992. For the interpreters, this document, in the

5 B/C/S version, is 00861547. It's a regular combat report from the 1st

6 Krajina Corps to the main staff of the Bosnian Serb army.

7 Mr. Brown, this is another document seized by the Office of the

8 Prosecutor from the archive of the 1st Krajina Corps in Banja Luka.

9 Correct?

10 A. Yes, Your Honours, that's correct.

11 Q. If you could highlight the parts of this document, and I think it

12 essentially reflects what you've already stated.

13 A. Yes. Paragraph 2 states: "Mopping up and the disarming of

14 paramilitary formations are underway in the municipalities of Prijedor,

15 Sanski Most, and Kljuc."

16 Paragraph 3 states: "Crisis areas: Prijedor, Sanski Most, Kljuc,

17 and Donja Vakuf are under the control of the 1st Krajina Corps units. The

18 population is fearful and apprehensive of the possible escalation of new

19 conflicts, and the pressure to move out is increasing."

20 Q. What do you believe that sentence means, that "The population is

21 fearful and apprehensive for the possible escalation of new conflicts, and

22 the pressure to move out is increasing"?

23 A. The sentence itself doesn't make it clear on its own which section

24 of the population is fearful and apprehensive. However, in respect of

25 Prijedor Municipality, taking into consideration the events of late May,

Page 8643

1 the movement into camps in late May, and that this report was talking

2 about three or four days after the 1st Krajina Corps had referenced that

3 thousands of people were in camps, that I would assess that this is in

4 relation to the non-Serb population.

5 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if I could apply for that document to

6 be admitted into evidence, that's 356.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can't see any objections. Admitted, S356.

8 MR. CAYLEY:

9 Q. If we could move back to your slide, you then highlight on the

10 23rd of July of 1992 combined operations by the 1st Krajina Corps forces

11 from Prijedor and Sanski Most in Brisevo, Kurevo, Stara Rijeka, and Stara

12 Majdan.

13 A. Yes. At this time period, there was a combined operation in those

14 areas involving units from Prijedor and a brigade or elements of a brigade

15 from Sanski Most.

16 Q. If you could place the document dated the 18th of June of 1992

17 onto the ELMO. Now, this is a document from the command of the 6th

18 Partizan Brigade. Whereabouts did we get this document from?

19 A. This document was provided by AID Bihac.

20 Q. The 6th Partizan Brigade, what unit was that subordinated to?

21 A. Your Honours, the 6th Partizan Brigade was subordinate to the 1st

22 Krajina Corps, and it was based in Sanski Most.

23 Q. Where was it -- you say it was based in the municipality of Sanski

24 Most, that being directly south of Prijedor. Correct?

25 A. Yes, that is correct.

Page 8644

1 Q. Who was the commander of the 6th Partizan Brigade in June and July

2 of 1992?

3 A. Colonel Branko Basara was the commander of the brigade.

4 Q. Can you highlight for Their Honours the relevant portions of this

5 document.

6 A. Your Honours, this is a combat order for the execution of combat

7 activities. I draw your attention to the date that is annotated here as

8 the 18th of June, and I'd like to come back to that in a minute.

9 I'll read out the first paragraph or elements of it: "For the

10 purposes of secrecy, groups of extremists are withdrawing from inhabited

11 places to wooded areas where they are building dugouts using hunting

12 lodges and carrying out training. At night, they go into inhabited places

13 to pick up food and other materiel supplies. It is estimated that more

14 numerous groups are located in - it's illegible but I believe it's Kurevo

15 forest - around 100 Green Berets; Brisevo, up to 50; Carakovo, up to 30

16 extremists; and in the wider area of the Stara Rijeka opencast mine, about

17 50 extremists. For the purposes of coordinating with forces from Prijedor

18 in combing the terrain in the area: Carakovo, Ostra Luka, Koprivna, Stari

19 Majdan, Stara Rijeka, Ljubija, and Donja Ljubija, I hereby order..." And

20 Colonel Basara orders elements of his brigade into combat operations in

21 those areas.

22 I draw your attention to paragraph 2, which states: "Destroy

23 armed enemy groups with sudden fire, and take unarmed persons fit for

24 combat to the Milim Birt area from where they will be transported onwards.

25 Leave women and children and old men in their homes."

Page 8645

1 He then outlines various tasks for his brigade, the military

2 police, and the deployment locations for those units.

3 I'd like to draw your attention to paragraph 5: "All units must

4 establish communications with Prijedor units before emerging in front of

5 their positions and shall coordinate actions in the search, particularly

6 in the settlement of Donja Ljubija, Ljubija, Stari Majdan, and others."

7 Attached to this document, Your Honours, was a handwritten new

8 order from Colonel Basara which I'd like to put up. This was handwritten

9 the 22nd of July, 1999.

10 I'd like to go back to the original order which is handwritten

11 18th of June. It is possible that the operation was scheduled for the

12 18th of June but was actually delayed until the 22nd of July. I believe

13 Colonel Basara has got the date wrong or it's slightly illegible and it's

14 1992. It is possible that he got the handwritten date wrong and it

15 wasn't, in fact, the 18th of June but the 18th of July. And I say this

16 because the 1st Krajina Corps daily combat reports of the 23rd of July

17 indicate that this operation was ongoing in this area. So although there

18 are some difficulties in terms of date with this -- those two documents, I

19 believe that the new order indicates that the operation was to take place

20 on the 23rd of July. But the daily combat reports of the 1st Krajina

21 Corps on that -- at that period indicate that an operation was taking

22 place on the 23rd of July. The new order that Colonel Basara states

23 includes establishing communications on the 23rd of July, that Prijedor

24 troops will start the search at 0800, identification is to be facilitated

25 with two red tapes on the shoulders of the troops. He does, in this

Page 8646

1 instruction, state: "Don't fire unnecessarily. Do not set fire to

2 houses. Looting is forbidden. Leave the population alone if they are

3 peaceful. Lock up the extremists and liquidate armed groups."

4 MR. CAYLEY: Could I apply for that to be admitted into evidence.

5 That's 357.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It goes -- we have some difficulties with these

8 documents. First, may we hear, where and when did you find the documents?

9 And what brings you to the conclusion that this handwritten was attached

10 to the other document?

11 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I'm unclear of the date the document

12 was received by the OTP. I believe it came from AID Bihac. And I believe

13 that an investigator from the OTP copied the document. Further than, that

14 I'm unable to give you an answer. It may well be the investigation --

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be honest, this is not helpful at all. We

16 need -- first, we have objections, standing objections by the Defence, all

17 documents coming from this sort of AID.

18 Second, there's evidently a discrepancy between the dates on the

19 handwritten part and on the other part, therefore, it's doubtful whether

20 or not these documents were ever together. And therefore, I regard it as

21 necessary that the Prosecution finds out on the way of this FFI [sic]

22 sourcing possibility you have to trace really where was this document

23 found, was it really attached to this document, and so on. This is one

24 obstacle.

25 Second, document by document, and hearing just the comments of the

Page 8647

1 witness on this document, this concrete document, we should be aware, and

2 maybe this facilitates the work of the Defence as regards the

3 cross-examination later, may I ask you, do you have any evidence or even

4 hint that there was a link of influence by Dr. Stakic to the 1st Krajina

5 Corps, to the 3rd Infantry Battalion, to Colonel Basara? Because we

6 should never forget that we are discussing individual criminal

7 responsibility; therefore, this question, do you have such a hint?

8 THE WITNESS: I do not have any documentation that would indicate

9 a link between Colonel Basara and Dr. Stakic, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the same is true for the 1st Krajina Corps

11 and the 3rd infantry battalion?

12 THE WITNESS: I have not seen in the documents I've reviewed from

13 the 1st Krajina Corps a reference to Dr. Stakic. There are the general

14 references relating to civilian cooperation, and there is a reference, I

15 believe, of a meeting that took place on the 7th of May, 1992, with

16 municipal leaders. This is referenced in 1st Krajina Corps documentation,

17 but does not indicate which municipal leaders or specify individuals. So

18 I have not seen documentary reference from the military documents relating

19 to Dr. Stakic outside the references, some of which were highlighted

20 yesterday, relating to civil-military cooperation, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Bearing in mind these reservations,

22 the document as such is, as there are no objections, admitted into

23 evidence as S357, and cautioned by the divergencies and the problems with

24 content of especially the date of the handwritten document, the

25 handwritten document has the exhibit number 357-1. It is now admitted

Page 8648

1 into evidence, but as you know, it does not mean that we can decide the

2 other way around. If not, we have, yes, the sourcing of this document and

3 really know whether or not this was an attachment and where it was

4 identified and found. Therefore, I expect an answer to these questions

5 until the end of the week.

6 Please proceed.

7 Finally, the B/C/S version is in a relatively bad quality. Is it

8 readable for you, Dr. Stakic, or do you need a better copy?

9 MR. OSTOJIC: It seems to be adequate enough, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then please proceed.

11 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if you would go to the third from last

12 page and the very last page, you'll find that there is a certification

13 from an individual called Jutta Paczulla who was an employee of the Office

14 of the Prosecutor who states that she inspected this document on the 12th

15 of April of 1996 in Bihac in the AID office. She returned the original to

16 the AID for presentation. That certification is signed 5 November, 1996,

17 by her.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But nevertheless, we need, in this case, the

19 best possible original to be presented in the courtroom, please.

