1 Thursday, 8 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, all. May I have the appearances first
9 of all, and we were alerted on our way into court by the usher that there
10 are a number of -- that there may be a number of preliminary issues, and
11 whoever is moving those, perhaps we can deal with that before the witness
12 resumes to take the stand.
13 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. It's Joanna Korner and
14 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution. I wasn't aware there were a number
15 of preliminary issues. I simply said I wanted to mention timings. I
16 didn't appreciate there were other issues.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Stanisic Defence,
19 Well, there is just one issue, which I raised yesterday before we
20 adjourned, and we agreed that it should be brought this morning. Thank
22 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
23 Defence, Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, Brent Hicks, and Eric Tully.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Ms. Korner, your issue of timing.
25 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. I anticipate taking another hour and a
1 bit with this witness. I've still got a number of documents to go
2 through with him although I'm going to try and speed it up if he answers
3 just the questions I ask. There's then another witness organised for --
4 well, another two, in fact, for this week. I understand from Mr. Zecevic
5 and Mr. Pantelic this witness will go in to tomorrow with
6 cross-examination. We then have another witness, not Ms. Hanson, and
7 it's simply a question of whether Ms. Hanson is likely to start or not
8 tomorrow, because -- because of the arrangements made, it had been
9 arranged that cross-examination would in any event be delayed. So
10 whether it's worth starting her tomorrow I just don't know, but it seems
11 to me that it's unlikely with cross-examination of the next witness after
12 all of this, plus the videolink on Monday.
13 I'm asked to ask Your Honours on behalf of the lawyer who is
14 calling Ms. Hanson if we can take one and a half hours. It's obviously
15 an important piece of evidence. It's about -- she's the expert on Crisis
16 Staff. So the lawyer says an hour and a half in chief would be very
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand that the remaining witness other
20 than Mrs. Hanson is ST-13; is that correct?
21 MS. KORNER: That's right.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And ST-13 is called as a 92 ter witness.
23 MS. KORNER: That's right.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: May I then ask the Defence counsels if they have
25 made up their mind as to how much time they would need for their
1 cross-examination of ST-13. Do you know?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm not -- I'm not sure, Your Honours, that I can
3 give you that answer. My co-counsel is not present, and he will be
4 leading the cross-examination of that witness, but I will provide you
5 with the information as soon as possible. Thank you.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
7 Mr. Pantelic.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, ST-13 is -- yes. Just a second,
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MS. KORNER: The e-mail, maybe it will help Mr. Zecevic because
12 we turned up an e-mail we got about him. 30 minutes is what -- 60
13 minutes, I'm sorry, is what Mr. Cvijetic seems to have estimated.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: So one hour for Zecevic team to -- you said 60?
15 MS. KORNER: No, no, sorry. For us. No, I think it's -- I
16 haven't actually discussed it with the lawyer who is calling him either.
17 I don't think it's more than half an hour. Oh, yes. For us it's half an
18 hour. The Stanisic team sent us an e-mail saying they would be one hour
19 with ST-13, and 30 minutes for the Zupljanin team.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Forty-five, would I say, but we shall do our best
21 maybe to -- depending on the line of answering. Forty-five, I would say.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. The Chamber is of the opinion that
23 since the Prosecution asked for Mrs. Hanson to be called on Friday for
24 examination-in-chief, and since we have now twisted the arms of the
25 Defence counsels to accommodate that request, I think we should keep it
1 that way. So if we go on for the rest of this day with the current
2 witness and we finish him off early tomorrow morning and then proceed
3 directly to --
4 MS. KORNER: ST-13.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- ST-13, then we might or might not finish ST-13
6 tomorrow, and that spills into next week. So this is why we thought that
7 it might be preferable if we could finish ST-13 today. I don't know if
8 that is possible.
9 MS. KORNER: ST-13?
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, sorry. Sorry. We will finish the current
11 witness today, and tomorrow, Friday, we'll take whatever is left for this
12 witness, and then we will proceed with Mrs. Hanson.
13 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour. If --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mrs. Korner, please.