20 MR. CAYLEY: I think that's going to be a photographic copy, Your

21 Honour, but we'll get the best original that we have.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may only add one point, Your Honour, since we

23 are going through this process, and that is if we can get an explanation

24 from the OTP or the individual who obtained those documents, why was there

25 a lag time of actually reviewing the documents in April and then

Page 8649

1 certifying those documents in November? If indeed it's accurate, although

2 it's a preprinted form, that stamp that we've just referred to, the

3 document should have been certified immediately upon the inspection, or

4 I'd like to at least inquire how good is the memory of an individual of a

5 handwritten document to make such a statement more than six to nine months

6 after she has reviewed it?

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's discuss it when we have the best possible

8 original at hand.

9 MR. CAYLEY:

10 Q. Mr. Brown, as far as this operation referred to and this document

11 that's being questioned, have you seen any documents, for example, seized

12 from the Banja Luka Corps, that would confirm that these operations took

13 place? In other words, from a source which perhaps could be regarded as

14 more reliable?

15 A. Yes. As I stated, the daily combat report, this period, makes

16 reference to operations in those areas. Those daily combat reports were

17 seized by the OTP as part of the Krajina Corps archive.

18 Q. So that would tend to make you question less the authenticity of

19 S357, the order from the 6th Krajina Brigade because you viewed a

20 document, as it were, from an original source or from a better source?

21 A. Yes, I believe so.

22 MR. CAYLEY: Although we're not actually referring to that

23 document, I think, Mr. President, because of the matter you've raised, it

24 may be one that's worthwhile putting into the package at the end because

25 that will perhaps assist Your Honours' in determination of the

Page 8650

1 authenticity of the other document.

2 Q. Let's go to the final document on this, and if you could move your

3 slide on. And I think that is the combat report that you referred to

4 there, 24, 25 July, 1992, 1st Krajina Corps reports noting operations in

5 Mount Majdan, Ljubija, Kozara, Kozarusa, Carakovo, Zecovi, and Kaljevo.

6 A. Yes, that is correct. If you'd like me to find the footnote in my

7 report, I can do. I can do that later on.

8 Q. I'll find that document. Now, in late August of 1992, you state

9 the 1st Krajina Corps reports war crimes during mopping up operations in

10 Carakovo and elsewhere. You've placed that document, I think, onto the

11 ELMO. Now, first of all, where does this document come from?

12 A. This is a document from the 1st Krajina Corps archive, seized in

13 Banja Luka.

14 Q. What is this document?

15 A. This is an information report sent from the command of the 1st

16 Krajina Corps forward command post to Prijedor operative group command, to

17 the commander personally. And it forwards in entirety a report that the

18 1st Krajina Corps have clearly received. The document, in essence, states

19 that the situation in Prijedor is particularly bad and notes specifically

20 that there were divisions between the military police company and the

21 command security platoon, and makes references to various military

22 personnel in those units and the animosity between the two.

23 It also makes reference to the Reconnaissance and Sabotage Company

24 which had once been commanded by a Major Zoran Karlica. And I draw your

25 attention to the last section and to page 2. It states: "The

Page 8651

1 Reconnaissance and Sabotage Company, once commanded by Major Zoran

2 Karlica, has an especially bad name in Prijedor. Since his death, the

3 reputation of the company has constantly plummeted. Its members are

4 nowadays best known for demolishing catering establishments in Prijedor,

5 and in their last rampage they wrecked eight cafes owned by persons of

6 Serbian nationality. On that occasion, the Military Police Intervention

7 Platoon was disarmed by members of the Reconnaissance and Sabotage Company

8 which has been joined since Karlica's death by dealers and war profiteers.

9 This company with numerous murders of civilians, looting, private murders,

10 et cetera. Its members also stood out in the mopping-up action in

11 Carakovo by killing civilians, ripping earrings from women's ears, et

12 cetera."

13 Page 2 of the report continues: "Another interesting item - all

14 are now washing their hands regarding camps and reception centres,

15 attempting to pass responsibility for issuing orders for mass execution of

16 civilians in the camps and centres onto someone else. This has become

17 particularly noticeable since the visit of foreign reporters to Prijedor,

18 more precisely to Omarska and Trnopolje. Forged (antedated) documents

19 about all this are even appearing. However, the issue is sensitive and

20 the sources are scarce, and more time will be required to complete this

21 segment of the task. The impression is that the local Fatherland Front is

22 involved in all this.

23 "One thing is certain: We are already starting to feel the cost

24 of the needless spilling Muslim blood. There is information that Muslims

25 driven out of the municipality of Prijedor, and those who fled to the

Page 8652

1 other side but who had done nothing against the Serbian Republic before,

2 are now taking up arms in Croatia and joining the war against us. Several

3 such persons were captured in Gradacac. In addition to this, Muslims who

4 were either driven out of or fled from Prijedor to Croatia now attack

5 everything that is Serbian, and the Serbs in Croatia have thus gained

6 fanatical enemies, bequeathed to them by the civilian and military

7 authorities of Prijedor."

8 Q. So this was a document that you believe from its face was sent

9 from the 1st Krajina Corps to the Prijedor operative group command in

10 Prijedor?

11 A. Yes, that is correct.

12 Q. And where, from this document, was the command of the 1st Krajina

13 Corps based at that time?

14 A. The forward command post of the 1st Krajina Corps was located in

15 the Doboj area, hence the reason, I believe, the stamp says, "Command of

16 the Doboj Operative Group 2."

17 Q. And that is up near the Croatian border. Correct?

18 A. It's --

19 Q. It's north of Prijedor?

20 A. No, it's on towards the corridor area. The main command post of

21 the corps had been collocated from Stara Gradiska to Manjaca camp in the

22 summer of 1992. But a forward command post had been established in

23 essence to deal with the combat operations in the corridor. The forward

24 command post at times collocated with operations group Doboj which was

25 another subordinate operations group which conducted operations in the

Page 8653

1 corridor area.

2 MR. CAYLEY: Could I apply for this to be admitted into evidence,

3 please, Mr. President. I think it would be 358.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't want to ask why, but I have, following

6 the questions to the last documents, two questions here. In the

7 beginning, it reads: "To Prijedor Operative Group Command, (To the

8 Commander, personally)." Do you know who this person was?

9 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, at some stage Colonel Zeljaja took

10 command of the 343rd Brigade. Colonel Arsic was moved elsewhere. And he

11 also became concurrently commander of Prijedor Regional Command. That is,

12 Colonel Zeljaja. I'm unclear when that transition occurred, but I believe

13 by this period, the end of August, Colonel Zeljaja was in command of

14 Prijedor region.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. My second question is when you turn to

16 the B/C/S version, you find a number of signatures or paraphs. Did you

17 ever try in this case or in another case to identify these paraphs you can

18 find there starting from 1945 until 2230? And is it possible that the

19 four paraphs are all the same and would this be normal in the chain of

20 command that one and the same paraphs appears four times on the same

21 documents for the person receiving, evidently, the document?

22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I believe that the four signatures may

23 well be those of the signaller that dispatched the document rather than

24 the signatory of the document itself. The large box, stamp box, Received,

25 Processed, Submitted, normally refers to the possibly a duty officer or an

Page 8654

1 operator in the communications centre or possibly within the

2 administrative section of the headquarters who actually disseminates and

3 processes the document. At first glance -- I'm not a handwriting expert,

4 but at first glance, the signature does look the same. And it is possible

5 that these signatures relate to the communications technician or the duty

6 officer who dispatched the document and archived it within the

7 headquarters and may have logged it in a signal log book.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So from your point of view, as a specialist,

9 this would be nothing special and nothing that surprises you?

10 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, it wouldn't.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then, just for the record, because it might not

12 be quite clear from the English translation, in the middle of the stamp,

13 we find, once again, this four S. For the benefit of the transcript, once

14 again, this stands for what?

15 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour, I am unclear on the question.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the middle of the stamp, you can see four

17 times an S in all the four directions. What does it mean? It's an

18 abbreviation for what?

19 THE WITNESS: You're referring to the Cs in the box and the

20 cross?

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I would call it an S because it's Cyrillic.

22 THE WITNESS: Okay, sir. I believe that is a symbol, a Serbian

23 symbol, that is used. I am unclear on the actual translation.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then this document is ripe for admission

25 as S358A. But the B version, once again we have a problem we had earlier.

Page 8655

1 Here, we have indeed non-legible pages. Apparently, it seems to be the

2 same problem, and if we can agree that somebody tried to copy both sides,

3 and therefore, yes, we have to delete two illegible pages from the B/C/S

4 version.

5 Can the parties agree on this assessment?

6 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then please delete these two pages,

9 and the rest is admitted as S358B.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.

12 Q. Mr. Brown, if we could now move to your next slide. Before we

13 actually look at, I think, two documents here, do you have any general

14 comments to make about army and police cooperation in Prijedor?

15 A. From the references we've already seen and the material that I

16 have reviewed, I believe that army and police cooperation was very strong

17 in Prijedor Municipality, including the use of police during combat

18 operations. Some of that has been highlighted already. There was a

19 requirement from the 1st Krajina Corps that there should be good

20 cooperation with the police, and there were directives discussing the use

21 of police in combat operations as well as references of joint operations

22 involving police.

23 Q. Can we look at the document of the 29th of May of 1992. This is a

24 1st Krajina Corps document seized from the archive of the 1st Krajina

25 Corps in Banja Luka by the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?

Page 8656

1 A. Yes, that is correct.

2 Q. Can we look at paragraph 2 of that document. Could you read that

3 sentence out that you've highlighted there.

4 A. "Cooperation with the SR BH MUP, Ministry of the Interior, in

5 mopping up the terrain and confiscating weapons from illegal formations in

6 the area of Prijedor, Sanski Most, and Kljuc continues."