15 Microphone, please.
16 MS. KORNER: The estimate from both sets of -- oh, sorry. Thank
18 The estimate from both Defence counsel for the current witness is
19 two hours each to cross-examine. That means that he cannot be completed
20 within today's session. So he will spill into tomorrow definitely, to be
21 followed by ST-13, who if the estimates are right we are talking about a
22 further possibly two and -- an hour and a half, two hours for ST-13.
23 Thirty minute -- yes. So the most we could probably ask Mrs. Hanson for
24 her name and maybe get a couple of things in, and then she'd be adjourned
25 part heard in -- in examination-in-chief, to come back Wednesday or
1 however long the videolink takes. The videolink at the moment -- or
2 maybe Tuesday afternoon, because the videolink is set for Monday and to
3 go into Tuesday.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: How is this to the Defence?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I wasn't here on Monday and
6 Tuesday when this was reflected upon, but it is my understanding that we
7 would prefer that Ms. Hanson goes first before the ST-13 so that we hear
8 her in chief, and that will give us some time to prepare for our
9 cross-examination, because as you know, we received some -- some
10 additional documents very -- very lately about Ms. Hanson. So that was
11 my understanding, that she would be in chief on Friday and then we -- we
12 will cross-examine her probably on Wednesday.
13 So it would be preferable for the Defence if we can instead of
14 ST-13 hear Ms. Hanson in chief and then have on Monday and part of
15 Tuesday videolink, then after that we can have ST-13 on Tuesday, perhaps,
16 and then start the cross-examination of Ms. Hanson on Wednesday. That
17 would be our suggestion if -- if --
18 MS. KORNER: Can I -- personally and from our point of view,
19 we're happy to fall in with whatever the Chamber orders, but I think
20 you'd have to make your peace with VWS on this. Witness ST-13 has been
21 here since Wednesday and that would mean that he wouldn't get in to give
22 his evidence until the following Wednesday. And I don't know what
23 commitments he has either, but that would certainly cause, I'm sure, VWS
24 a problem; whereas, Ms. Hanson is here, works here, so she can give
25 evidence any time.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, this is definitely not the first case
2 in this first Tribunal where the witness stays for a bit longer period
3 than anticipated, so I don't see a big problem there.
4 MS. KORNER: Sorry, I've just been reminded. It is a problem
5 because of his work. We had to write a letter to his employer in any
6 event asking that he be allowed to come here. So if he doesn't give
7 evidence on Friday that would cause a serious problem to him, as well as
8 to VWS, plus cost.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: We have discussed the matter, and we think that
11 the most reasonable solution is to hear ST-13 tomorrow, Friday. But I
12 must also say, and the Chamber was unanimous in expressing its -- its
13 concern about these changes, I think we could have foreseen that
14 Mrs. Hanson finally would not be testifying this week had we been looking
15 more deeply into our crystal ball. So we don't think that if we put
16 Mrs. Hanson off until Wednesday next week that in that case no prejudice
17 will be made to the Defence.
18 You may recall that the whole exercise about having her
19 examination-in-chief was designed to compensate the Defence teams for the
20 inconvenience of having her come early. Now since -- if she's no longer
21 coming early, that is to say, if she would only come Wednesday next week,
22 the Defence should have ample time to prepare for its cross-examination.
23 So the order is that we will hear ST-13 tomorrow, and after when
24 we have finished off this witness, the current witness, and then we will
25 proceed with the videolinks Monday and Tuesday, and if we adjourn early
1 Tuesday then so be it, and you will then be ready to start your
2 examination-in-chief of Mrs. Hanson Wednesday.
3 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour, I think there's an added problem
4 I'm not going to trouble the Court with it now.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MS. KORNER: That's all -- sorry.
7 I think there's an added problem but I need to check on it before
8 I trouble the Court with it. All I was concerned about was whether
9 Mrs. Hanson would be starting tomorrow, and Your Honours have made that
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: To us it wouldn't make any sense nor any
12 difference really because she would be called only to, basically as you
13 say, state her name. And so for reasons of convenience I think it's best
14 that we now set the time that Mrs. Hanson will be called to testify first
15 thing Wednesday morning.