7 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if I could apply for admission of this

8 document into evidence as 359.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can't see any objections. Admitted into

10 evidence as S359.

11 MR. CAYLEY:

12 Q. If we could now briefly look at the next document, which is a

13 document of the 14th of June. Now, again, this is a regular combat report

14 from the 1st Krajina Corps to the main staff of the 14th of June, 1992,

15 seized by the Office of the Prosecutor from the archive of the Banja Luka

16 Corps. Correct?

17 A. Yes, that is correct. In this particular combat order, the Corps

18 outline all he operative groups, and many of the units of the corps, and

19 summarises what they are doing at the time. In relation to Prijedor, on

20 page 2, it states: "The Prijedor operations and tactical group, including

21 the 2nd Motorised Brigade, and the HAD of the 343rd Motorised Brigade --"

22 the HAD was a subordinate artillery formation of the brigade -- "and the

23 6/10 PD --" the 6th being the 6th Brigade that we discussed earlier from

24 Sanski Most, volunteers and the police secures the Bosanski Luka,

25 Prijedor/Sanski Most/Sanica and Sanski Most/Bosanska Krupa routes, and

Page 8657

1 deals with the remaining enemy troops in the areas of Kozarac village,

2 Prijedor, and Sanski Most."

3 Q. Just go back to your slide briefly, I know you cite to other

4 references in your report, but in essence, these two particular reports

5 led you to the conclusion that there was army and police cooperation in

6 Prijedor during the operations that are referred to in these documents.

7 A. Yes, along with other police documentation which highlights a

8 similar thing.

9 Q. If you could just go to the next part of your slide and whilst we

10 won't pull these documents out, and if you could just briefly go through

11 these --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The last document was not tendered?

13 MR. CAYLEY: My apologies.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S340. No objections. Admitted into evidence as

15 S340.

16 MR. CAYLEY: 360.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, sorry. 360.

18 MR. CAYLEY:

19 Q. If you could briefly go through these three bullet points.

20 A. Very briefly, Your Honour, this just highlights another three

21 examples of police cooperation. I believe they are referenced as

22 footnotes in the report, CSB reports noting that Prijedor SJB directly

23 took part in operations with the army.

24 Q. I think we've seen that document, haven't we?

25 A. Yes, we have: There was a Prijedor SJB report summarising the

Page 8658

1 activities of the Prijedor in late -- I think the last nine months of

2 1992. It's actually written in January 1993. Again, indicating the use

3 of police in combat operations. And just a latter document in 1993 which

4 was an open-source tribute to police officers who had died and it included

5 references that there had been involvement with the military in combat

6 operations in Prijedor.

7 Q. Move to the final slide, Mr. Brown. Now, this one, in similar

8 fashion to the last one, you've entitled "Army/Civilian Cooperation in

9 Prijedor." Do you have any general comments before we look at some

10 specific documents?

11 A. I think much of this I covered yesterday in relation to

12 cooperation with civilian authorities, army and civilian cooperation.

13 Q. If we could just look at two, I think, existing exhibits in the

14 case. First one being S59.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Which was read out already.

16 MR. CAYLEY:

17 Q. Yes. Bearing in mind what the president has just stated, what

18 does this document demonstrate to you for the purposes of your report?

19 A. This was a document by Branko Djeric, which was, in essence,

20 instructions on the work of municipal Crisis Staffs. And what I wanted to

21 do here was just highlight some of the issues relating to military issues

22 from that instruction which I believe was implemented or broadly

23 implemented in Prijedor Municipality.

24 Paragraph 2 indicates that the president will consist of members,

25 including the president, deputy president, and the commander of the

Page 8659

1 Territorial Defence staff, and head of the MUP. Paragraph 3 states: "The

2 Crisis Staff coordinates the functions of authorities in order to ensure

3 the defence --"

4 THE REGISTRAR: Please slow down. Thank you.

5 THE WITNESS: "... in order to ensure the defence of the

6 territories, the safety of the population and property, the establishment

7 of government, and the organisation of all other areas of life and work."

8 Djeric's instruction stated that the command of the TO and the

9 police forces is under the exclusive authority of the professional staff,

10 and therefore any interfering regarding the command of the TO and/or the

11 use of the police forces must be prevented.

12 The instruction also states, in paragraph 11: "The Crisis Staff

13 shall gather information concerning the field situation and inform and

14 consult the competent bodies of the Serbian Republic of

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, the government commissioners appointed for

16 the areas especially threatened by war."

17 I believe the Djeric instruction indicated that the Crisis Staff

18 did have a general responsibility in the area of defence, that it

19 certainly was a cooperative body in that respect, and that from this

20 instruction, the Crisis Staff should have collected and gathered

21 information regarding the situation on the ground. And it did have the

22 requirement to have, certainly at this stage, a Territorial Defence

23 presence. This instruction was written on the 26th of April at a time

24 when the status of the JNA had yet to be resolved. I think that date is

25 important.

Page 8660

1 Q. Because at that time the JNA was still a federal body, not linked

2 to any particular emerging republic within Bosnia?

3 A. Correct, yes.

4 Q. And the last document that we can refer to, which I think will

5 bring us up to the break, and this document, for the purpose of the

6 record, is S180.

7 MR. CAYLEY: And again, Mr. President, I believe this has been

8 read into the record.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have enough not to read out the entire

10 Official Gazette, but in part. I don't know to which number you are

11 referring here.

12 MR. CAYLEY: It's only, I think, four articles in this, Your

13 Honour.

14 Q. Now, this is part of the Official Gazette of Prijedor and refers

15 to a decision on the organisation and work of the Prijedor Crisis Staff.

16 Correct?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can't see the document as such. It is not

19 from the Official Gazette, I think. It's issue number 2 -- okay, now I

20 can see the top. Issue number 2, and indeed, yes. Please proceed because

21 we are aware of this, and we read out this part.

22 MR. CAYLEY:

23 Q. How is this document --

24 MR. CAYLEY: Excuse me, Your Honour.

25 Q. How is this document relevant to your report, Mr. Brown?

Page 8661

1 A. Again, I believe it shows that from the republic level down to the

2 municipality level, these instructions were not simply just rarefied

3 statements. Article 2 in the Prijedor Municipal Crisis Staff instruction

4 in essence was a direct lift from the Branko Djeric instruction in

5 Djeric's paragraph 3 in that: "The Crisis Staff has been established in

6 order to cooperate the functions of --"

7 Q. To coordinate.

8 A. I'm sorry, "to coordinate the functions of the authorities, the

9 defence of the municipal territory, to protection of the safety of people

10 and property." The Prijedor Gazette, in Articles 5 and 6, relate also to

11 similar instructions from the Djeric document.

12 Q. Could you place that on the ELMO.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I recall that this part was already admitted

14 as Exhibit S111.

15 MR. CAYLEY: Sorry. So not S180.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's both. We have the underlying document, and

17 then the publication in the Official Gazette --

18 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, I understand.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- to be more specific. Thank you for the

20 assistance, Madam Registrar.

21 MR. CAYLEY:

22 Q. Articles 5 and 6, Mr. Brown.

23 A. Article 5 states: "In accordance with the assessment of the

24 political and security situation, and realistic requirements, the Crisis

25 Staff shall adopt relevant decisions on the organisation and work of the

Page 8662

1 Municipal Assembly, its organs, and other municipal organs and local

2 communes."

3 Article 6 states: "In discharging its functions in the area of

4 defence, the Crisis Staff shall, in particular, coordinate the work and

5 activities of all components of All People's Defence; consider issues of

6 mobilisation, development, and reinforcement of the armed forces and other

7 organisations and foster their cooperation with other responsible

8 municipal organs; on special request of the commander of the municipal TO

9 staff deal with issues of supply requirements and funding sources for the

10 TO; keep abreast of all aspects of the situation in the municipality

11 essential for the waging of armed combat and take appropriate measures;

12 monitor the implementation of the recruitment plan and, where necessary,

13 take measures for successful implementation thereof."

14 Article 9 also relates to cooperation with the army. Article 9

15 reads: "The Crisis Staff shall at all times cooperate with the army of

16 the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, civil defence, and public

17 security, through the senior officers or organs of these institutions."

18 And Article 11 notes: "The provision of the constitution, the law

19 and decisions adopted by the assembly, the presidency, and the government

20 of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the responsible

21 organs of the Autonomous Region of the Banja Luka Krajina have been and

22 shall remain the foundation for the work of the Prijedor Municipal Crisis

23 Staff."

24 Q. Going back to the slide, I think that is the last slide in the

25 presentation, any final comments? I think the documents, the other

Page 8663

1 documents referred to, certainly the 21 May, 1992 document is a document

2 that we've already looked at which talks about closest possible

3 cooperation between the people in legal authorities within their zone of

4 responsibility and the corps, the 1st Krajina Corps.

5 A. Yes, I believe that is correct. I believe the Djeric instruction

6 and the Prijedor Gazette decision on the organisation and work of the

7 Prijedor Municipal Crisis Staff clearly indicate that coordination and

8 cooperation was an important feature of the Crisis Staff, and that there

9 was a clear relationship between the military in the municipality and the

10 civilian authorities.

11 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I've finished my examination-in-chief.