16 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, may I -- once may I address Your
17 Honour on this when I've taken some -- taken instructions, got further
18 information in the break and leave it to that, because I think there may
19 be an added problem about another witness. I'm sorry, about this, Your
20 Honour. I'm afraid it's happening because, A, trying to estimate times
21 for witnesses and cross-examination; B, because of the orders about not
22 calling witnesses. We've served extra statements. I'm not going to
23 trouble Your Honour unless it's going to be a problem.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, may I be fair and frank and say that
25 it is exactly this kind of shuffling back and forth that causes the
1 uncertainty in the planning of the trial. I think by now you should be
2 able to calculate exactly which witness can come when. The ban that
3 was -- the two months' ban that was imposed on the Defence -- on the
4 Prosecution, sorry, should now be dealt with, and the initial planning
5 problems that this ban may have caused for the Prosecution should be
6 overcome by now, and -- and I would strongly invite you to ensure that
7 the planning holds from now on so that we don't have to come into these
8 constant rearrangements of calling witnesses. There should be by now a
9 fixed plan for the calling of the witnesses for the next coming weeks.
10 Mr. Zecevic wanted the floor.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I understand the ruling of Your Honours.
12 That's what I wanted to say, and I was wondering when we can make the
13 submissions on the procedural matters. That was the only ...
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. Let's have them now.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I will try to be very short.
16 I understand the ruling by Your Honours that the witness like --
17 the witness that we are having, who is coming viva voce, the Trial
18 Chamber would like to have his previous statements. I'm just wondering
19 what -- will these previous statements be exhibited in this -- in this
20 case or not? That is the question number one.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: They will not be admitted into evidence by the
22 Chamber. If any of the parties seek to have them admitted, we'll make a
23 ruling on that. But the reason why the Chamber wanted to see the
24 statements is that it is an element which facilitates the
25 comprehension -- the Chamber's comprehension and understanding of the
1 witness's testimony if we have been able to read the statements in
2 advance. And in particular, when we come into situations such as the
3 situation we had a couple of days ago where the Prosecution and the
4 Defence were eagerly discussing what was in the witness's earlier
5 statement, while we had not seen the statement. So the Chamber felt
6 completely isolated from the discussion and couldn't understand what was
7 going on because we had not been able to read the statement. This is why
8 the Chamber ruled that from now on we would like to be able to read the
9 statements before the witness comes into the courtroom so as to have a
10 better understanding and orientation of the area and the questions which
11 the witness is going to testify about.
12 They will not be admitted by the Chamber without requests from
13 any of the parties.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, but with all due respect, Your Honours, I
15 believe in the previous situation we were cross-examining the witness on
16 his credibility on his previous statements, and they were both exhibited.
17 They were not? Okay, sorry. Now I understand -- I understand --
18 now I understand the concern of the Trial Chamber.
19 And the second thing -- thank you very much for this explanation.
20 The second thing is, I was reflecting yesterday evening again
21 about the P66, the map document. I'm sorry, but just one observation.
22 I believe the ruling of the Trial Chamber sort of departs from
23 the -- from the guidances. In which sense? Your Honours have ruled that
24 only the documents which are on 65 ter list will be admitted as evidence.
25 Now, this document is not exactly a document which appears on the 65 ter
1 list because it has been redrafted by -- by this witness. And I know
2 it's a small thing, but I just want to make sure that we -- that we have
3 understanding of -- of what are the rules in the court, because I mean,
4 we might come into this situation in the future, and I would like this to
5 be clarified if possible. Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think the situation yesterday with P66 was a
7 bit -- was a bit shaky, but the principle stands that for this trial all
8 evidence that comes -- that is finally admitted into evidence and given
9 an exhibit number shall have to come through the 65 ter list, and if a
10 party wants to have a document admitted into evidence and given an
11 exhibit number in this trial, then that party shall have to seek first
12 introduction of that document into the 65 ter list.