12 But I would just like to mention one thing which you mentioned yesterday,

13 because I don't have access to this document. You wanted a particular

14 document that the witness had referred to in respect of the 8316 Prijedor

15 Territorial Defence. And the witness, I think, indicated yesterday that

16 that document is only in B/C/S. But I would ask him if he could make that

17 document available to us so I could put that into the package at the end

18 of his evidence for the additional documents that you've requested should

19 be put in the file. I'll agree to that with Mr. Ostojic so he doesn't

20 have any objections to those documents.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would be excellent if only orally you could

22 inform us on the content of this document, maybe before the

23 cross-examination that it may form part of the cross-examination later on.

24 If you could do it during the break, it would be excellent indeed. Thank

25 you.

Page 8664

1 It's 11.00 sharp. Just in time. Let's have a break now until

2 11.30.

3 --- Recess taken at 10.57 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before I give the floor to the Defence, let me

6 make one comment and at the same time one request. It would be helpful if

7 the Prosecution could provide us with an analysis of the word that we can

8 read in the English version as "mopping up." I tried to find the meaning

9 of this word. Of course, you can't find it in Black's Law Dictionary. I

10 found in Webster's New Word Encyclopedic Dictionary. "Mop up," the

11 meaning: "Clearing out or rounding up of scattered remnants of beaten

12 enemy forces in an area." So I think as we did it with the word and the

13 translation of "cleansing," here it should be necessary to come back to

14 the original B/C/S word and to find out the scope of application on the

15 translation of this word.

16 And then finally, in the direction of the Defence, we conferred

17 during the break and we found it necessary, also in order to facilitate

18 and abbreviate, maybe, the cross-examination, that we, the Judges, are

19 fully aware that what we heard was more or less a description of, say, the

20 environment, maybe elements of crimes, of a crime committed, in the area

21 without reasonable doubt. But we are fully aware of the limited link

22 until now established to a certain extent - I mention it on the basis of

23 one document - as regards Dr. Stakic. Therefore, it's not necessary to

24 emphasise during the cross-examination this special point. We are aware

25 of this, and we regard this report as an important report but, to a

Page 8665

1 certain extent, already, please, my apologies in your direction because

2 you were asked to do so as a kind of closing arguments.

3 So please, the floor is for the Defence. And may we have, for the

4 transcript, that now we have, in addition, in the group of the Defence

5 team the secretary of the Defence union, Mr. Lukic. Congratulations in

6 person to this --

7 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Thank you.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

9 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic:

10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Brown.

11 A. Good morning, Mr. Ostojic.

12 Q. My name is John Ostojic, as you know. I represent, along with

13 Branko Lukic, the accused Dr. Milomir Stakic. It has been brought to my

14 attention that on at least one occasion that I may have spoken a little

15 too fast during some cross-examination of witnesses. So as to avoid that,

16 since we both speak English, I would ask if you could kindly wait for the

17 entirety of my question before you provide me with your thorough and

18 complete answer.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And to facilitate your work, let's, please, go

20 in the beginning in closed session.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 [Closed session]

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8666

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 8666 to 8705 redacted closed session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8706

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 [Private session]

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8707

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 8707 to 8710 redacted private session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8711

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

5 Q. Mr. Brown, within your CV, you state that as part of your duties

6 and responsibilities is to review these combat regulations and doctrine,

7 as well as to review witness statements. I think it's actually the very

8 last two words of your curriculum vitae. Correct?

9 A. Yes, as part of other tasks in relation to my work in the team, I

10 do at times review witness statements.

11 Q. For purposes of completeness, it's one of the factors you would

12 incorporate in preparing and analysing the outcome of your report.

13 Correct?

14 A. Not in this particular report.

15 Q. I recognise that you didn't do it in this particular report. And

16 my question is to you for purposes of completeness, why didn't you, sir,

17 review the combat regulations, the military doctrines from both the SFRY,

18 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, why you didn't review the

19 Bosnian BH constitution, why you didn't review the military laws on

20 defence, why didn't you review the witness statements that are in the

21 possession of the OTP in connection with clarifying the issues of both the

22 arming of the Muslims as well as how and when checkpoints were put into

23 place in the area of Prijedor municipality?

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was an argument, not a question.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps I can restate the question.

Page 8712

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please do so.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. Can you share with me the reason why you didn't review witness

4 statements with respect to the preparation of this report?

5 A. That was one of the requirements placed on me during the initial

6 brief, that it was to be a documentary-based report.

7 Q. Can you point in the military documents that you have where any of

8 the correspondents -- just for purposes of clarity, before I move on to

9 the next question, your answer says that this was one of the requirements.

10 In fact, what you're saying, if I'm correct, sir, one of the requirements

11 was for you not to look at the witness statements. Correct?

12 A. That is correct. It was to be a documentary-based report.

13 Q. That's what I understood. Thank you. As I was starting to ask,

14 can you point to the number of military documents which either Dr. Stakic

15 has been copied on or sent to a military battalion, platoon, squadron, or

16 corps?

17 A. Outside the documents relating to the meetings that occurred in

18 Prijedor, National Defence Council meetings, Crisis Staff meetings, or

19 other references that relate to those, I've not seen a document in the

20 military collection that has Dr. Stakic on the distribution list.

21 Q. Is that significant at all? In your opinion, as an objective

22 military analyst?

23 A. I would not necessarily expect Dr. Stakic, as a municipal figure,

24 to appear in documentation, especially corps-level documentation.

25 Q. Would you expect to see it in any level, not just the corps level,

Page 8713

1 if there was any responsibility from a hierarchical command structure?

2 A. I can't answer whether I would expect it or not.

3 Q. Let me direct your attention, if I may, to page 32 of your report,

4 I think, where you tell us again a limitation, although not necessarily

5 covered earlier yesterday or today, and that is that you state: "It is

6 not within my remit --" or "It is not within the remit of this report to

7 analyse the detailed functioning of the Serb Crisis Staff, although some

8 general comments should be noted." Do you see that?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. Is that also a limitation of your report?

11 A. Yes, it is. It's a limitation, and the documentation I used in

12 relation to the Crisis Staffs, I concentrated on their issues or points

13 that related to defence matters and not necessarily every aspect of Crisis

14 Staffs; their function, their establishment, their history, their role,

15 and where they fitted in throughout the whole of the war.

16 Q. Did you, sir, at any time create a hierarchy of the MUP, the

17 Ministry of Internal Affairs, or review documents in connection with

18 establishing what that hierarchy is?

19 A. I didn't establish a hierarchy of the MUP.

20 Q. Do you know, sir -- pardon me.

21 A. In particular, the remits of the paper were about military

22 activity. However, through looking at documentation, it is evident that

23 there certainly was a chain that ran from Prijedor SJB to Banja Luka CSB,

24 and the documents that we've reviewed over the last day would indicate

25 that. But as to the detailed structure of the Bosnian Serb MUP, with all

Page 8714

1 its facets, was not within the scope of this paper.

2 Q. You're familiar, sir, are you not, in having reviewed other

3 matters and materials, that Article 3 of the law of the military defence

4 has a provision which suggests or clearly states that there's a principle

5 of unity command between the army and the police?

6 A. I'm aware that unity of command was a principle of both the JNA

7 and the VRS, and that unity of command was not limited exclusively to the

8 army and the police. Unity of command referred to a unity of, as we have

9 discussed earlier on, political direction. But I'm aware of unity of

10 command within military doctrines of the JNA.

11 Q. Are you aware, sir, that the unity command doctrines of the JNA

12 that you reviewed do not include that a local politician from a

13 municipality such as Prijedor would have any influence or control or

14 direction involving either the military or the police which we've

15 interchangeably, I think, called the MUP? M-U-P; right?

16 A. I would have to review the doctrinal manuals again. I would argue

17 in this particular case, in the period that we're discussing, that local

18 political figures did have an influence on events, and not just local

19 political figures, but those at a senior level. And to somehow argue that

20 there was a ruthless separation between the military and the political

21 figures and that they had no influence at all is not an assessment I would

22 support from the documentation that I have reviewed.

23 Q. Since you're giving an objective report, and not knowing exactly

24 what the Defence may be, are you being perhaps presumptuous that, in fact,

25 the position as you state it would be the position of the Defence?

Page 8715

1 A. I'm not making any presumptions at all in that. But your

2 questions, and not just the last one but other ones, you're discussing

3 about political/military relationship. All I can say in that respect,

4 from the documentation that I've seen, is that there clearly was a

5 relationship.

6 Q. And that relationship was, as you defined it, as being limited, is

7 it not, limited to being just that of "influence of events." Correct?

8 A. No. I would say it's more than simply influence.

9 Q. Sir --

10 A. I think there are examples from the documentation that I've seen

11 that show close coordination, close cooperation, a flow of events from

12 republic through region through municipal level that ended up with action

13 on the ground involving police and military units.

14 Q. Did you see in the documents that you reviewed that Dr. Stakic

15 ever gave an order to a military personnel or to a police officer to

16 perpetrate or to commit any crimes whatsoever in the Prijedor

17 Municipality?

18 A. In the documentation I've seen, no, I don't see that.

19 Q. You and I both know, sir, that, in fact, when you use words such

20 as "cooperation" and "coordination" they indeed have military

21 significance, do they not?

22 A. Yes, they do.

23 Q. And in fact, when you use the word "cooperation" as you do within

24 your report, it indicates what?

25 A. It's not only a word that I use, but obviously the documentation

Page 8716

1 reflects that as well. Cooperation involves a number of bodies working

2 together, some kind of mutual support with a common aim.

3 Q. And militarily speaking, "coordination" would mean what?

4 A. Ensuring that military tasks are completed in a unified manner and

5 receiving the support from bodies that can support that or support them.

6 Q. But is it true, sir, that in the military regulations and

7 doctrines that you reviewed, there's a clear and distinct distinguishment

8 between the words "coordination" and "cooperation"?