13 The purpose of this is for the Chamber to control the inclusion
14 of evidence into the trial.
15 Now, for the map, I understand that the raw map exists as a
16 65 ter number. Prior to the testimony of yesterday, the Prosecution
17 apparently sat down with the witness and made some markings on the map.
18 Well, I mean, the map was pre-marked by the witness, we understand.
19 MS. KORNER: It wasn't. He marked it in court.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, madam --
21 MS. KORNER: No.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: But there were pictures and a line and a red dot
23 on the map. That is not an original --
24 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Yes, I see what Your Honour means. We -- we
25 produced the maps with the 65 ter -- with the pre-trial brief in which we
1 indicated where various things were like the police station and all the
2 rest of it.
3 When the witness was shown the maps yesterday, as I indicated in
4 the note I sent, he said, "You've got the police station in the wrong
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sure.
7 MS. KORNER: It went back to the analyst who prepared them, who
8 prepared a new map to show it in the right place. And then he made some
9 markings on it when he was giving evidence.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sure. But -- so what you're telling me is that
11 what was included in the 65 ter list was the original map with this
12 witness's indications of the location of several buildings.
13 MS. KORNER: No. What was --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, please. What we saw yesterday was a
15 map on which electronic markings had been made, and then in addition to
16 those the witness made an additional marking, a further marking, during
17 his testimony.
18 I'm talking about the first version that appeared on our screen,
19 that is to say the map with the electronic markings. Those, I
20 understand, were added -- or were suggested by the witness prior to his
21 appearance in court.
22 MS. KORNER: One change was made to the original electronic map
23 as a result of what he said.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. Now, the ruling yesterday was that as a
25 matter of principle, we would prefer to have the raw maps without any
1 markings, be they electronic or otherwise, because this ensures the
2 Chamber that the markings are really made by the witness himself or
3 herself. So as a general rule, when you come with maps, with
4 photographs, or whatever it is, and you wish to have the witness's
5 markings or indications onto that picture, then please bring the raw
6 picture, the raw material, and then add the witness in court -- ask the
7 witness in court to add the markings that you wish to have included into
8 it. That is the general rule.
9 MS. KORNER: Can I just ask on that -- I'm sorry, Mr. Zecevic,
10 but just so I get it clear.
11 At the moment all the maps which are attached to the various
12 municipalities where appropriate have photographs of the buildings which
13 are of relevance, we submit, indicating where they are. That's how they
14 went into the pre-trial brief.
15 If I understand Your Honour's ruling rightly, the witness should
16 be shown a completely unmarked map with the photographs obviously by the
17 side but not indicating where they are on the map. Then if he
18 indicates -- if the witness is able to indicate where these buildings are
19 on the particular map, he should do so, and if they correspond with the
20 electronic version that's been pre-prepared, rather than get him to mark
21 another map with exactly the same indications as has already been
22 pre-prepared, would it not be preferable to use -- no.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, it would not, sorry. It would not. I think
24 if you have the map and you have the photos of the buildings next to the
25 map or aligned in the margin of the map, then you ask the witness in
1 court to draw a line from the building to the place on the map where the
2 building is.
3 MS. KORNER: So that we would have -- obviously if numbers of
4 witnesses are asked to do it, we would have a number of different
5 versions marked by witnesses, that's what Your Honour is suggesting.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: If it is necessary for the testimony of that
7 witness, yes.
8 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm just seeking
9 clarification. Thank you, Your Honour. It means, can I just say, we
10 will have to withdraw the present maps from the -- they will have to be
11 replaced with maps without indications.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, please.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 MS. KORNER: On the question of the previous statements and/or
15 interviews of the witnesses, those being called viva voce, I think
16 Mr. Zecevic has withdrawn his objection. What we've done with this
17 witness's previous statements, as I think Ms. Featherstone has informed,
18 is they're in e-court now so that Your Honours can extract them or look
19 at them on e-court.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. The witness may take the bench again,
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 WITNESS: NEDJELKO DJEKANOVIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, sir. I remind you that you're still
2 on your oath.