9 A. They are both used.

10 Q. I'm not asking you if they are used in the documents that you

11 reviewed, sir. And regrettably, some of the translations you and I

12 together may not agree upon. I'm asking you specifically within the

13 combat regulations and the doctrines that you've reviewed and have

14 apparently relied upon, do you know whether or not there is a clear

15 distinction distinguishing the words "coordination" and "cooperation"?

16 A. All I can say is that in both military documents and in, for

17 example, the Crisis Staff document the 20th of May, that "coordination"

18 and "cooperation" are used. They are used as separate words in those

19 documents.

20 Q. These nonmilitary people who may have used the word

21 "coordination," do you know whether or not they knew what the

22 significance that was as it may relate to the military doctrines and

23 regulations that you rely upon and that existed in 1992?

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the witness can't answer this question.

25 MR. OSTOJIC:

Page 8717

1 Q. Let me ask you this, sir, do you agree with Philip Coo, who says

2 that on page 10.079 of his testimony recently, that in fact the word

3 "coordination" has command implications but the word "cooperation" does

4 not?

5 A. Yes, I probably would agree with that.

6 Q. Well, in your Power Point presentation, when you talk about the

7 cooperation of the military and the civilians, can I -- sorry. If you can

8 just put it on your laptop, and then we can see it. It says

9 "Army/civilian cooperation Prijedor." May I be presumptuous and infer

10 that in fact, based upon your definition, based upon what the law was at

11 that time, based upon your experience, that in fact the cooperation that

12 you cite for us under that caption, which was the last, I think, slide

13 that you presented, in fact, has no command implications?

14 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, if it facilitates, I was told the ELMO

15 works now. So if you have a hard copy, maybe you can...

16 MR. OSTOJIC: I have one.

17 THE WITNESS: I have one as well. Do we need to put it on?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps for those who may not have --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, perhaps for those who do not have a copy.

21 THE WITNESS: This slide here? It does say "cooperation" in the

22 slide. However, some of the references that I've highlighted, in

23 particular, the 20th of May, 1992, instruction makes reference to

24 coordination as well as cooperation. Possibly the slide should read

25 "coordination" and "cooperation."

Page 8718

1 MR. OSTOJIC:

2 Q. I'm not criticising you for that. But I think in your objective

3 analysis, you didn't include it. And I think if you look at the

4 objectiveness of the fact that there's a distinguishment between those two

5 words, that in fact when you use the word "cooperation" here, it has, as

6 I've stated earlier without getting an answer, it has no command

7 implications. Correct? We'll break it down one by one in a second, but

8 if I can get the answer to that question, I'd be happy to move along.

9 A. All I can say is that other documentation indicates coordination

10 as well as cooperation. I would accept that cooperation may not on its

11 own indicate a command relationship, and that coordination is certainly a

12 stronger word and may well indicate command relationship, or potential

13 command relationship.

14 Q. Help me with this: Do you know if there's a difference between

15 what's known as a staff organ and an organ that is engaged in commanding?

16 A. Normally, there is a commander, and a commander will have a staff.

17 Staff are there to, in essence, facilitate a command function of that

18 commander.

19 Q. In your opinion, sir, does the staff organ and the people within

20 that, the staff of officers supporting the commander in exercising of his

21 command responsibilities themselves, do they have command responsibility

22 or not?

23 A. I would argue that in some cases they can.

24 Q. So if I share with you that on page 10.119 of Mr. Philip Coo's

25 testimony recently he argues quite the opposite, you would disagree with

Page 8719

1 him. Correct?

2 A. I would have to read what he said, if you can put that to me.

3 Q. I will. "The commander is the individual with command

4 responsibility; the staff organ is the staff of officers supporting the

5 commander in the exercise of his command responsibilities but they

6 themselves do not have command responsibility." Again, I think it's

7 10.119 is the page number of the transcript in the case of, for the Court,

8 the OTP versus Slobodan Milosevic.

9 A. I would argue that, under most circumstances, that was the case.

10 There may potentially be times when a commander would issue instructions

11 to subordinate staff officers for certain issues. As a general principle,

12 I would probably argue - I'm not quite sure if I would be so emphatic -

13 that in all circumstances, at all times, the staff would not be exercising

14 some kind of command responsibility. However, it is the responsibility of

15 the commander to command, and it is the responsibility of the staff to

16 facilitate his orders and instructions.

17 Q. Just to stay with the ELMO and the Power Point presentation

18 involving army and civilian cooperation in Prijedor to your right, you

19 reference one particular document dated the 26th of April, 1992. Can you

20 share with me, sir, with respect to this document by Mr. Branko Djeric

21 whether or not paragraph number 4 of that document wherein it clearly

22 states that there should -- let me read it to you just to make sure I have

23 the quote. "The command of the TO and the police forces is under the

24 exclusive authority of the professional staff." Just for completeness,

25 I'm going to read the whole thing. I have several questions on that

Page 8720

1 point.

2 And it proceeds to say: "And therefore, any interference

3 regarding the command of the TO and/or the use of the police forces must

4 be prevented" of paragraph 4. Are you familiar with that paragraph?

5 A. Yes, I am.

6 Q. Within this, when Mr. Djeric identifies -- just tell us again who

7 he is so I have a complete appreciation for his position within the

8 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

9 A. He was the Prime Minister.

10 Q. And you get that from the signature block. Correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. He directed this Exhibit S59 -- I apologise, Your Honour, for not

13 identifying it -- S59, he directed this to whom?

14 A. Can I read the document?

15 Q. Of course.

16 A. He directs the instruction to the Municipal Crisis Staffs of the

17 Serbian people.

18 Q. Isn't it true, sir -- well, strike that. Let me ask this question

19 first to get a better understanding of this paragraph. When Mr. Branko

20 Djeric identifies that the TO and police forces and its command structure

21 is under the exclusive authority of the professional staff, in your

22 opinion as a military analyst having reviewed these documents and based

23 upon your experience, who do you think he is identifying as a professional

24 staff?

25 A. The commanders of those particular units, the commander of the TO

Page 8721

1 and the police.

2 Q. He's not referring to a local politician; right?

3 A. I'm assuming he's referring to the professional TO commander and

4 the MUP commander.

5 Q. Staff organs that we talked about earlier. Correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And the commanders within those organs. Correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And then when he proceeds to say: "And therefore any interference

10 regarding the command of the TO and/or use of the police forces must be

11 prevented," is it clear, sir, that he is giving an indication that there

12 cannot be and must not be any interference with respect to command

13 involved by those other than the professional staff vis-a-vis the TO and

14 the MUP?

15 A. Yes, he does. However, I'd like to add that I don't believe in

16 the Prijedor Crisis Staff document of the 20th of May that that particular

17 section is replicated. And in relation to defence issues, on the 20th of

18 May document, it states that in discharging its functions in the area of

19 defence, the Crisis Staff, relating to Prijedor, shall coordinate the

20 works and activities of all components of All People's Defence. And I

21 believe that Branko Djeric's section is not contained within the Prijedor

22 Crisis Staff decision of some one month later.

23 Q. And had it been included within the Prijedor Crisis Staff May

24 20th, 1992, decision, being an objective military analyst, you would have

25 simply come in here and told us under oath that, in fact, because this

Page 8722

1 provision is included, that there was absolutely no command responsibility

2 as it relates to Dr. Stakic and either the military and/or the police.

3 Right?

4 A. It doesn't relate to the military in entirety; it relates to the

5 TO.

6 Q. I'll be glad to modify my question to the TO and to the MUP.

7 A. If it had been present, I would have had to take that into

8 consideration. I don't think it's an unusual request, however. Djeric

9 may well have been stating that, in essence, the military or TO, actually,

10 and police had their roles to do, and that was their function. But I do

11 find it somewhat interesting that it isn't in the Prijedor Crisis Staff

12 and that Article 6 of the Prijedor Crisis Staff document does indicate

13 issues of Defence and coordination with components of All People's Defence

14 as well as other issues relating to military matters.

15 Q. Are you familiar that in fact Mr. Branko Djeric is merely reciting

16 the law as it existed at that time relating to the command responsibility

17 and whose control and authority the MUP or the TO would have been in,

18 having reviewed those VJ doctrines, the constitution, and other military

19 defence materials of Prijedor and Republika Srpska?

20 A. I'm unsure if that's an exact replica of those regulations, and I

21 would have to check that.

22 Q. As you sit here, do you have any inclination one way or the other

23 whether that is the law as it existed in 1992?

24 A. In where? Which law; RS or --

25 Q. Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which obviously related

Page 8723

1 to the Prijedor Municipality, that in fact the exclusive authority of the

2 TO and the police forces belongs to the professional staff and that no one

3 must interfere and any interference must be prevented?

4 A. I could not quote specifically which part of Republika Srpska law

5 that that might have come from, or is replicated in RS law.

6 Q. You mentioned --

7 A. I don't find it an unusual issue in a way. The MUP are a

8 profession. The military are a profession. And of course, there is one

9 thing in relation to the law, there is another in relation to the

10 application.

11 Q. I agree. And when we discuss the law or the de jure

12 responsibility of a local politician, would you agree with me that the

13 law, as it existed at that time, in fact, clearly and unequivocally

14 recited the fact that at the very least the TO and the police were under

15 the exclusive authority of the professional staff as you've identified

16 previously here today?

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness has already several times stated

18 that he is not aware of this text, and it would not be responsible for the

19 witness to answer on this basis.