3 Yes, Ms. Korner. Please proceed.
4 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MS. KORNER: And microphone.
7 Examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
8 Q. Mr. Djekanovic, I just want to return briefly to a couple of
9 things I asked you about yesterday, if I may. You told us that in
10 accordance with the December 1991 instructions you did establish an
11 Assembly of the Serbian People. Is that right? Can you just answer yes
12 or no, because we dealt with this yesterday. I'm just setting the scene.
13 A. We formed the Assembly of the Serbian People of the municipality
14 of Kotor Varos, but I don't know whether we had committed ourselves to
15 the decision of December.
16 Q. All right. Did the Assembly of the Serbian People meet in the
17 municipal building in Kotor Varos? Before June the 11th, 1992.
18 A. We did not meet in the Municipal Assembly building in Kotor
19 Varos. These meetings were informal and held at other locations.
20 Q. Could you just mention a couple of locations where they were
21 held, please.
22 A. In some of the local community premises. Some of the meetings
23 were in Maslovare, some were in Grabovica, and so on and so forth.
24 Q. And they were held, were they, in the two municipalities that
25 you've mentioned, they were both ones which were majority Serb --
1 municipalities, sorry, places.
2 A. These were local communes within the Kotor Varos municipality
3 with a majority Serb population.
4 Q. And as regards to the Crisis Staff which we started to look at
5 the minutes of from June, that was, however, established earlier, was it
7 A. The Crisis Staff was formed much earlier, even during the
8 conflict in Croatia
9 aid to them, and so on and so forth.
10 Q. All right. And I just want to ask you about the regional Crisis
11 Staff for a moment, which we've touched on. That was headed by Radoslav
12 Brdjanin, wasn't it? He was the president.
13 A. I really cannot be sure after so much time has passed. I think
14 that he was for a while at least. I don't know if he was that for the
15 entire period.
16 Q. All right. Well, it's a matter of public record, but don't worry
17 about that.
18 You -- did you attend those meetings?
19 A. Some, yes, but not all.
20 Q. If you couldn't go, did representatives of your Crisis Staff
21 attend those meetings?
22 A. In most cases, yes, somebody did attend, except for the month of
23 June when we had problems with the roads to Banja Luka because of the
24 conflicts in the Kotor Varos municipality and the lack of safety on the
1 Q. Did you see at those meetings Stojan Zupljanin?
2 A. I did see him at some of the meetings, of course.
3 Q. And what about General Talic?
4 A. I don't think that I attended any meetings where General Talic
5 was present. It's possible that there was one when we had problems in
6 Banja Luka with the roads to Serbia. I think that that was one meeting
7 that I did attend when General Talic was also there.
8 Q. If he wasn't there was there a representative of the 1st Krajina
10 A. I didn't attend all of the meetings. He did attend some, others
11 he didn't, so I could not really say that a police of the -- a
12 representative of the police or of the corps was present at each of the
13 meetings. At some, yes; at some, no.
14 Q. And finally before we look at the next record of -- of a Crisis
15 Staff meeting in Kotor Varos, when you made the request for a special
16 unit or the request for assistance from Banja Luka for the taking of
17 power in Kotor Varos, to whom did you make that request?
18 A. There is no written request. We had been asking for assistance
19 for a while, probably for two or three months when it was evident that
20 the authority was not functioning in Kotor Varos and when it was evident
21 that the inter-ethnic conflicts in the territory of Kotor Varos
22 inevitable. Yesterday I said that the majority of militarily fit men of
23 Serbian ethnicity from Kotor Varos --
24 Q. Please. I'm so sorry, Mr. Djekanovic, but I am going to stop
25 you. That's not an answer to my question, and time is of the essence.
1 Whether it was written or oral, to whom was the request made in the Banja
2 Luka CSB?
3 A. We addressed everyone: The corps, the military corps, the police
4 station, the Crisis Staff. We sent the request to all addresses.