20 MR. OSTOJIC:

21 Q. Let me direct your attention, if I may, again, to your slide, your

22 Power Point presentation. Under May 20, 1992, there, you in fact use the

23 words, sir, that the Prijedor Municipal Assembly decision broadly

24 implements Djeric's instructions, as opposed to, let's say, narrowly.

25 Correct?

Page 8724

1 A. The Prijedor decision on the 20th of May is significantly more

2 detailed than the Djeric instruction. It adds in other articles that

3 aren't contained within the Djeric instruction. But there's a broad

4 similarity in the two documents.

5 Q. Is that what you're trying to say with respect to that section,

6 20th of May, 1992, within this Power Point presentation?

7 A. Yes, I believe so.

8 Q. Can you describe for me here, sir, what the structure, since you

9 indicate that there were some links, and what the hierarchal structure was

10 of the MUP, starting with the chief of police within the Prijedor

11 Municipality?

12 MR. CAYLEY: Asked and answered, Mr. President. He has already

13 asked him this question. The witness explained what the hierarchy was in

14 the MUP, so now he's repeating his questioning.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: I totally disagree that we were given a hierarchy of

16 the MUP leading up from the Prijedor Municipality all the way through to

17 the federal level.

18 MR. CAYLEY: The witness was asked, Mr. President, what the

19 hierarchical structure was of the police. And the witness responded - I

20 remember it very clearly - he stated, "I haven't done an exact study of

21 that but I looked at the documents and I can tell you it went from

22 Prijedor to Banja Luka Regional CSB headquarters."

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have the impression the former question was

24 related to the MUP in general and now the question is on the hierarchy of

25 the MUP only in Prijedor Municipality. I think --

Page 8725

1 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Ostojic has just mentioned the federal police.

2 Now he's moving us towards Yugoslavia because that's where the

3 headquarters of the federal police are.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I know, I know. Yes, let's try to understand

5 this question, or Mr. Ostojic may rephrase the question. When indeed its

6 limited to the Prijedor Municipality, it is admissible. When it's on the

7 MUP in general, indeed, the question has already been answered.

8 MR. OSTOJIC:

9 Q. Help me with this, Mr. Brown, if you may: With respect to the

10 Prijedor Municipality, do you know what the hierarchy was of the police?

11 A. Within Prijedor police, I am unaware of the hierarchy.

12 Q. Do you know, sir, if -- well, it's a difficult question but I'm

13 going to ask you it anyway: You did mention that the Prijedor police

14 reported to the CSB in Banja Luka. Correct?

15 A. Yes, I believe that to be the case.

16 Q. Can you point in one document that you have from which you rely

17 upon that the Prijedor MUP reported to the Municipal Assembly or the

18 Crisis Staff?

19 A. Yes, I can.

20 Q. Point it out.

21 A. It's the -- not the Municipal Assembly as such, but the municipal

22 SDS board meeting held on the 9th of May.

23 Q. Let me interrupt you just for a minute. We'll get to those

24 documents in a second. If you could find a document specifically

25 referencing that the police, the MUP in Prijedor, reported to the Crisis

Page 8726

1 Staff during the time period that we're discussing and/or the Municipal

2 Assembly from April 1992 through September 1992.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask Defence counsel that he gives the

4 witness the opportunity to make reference to that document he wants to

5 make reference to.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: That would be fair, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Brown, proceed as you wanted.

8 THE WITNESS: The document dated the 9th of May of the SDS

9 municipal board meeting at which 32 members of the Prijedor municipal

10 board attended was also attended by Simo Drljaca, the police chief. And

11 he clearly is briefing those present on a number of issues and some

12 concerns, one being that the TO should take over some responsibilities of

13 guarding or protecting facilities. He briefs the municipal board meeting

14 on negotiations that are ongoing in Ljubija and Kozarac and the extension

15 of deadlines. He makes reference that the police are working on the

16 prevention of smuggling and crime and makes note of the issues of salary

17 payments.

18 MR. OSTOJIC:

19 Q. Just for the record, if I may - I don't know if you're complete or

20 not - that's SK46. Correct?

21 A. Yes, I believe that is. There are the other minutes which we have

22 discussed in relation to the National Defence Council in Prijedor, which

23 the police chief clearly is briefing those present on the situation in the

24 municipality. And I believe we have gone over two of those.

25 Q. We have.

Page 8727

1 A. There are also the references in the establishment instruction of

2 Omarska camp which discuss, as a result of Crisis Staff decisions, that an

3 establishment instruction is sent to the Crisis Staff, or at least the

4 Crisis Staff is on the distribution list. Those are a couple of examples.

5 Q. I'd like you to list all of them, but if you could confine it, if

6 I may - and I thought my question was precise, I apologise if it was

7 inarticulate - I'd like to see, and I couldn't -- I'd like to see which

8 documents that you have that you're supporting to show that there's a link

9 of some responsibility between the police, military, and the local

10 politicians, the document from either the MUP or the military to the local

11 politician or that organ.

12 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I'm objecting because Mr. Ostojic

13 characterises the question in such a way as if the witness hasn't actually

14 answered the previous question, and the previous question was, "Are there

15 any documents which indicate that the police were reporting to the Crisis

16 Staff?" And the witness has very clearly demonstrated exactly that with

17 this document, with this document of the SDS board meeting together with

18 the Omarska establishment document in which Drljaca signs it, stating,

19 "I'm setting up Omarska camp in accordance with the instruction of Crisis

20 Staff." So he has answered these questions and I think we should move on.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: After having conferred with my colleagues,

23 sustained.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: May I just --

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed with the line of questions.

Page 8728

1 MR. OSTOJIC:

2 Q. Within SK46, sir, do you not note that the intent at all times of

3 Dr. Stakic within the specific time period in question clearly states what

4 when he is referenced in quoting, that there should be war or that peace

5 must be maintained at all costs? SK46, page 2.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this famous sentence is now in all our

7 heads. It must not be restated and we have to discuss the importance of

8 this sentence later, no doubt.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Should I move on, Your Honour? Is that what you're

10 suggesting?

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry?

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Should I move on, Your Honour? Is that what you're

13 suggesting?

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, it doesn't make much sense. We have read

15 these documents and the final evaluation is for us. And I think the

16 witness gave a clear answer.

17 MR. OSTOJIC:

18 Q. Do you know what the term "SUP" means, S-U-P versus M-U-P, or the

19 acronym for that?

20 A. MUP is the Ministry of the Interior. The SUP, I believe, is the

21 national security service. I may be wrong, but...

22 Q. What I want to know is what you think it means. From some of the

23 documents we saw that there was an entity called a Secretariat of Internal

24 Affairs, the documents that you relied upon. Do you, sir, know whether or

25 not SUP in any way was the hierarchical link to the MUP?

Page 8729

1 A. I am unclear on that.

2 Q. Do you also, sir, agree with me that because you're unclear of

3 that you would also be respectfully unclear of what, if any, relationship

4 local politicians may have within the SUP vis-a-vis the MUP?

5 A. Yes, that was not part of my report.

6 Q. Let me turn to another topic if I may, with the Court's

7 permission. Militarily speaking, you are familiar with the term "rules of

8 engagement," are you not?

9 A. Yes, I am.

10 Q. And militarily speaking, those rules of engagement constitute

11 specific and precise manner in which military personnel would act under

12 both noncombat and combat activities. Correct?

13 A. Yes, yes, generally they do.

14 Q. Or, if I may be somewhat presumptuous, do the rules of engagement

15 specifically are put in place during only combat activities?

16 A. I'm only in a position to give experience from my own military

17 service where there are rules of engagement during peacetime as well as

18 combat operations.

19 Q. Fair enough. With respect to some of the language that you've

20 used in your report, and I note the deliberate manner in which you've done

21 so, there are words such as "request" and "order." Those two words

22 separate and apart have significant meanings within the purview of

23 yourself such as a military analyst, do they not?

24 A. Yes, they do.

25 Q. Share with me, sir, what the difference is between a request and

Page 8730

1 an order.

2 A. An order is a direct command for action and, in military contexts,

3 has something that normally is obeyed by subordinate units. A request is

4 generally something less than that; a request for information. Having

5 said that, requests do have a -- there is clearly a relationship that the

6 request should be satisfied by a subordinate, but clearly an order I think

7 is more emphatic.

8 Q. In fact, does not an order establish some sort of link whereas a

9 request clearly does not? Would you agree with me there?

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, once again, these are two extremely

11 judicial and also military judicial terms. And to define these terms both

12 in the judicial context and in the military context, it's for the Judges

13 to find the definition and not for the witness. I apologise, Mr. Brown,

14 but this is an area we should have for ourselves. Thank you.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour -- Your Honour, if I just may be heard

16 on this point, briefly, very briefly.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before you start, I thought we did overcome this

18 period that we had in the beginning that we discuss strictly legal issues,

19 yes, echoed by a witness. I think it's for the argument and for closing

20 arguments maybe, or deliberations, to discuss these issues. But what

21 there is an order, what there is a request, this is public domain. It's

22 highly disputed in both areas, and therefore, it should be indeed for the

23 Judges to find these terms. And one shouldn't make the attempt, it would

24 be misleading, to discuss, for example, the distinction between

25 "cooperation" and "coordination." This would be two sophisticated. And

Page 8731

1 of course, the witness being not the author of the documents including

2 these words cannot comment on this. And I can cast with a deluge of

3 explanation on "request" and "order" and "cooperation" and "coordination";

4 it doesn't help much. The witness is not the author of these documents,

5 and therefore we should refrain from these sophisticated distinctions

6 helping us not one step further. But please, if you want to comment and

7 to give an argument to the record, it's your right.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't want to make an

9 argument. Actually, I am seeking some direction on that. The documents

10 specifically offered and relied upon by Mr. Brown clearly have the

11 language of request in the documents that he relates to the political

12 establishment in Prijedor in 1992. Having been presented as a military

13 analyst and knowing personally the significance of both the words

14 "request" and "order," I think it's within the purview to establish

15 whether or not that from a military standpoint may have significance.

16 We're not asking at this time for the Court to decide on any threshold

17 issues involving either "cooperation," "coordination," or "orders."

18 However, once this witness, in my opinion, talks about it, I'm simply

19 laying the foundation so that I wouldn't be accused later of being

20 presumptuous as to what the words mean. I'm willing to go with his

21 definition; I'd like to make a specific relationship with the documents

22 wherein those words are specifically used. But nevertheless, I'm willing

23 to proceed.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this.

25 MR. OSTOJIC:

Page 8732

1 Q. With respect to this issue of rules of engagement, sir, are you

2 familiar with what the rules of engagement are during combat activities?

3 A. It's a very general question, I think. I wonder if it could be

4 pared down. I don't think there are general rules of engagement that,

5 say, are all encompassing for all situations, for all military

6 organisations.

7 Q. In fact, it would depend on whether the military personnel were

8 either provoked or attacked themselves, correct, as opposed to a military

9 who's passing through, let's say a convoy on the Banja Luka/Prijedor main

10 road on or about April 30th, 1992?

11 A. I don't think rules of engagement are dependent on that type of

12 scenario. Rules of engagement give guidelines to militaries where they

13 are allowed to -- from my perspective where they are allowed -- the level

14 of force that they are allowed to utilise in particular circumstances.

15 Potentially in peace, potentially in war.

16 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, can I just clarify for the purposes of

17 the record, what rules of engagement are we talking about? Are we talking

18 about JNA rules of engagement? Or Are we talking about British army rules

19 of engagement? Are we talking about the French army's rules of

20 engagement? Because I think we need to be specific here if we're talking

21 about what was happening in Prijedor, then there must have been rules of

22 engagement that were issued by the JNA which Mr. Lukic and Mr. Ostojic

23 presumably have and can be shown to the witness and then we can discuss it

24 in detail, but to talk in generic fashion like this is, in my view,

25 extremely misleading.

Page 8733

1 MR. OSTOJIC: I disagree. And I will tell the Court why,

2 respectfully, to Mr. Cayley. This witness answered the foundational

3 question. If Mr. Cayley would like to testify, let him so state. The

4 witness recognises what is a well-known international terminology called

5 rules of engagement which deals specifically with his area of expertise,

6 having a background that he does. Specifically, it is that request that

7 we hope to analyse the three or four instances of what has been identified

8 in Mr. Brown's report as provocation as opposed to instigation, by others.

9 But we'll get to that in due time. Mr. Brown didn't object or didn't

10 hesitate to say that he is familiar with rules of engagement. Not only

11 was he familiar with them, he knew what they were in peacetime and, as he

12 says, wartime. And all we want to do is have an honest and objective

13 discussion about those.

14 MR. CAYLEY: He's talking about his own experiences,

15 Mr. President, [redacted], and I think it is misleading for

16 Mr. Ostojic to transpose the rules of engagement with which this witness,

17 [redacted], was familiar and to suddenly thrust those into

18 the middle of Prijedor in 1992. If Mr. Ostojic has the rules of

19 engagement of the JNA, of the VRS from that period of time, then let him

20 put them to the witness, because rules of engagement, by and large, are

21 written down. They are written, as are military regulations. So that is

22 all I'm asking, because otherwise the record is extremely misleading and

23 unclear.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Indeed, once again, it doesn't help to go in

25 sophisticated details of the definition of the one or other term indeed

Page 8734

1 used here, used there, with another meaning. Therefore, indeed, it's the

2 right of the Defence to discuss this issue, but related to the area in

3 question and, indeed, to be objective, whether or not there are indicia

4 that people followed these rules or not. This would be the question, and

5 I anticipate already now some questions by the Judges.

6 But indeed, it's not relevant what this notion means in general

7 but are there any such rules to be found and how are they refined

8 especially in the area in question? This is only the admissible question.

9 MR. OSTOJIC:

10 Q. Then we will formally adopt that question, and if the witness can

11 answer it.

12 A. During my analysis, Your Honour, I have seen no documentary

13 evidence indicating what the rules of engagement were, either from the JNA

14 during this period or after transition to the VRS.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. You discussed, sir, briefly in one of the documents and in your

18 direct testimony yesterday and today briefly items concerning discipline

19 and punishment of individuals. Correct?

20 A. I'm not sure which part you're referring to yesterday.

21 Q. Just generally, sir, do you remember discussing that in any of the

22 documents? Here's my question to you, and you tell me if you didn't

23 discuss it, be very candid and tell me you didn't. What was the link, if

24 any, of responsibility of a local politician to discipline a military

25 personnel who may have acted outside his scope of duties and obligations?

Page 8735

1 A. I did not address that in the report. I did not address that in

2 my direct testimony yesterday or this morning.

3 Q. What is the obligation, sir, of a local politician to punish a

4 military personnel who may have acted outside of his scope of duties and

5 obligations?

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness has answered this question and said

7 that he didn't address this question. And it did not form a part of the

8 testimony of yesterday or this morning. So I can't identify any

9 foundation. And, yes, leave it with this. It's better.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: The question was slightly different, Your Honour.

11 And I'm not just not sure if the witness will give the same answer, and I

12 was seeking to get three specific areas; punish -- or discipline first,

13 punish, and then prevent. And I broke it down -- I thought I did it that

14 way. If I misspoke, it's really I should include it as a compound

15 question, which may raise the OTP to object that it's compound. But

16 nevertheless...

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Subject matter is no doubt the fourth amended

18 indictment, and the question whether or not there was a kind of influence,

19 possible influence, then, of course, you're right. Please proceed in this

20 way, but the word "punish" never appeared until now, as far as I

21 recollect.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. With respect to this concept of influence, would you agree with

24 me, Mr. Brown, that before any individual, including a local politician,

25 would be able to influence a military person relating to military

Page 8736

1 personnel that may have acted outside the scope and obligations of their

2 duty, they would need to be informed clearly and precisely of what it is

3 or what action it is that needs to be either disciplined, punished, or

4 prevented. Correct?

5 MR. CAYLEY: I have to say, Mr. President, I don't know about the

6 witness, but I don't understand that question at all, so can we break it

7 down? It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's compound, as

8 Mr. Ostojic said a moment ago.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, indeed, it facilitates also the answer of

10 the witness if you can have certain portions, and then step by step

11 approach. But in the meantime, may I ask, any objections to delete from

12 the transcript you mentioned a certain country, and the profession?

13 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President, I'm sorry, I apologise. And in

14 fact the registrar kindly brought it to my attention and it should be

15 redacted.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: No objection, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then please proceed step by step.

18 MR. OSTOJIC:

19 Q. Sir, trying to proceed step by step, when you use the word

20 "influence," can you tell me what influence a local politician would have

21 to punish a military personnel who have acted outside the scope and

22 obligations of their duties, such as committing a crime?

23 A. This is a general question, I'm assuming, rather than a specific

24 one in relation, say, to Prijedor.

25 Q. I think the Court was clear; we were going to confine it to that

Page 8737

1 Prijedor area.

2 A. I do not know what influence a local politician would have to

3 punish military personnel who acted outside the scope and obligation of

4 their duties. Clearly, the military had prosecutorial process, but I'm

5 unaware of what the legal responsibilities of a local politician would be

6 in terms of influence. I would, again, add that in Prijedor, from the

7 analysis of the material I have seen, there was close linkage between the

8 military command, the police command, and the civilian authorities. And I

9 believe that documentation shows that. There are references that in

10 Prijedor, going on the 20th of May instruction, Crisis Staff instruction,

11 that it was an obligation for the Crisis Staff to be kept informed of

12 events on the ground in relation to defence matters. And other documents

13 in relation to, say, the National Defence Council indicate, again, that

14 linkage between the military, police and civilian authorities. And the

15 discussions at those meetings clearly indicate that events in the area are

16 being discussed.

17 But as to your question on the legal responsibilities of a local

18 politician, it is not addressed in my report and I have not analysed it.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Leaving for a moment aside the question of the

20 responsibility and who is a politician in this sense, would you regard it

21 as an influence to dismiss, for example, chief of police?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe if the chief of police was dismissed

23 on the instructions of a local politician, that clearly would be

24 influence.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

Page 8738

1 THE WITNESS: I would like to add one other thing; that in

2 relation to the Territorial Defence especially, that local politicians in

3 former Yugoslavia municipal level did have significant influence on the

4 issue of the Territorial Defence, both in the nomination of Territorial

5 Defence commanders and in their general administration.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

7 MR. OSTOJIC:

8 Q. And under which law, statute, doctrine do you base this opinion

9 on, sir?

10 A. Well, I'd have to check, and I cannot give you a law or statute at

11 the moment. But in Prijedor, for example, Slobodan Kuruzovic was

12 dismissed as Territorial Defence commander and placed under the command of

13 Prijedor regional command by a Crisis Staff decision of the 29th of May.

14 Q. Let me ask you this, if I may, sir: With respect to document -

15 and you can have it in front of you - S21 that we've previously identified

16 and a document that was, I believe, admitted today, S359, do you have

17 those two documents?

18 A. I'm a little unclear, the S numbers, what they would refer to

19 because I don't have that.

20 Q. Okay. I'll identify it. S21 is a document that I think you

21 identified as being from the Ministry of National Defence, dated the 16th

22 of April, 1992. And I think Mr. Cayley asked you the source or

23 reliability and integrity of the document, where you received it. And

24 then comparing that with S359, which is a document dated -- I'm sorry.

25 Actually, it's S358 that I'd like you to reference, which is a document

Page 8739

1 dated August 22nd, 1992.

2 THE REGISTRAR: May it assist if I give you the footnote numbers?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 THE REGISTRAR: S21 refers to footnote number 15, and S358,

5 footnote number 145.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If it assists the witness, please, the usher may

7 present Document S358 to the witness.

8 THE WITNESS: I have both documents here, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S21 and 358, you know what we are discussing.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, one is the 16th of April decision, and the

11 other one is the 1st Krajina Corps forward command post report to Prijedor

12 garrison command. Is that correct?

13 MR. OSTOJIC:

14 Q. Personally, it says, I think. Correct? Right?

15 A. It says, "personally."

16 Q. Yes, I just want to identify it. Then that's correct. That's the

17 one.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. Now, in discussing S21, I know you identify the source as being

20 AID in Bihac. If you look on the B/C/S, as we've identified it, document,

21 it's added there in the Cyrillic script of a Latin-script text: "To all

22 Serbian municipalities," is it not? I'll direct...

23 A. Yes, it does.

24 Q. You as a military analyst being familiar with reviewing documents

25 from the military police and political institutions, did that strike you,

Page 8740

1 sir, as being something highly unusual, that here is a document in its

2 formal manner, bearing a stamp, written in Latin script, that the words,

3 "To all Serbian municipalities" is apparently typed in but yet in Cyrillic

4 script?

5 A. It is unusual. I would accept that. However, for me, the

6 important document is the 4th of May document, or as important is the 4th

7 of May document which refers to the 16th of April decision. And when that

8 document is placed, as I did yesterday, with all the other ones, it would

9 indicate that there was a passage of that instruction down.

10 Q. Now, examining Document S358 in the couple minutes that we have

11 left, which was the document "To the Prijedor Operative Group Command (To

12 the Commander Personally)" --

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. -- that document certainly is significant, sir, is it not because

15 it identifies that there are "forged (antedated) documents" that are

16 circulating and that in fact individuals are trying to wash their hands

17 regarding the camps? Do you remember that document?

18 A. I do remember that document, yes.

19 Q. In connection with your analysis, your military analysis, did

20 that, sir, play any part in determining whether or not any of the

21 documents that you relied upon are indeed forged?

22 A. No, it didn't in particular because the reference in that document

23 states that it was "forged (antedated) documents" about the issue of

24 camps.

25 Q. That's exactly my point, Mr. Brown. And in fact the documents

Page 8741

1 that you rely upon on the establishment of both Omarska and Keraterm are

2 the documents from the police and/or military that are otherwise - at

3 least according to S358, people are trying to wash their hands - documents

4 that the OTP seized five years after the events in question are surfacing,

5 and those documents are purportedly suggesting to you that certain groups

6 but not others established those detention centres and camps, namely,

7 Omarska and Keraterm?

8 A. I'm a little unclear on the question. I wonder if you could

9 rephrase it.

10 Q. I will. You, sir, rely on documentation that obviously is in

11 existence that the OTP under a, in my opinion, in December of 1997 lawful

12 search and seizure confiscated or took documents from various institutions

13 in Prijedor five years after the period in question. Correct?

14 A. That's correct, yes.

15 Q. My point namely is that they did not, meaning the OTP or any

16 entity, perform a search and seizure and confiscation of those documents

17 at or around the time of their creation. Correct?

18 A. That's correct, yes.

19 Q. Understanding as a military analyst that there is a five-year gap

20 from the time of the events in question and the documents that were

21 seized, in light of Exhibit S358, did that play a role, sir, in your

22 analysis in determining who may have established the detention centres or

23 camps, namely Omarska and Trnopolje?

24 A. No, it didn't.

25 Q. Why not?

Page 8742

1 A. Because I believe that there are a number of documents from more

2 than one source relating to detention centres and their existence from

3 various dates. This document saying, "forged (antedated) documents" are

4 even appearing gives no indication of how many, who is writing them,

5 although it does make a reference to the Fatherland Front, and its sources

6 are scarce and the issue is sensitive. I would find it difficult to

7 believe that all the documents that have any reference to Omarska were

8 somehow all forged.

9 Q. I'm not suggesting that all of them do, sir. But did you during

10 your analysis as a military analyst, did you take into account S358 while

11 evaluating the report by the MUP which states that the Crisis Staff

12 established the Omarska Detention Centre?

13 A. No, I didn't believe that that was one of those documents being

14 referred to in this report.

15 Q. As you sit here, based upon your answer there, what documents do

16 you believe do fall or are referenced by this report S358 that constitute

17 a forgery?

18 A. It makes no reference to the documents. It just throws up that

19 maybe appear or are appearing.

20 Q. If I can turn briefly to one other issue in the limited time that

21 we have today, and that is the May 30th, 1992, attack on Prijedor by the

22 Muslim Bosniaks, if you will. You might need S358 still.

23 May I proceed?

24 A. Yes, please.

25 Q. Thank you. Do you know, sir, and are you familiar with who

Page 8743

1 actually on May 30th are the people who perished in the attack by the

2 Bosniak Muslims on the town of Prijedor?

3 A. Are you talking about the Bosniaks or the Serbs?

4 Q. Either one.

5 A. There is a list of some of the soldiers in one of the documents

6 who were killed during that attack. There's also a list of, I believe,

7 five police officers who were killed on that period, and I'm assuming that

8 they were killed as a result of that combat action.

9 Q. Are you familiar with the fact, sir, that Major Zoran Karlica was

10 also killed during the attack of the town of Prijedor on May 30th, 1992?

11 A. Yes, I am aware of that.

12 Q. Are you aware, sir, in light of Exhibit S358 that, in fact, that

13 as Mr. Zoran Karlica's unit, that because of the fact that he was killed

14 on May 30th, decided, as it says here, to commit numerous murders of

15 civilians, looting, private murders, et cetera; its members also stood out

16 in the mopping up action. And it continues to describe that since his

17 death, since the death of Major Zoran Karlica, the unit had a reputation

18 which has constantly plummeted?

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

20 Q. Keeping that in perspective, if you will, and in the proper

21 context, what link does the MUP or what authority would the MUP have with

22 respect to this unit that has apparently gone off on its own and has, for

23 one reason or another, decided to commit these tragic crimes?

24 A. Well, I would assume that if the MUP were aware that those crimes

25 had been committed, that they would have had some responsibility in

Page 8744

1 investigating those crimes and informing the military authorities of those

2 crimes.

3 Q. And if they were not aware, sir?

4 A. Well, clearly, if they were completely unaware of the crimes, they

5 are unaware of the crimes. And they would presumably not be in a position

6 to initiate an investigation.

7 Q. They would have no responsibility. Correct?

8 A. I can't say if they would have no responsibility. There may -- I

9 would assume -- maybe I'm straying out here of my report. But it is the

10 function of the police to detect and report crime.

11 Q. Let me just, in the minute or two that I have left, if I may, with

12 the Court's permission, same question with respect to the political

13 establishment in Prijedor in 1992.

14 A. Again, I can only go back on what I've said previously.

15 Q. Just so the record is clear, it would be the same answer that you

16 previously gave in connection with the MUP. Correct?

17 A. No. In relation to the question you asked some time ago on the

18 responsibilities of civilian authorities to punish, I'm unaware of the

19 responsibilities of civilian authorities. And all I can say is that from

20 the documentation that I've seen, civilian authorities had a

21 responsibility, according to the 20th of May instruction certainly, to

22 keep abreast of situations on the ground and that there was cooperation

23 between military police and civilian authorities in the documentation I've

24 reviewed.

25 Q. Just so I'm clear, are you saying that the political establishment

Page 8745

1 had more responsibility than the MUP did in investigating?

2 A. I can only say I don't know the responsibilities that were there.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

4 Your Honour, it might be a convenient time now in light of the

5 Defence's scheduled meeting with Dr. Stakic at 6.00. But I'm not sure --

6 again, we'll proceed in the manner the Court wishes obviously.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think no doubt this was the reason we

8 scheduled the possibility for having other visiting time for 6.00.

9 Dr. Stakic has to be brought to the Detention Unit first. And let's stop

10 immediately now.

11 One last-minute information I just got: Tomorrow, we will sit in

12 Courtroom II from 9.30 to 1.00 and from 2.30 to 4.00. And once again,

13 this allows you to contact Dr. Stakic immediately after this.

14 But in addition, to prepare a decision, may I have the submissions

15 by the parties. It's the intention of the Tribunal to proceed Friday

16 morning under Rule 15 bis due to the fact that Judge Fassi Fihri will not

17 be available on Friday morning. It's just a question of a right to be

18 heard before we prepare our decision.

19 MR. LUKIC: No objection on the side of the Defence, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this assistance.

21 May I also hear...

22 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, we agree, Your Honour. Thank you.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

24 This concludes today's hearing. Thank you, Mr. Brown. You see

25 it's necessary to continue tomorrow morning. And the trial stays

Page 8746

1 adjourned until tomorrow, 9.30.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

4 at 5.00 p.m., to be reconvened on

5 Thursday, the 26th day of September, 2002,

6 at 9.30 a.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25