5 Q. To whom in the CSB did you address the request, written or oral?
6 Simple, straightforward question. Who, Mr. Djekanovic?
7 A. We spoke with Zupljanin and with some others. It wasn't always
8 Zupljanin. There were several persons at different posts. But since
9 Zupljanin was the head of the Crisis Staff and he was from our
10 municipality, it's quite normal that we spoke with him the most.
11 Q. Right. Thank you. Now, let's please look at another record of
12 one of your meetings, the 21st of June, and that is 65 ter 702.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, while we're doing that I can't remember
14 whether I made the meeting of the 19th of June an exhibit or asked for it
15 to be made an exhibit. The one we were looking at yesterday with the
16 65 ter number of -- no, I'll have to ask for that to be marked for
17 identification. It wasn't actually on our 65 ter list, yesterday's. 65
18 ter 10105. But it's just -- that's one of the imaginary numbers, so can
19 I have it marked for identification, please.
20 JUDGE HALL: So marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P77 marked for identification, Your
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. You see on the screen there the 31st meeting of the Crisis
25 Staff, 21st of June. You were having these Crisis Staff meetings on a
1 very regular basis, were you, at this stage?
2 A. In June it was almost on a daily basis, because that's what the
3 situation called for. Sometimes even twice a day.
4 Q. Can we come to the part at the bottom where Savo -- and that's
5 Savo Tepic, is it?
6 A. Savo Tepic was the -- a member of the Crisis Staff.
7 Q. Yes. But that's him speaking there, is it?
8 A. I assume that it is him. There's nobody else.
9 Q. Right. Highlighted the problem of a lack of personnel for
10 special training of the police.
11 What sort of special training did the police want?
12 A. The time didn't permit that, nor was there any kind of special
13 training. The word "special" was quite often used, but it was necessary
14 to replenish the police forces. There was a shortage of personnel. The
15 reserve force of the police had to be mobilised.
16 I don't know of any special training being conducted,
17 particularly at that time in the Kotor Varos municipality.
18 Q. So it had nothing to do with, for example, techniques of
20 A. That has nothing to do with that in particular, no.
21 Q. "It was concluded that Savo should invite Ljuban or Zdravko to
22 the next Crisis Staff meeting."
23 Ljuban was who?
24 A. I don't know specifically who was meant here. It was a long time
25 ago. I don't even know which Zdravko it was. There were two Zdravkos at
1 that point in time in the police. There was Zdravko Pejic and Zdravko
2 Samardzija. I knew Ljuban only slightly, but there was more than one
3 Ljuban, so I don't know exactly which one they're thinking of here.
4 Q. Okay. Well, which Ljuban did you know who was in the police?
5 A. I didn't know any of them. I had heard of Ljuban Ecim, but there
6 were some local Ljubans who were in the police, so that it's -- it's a
7 name that frequently appears. It's a common name in our area.
8 Q. All right. We'll come back to that in a moment. And he was --
9 sorry. And he was there, and that's he, Savo, was given the task of
10 briefing Stojan Zupljanin on problems were experiencing and scheduling a
11 meeting, attendance at which had been ensured from the following persons
12 in addition to the Crisis Staff members: Brdjanin, Peulic, Zupljanin,
13 and other competent people who might be able to help the Crisis Staff in
14 addressing these problems.
15 Stojan Z., who was that?
16 A. Stojan Z. If you're thinking of the task given to Savo, then
17 it's Stojan Zupljanin that's referred to. I don't know about the rest.
18 Q. All right. And so where we see Brdjanin, Peulic, and Zupljanin
19 there, the second time Zupljanin is mentioned do you know which Zupljanin
20 that was?
21 A. Well, because it's this unit, which was under the command of
22 Peulic, and Zupljanin was one of his assistants, even Chief of Staff at
23 that point or battalion commander, it's possible that this is about
24 Slobodan Zupljanin who was in command of one of the lower ranking lesser
1 Q. All right.
2 A. Who frequently attend our meetings too.
3 Q. All right. Did you have a meeting at which these people
5 A. I think that the meeting, the way it was planned to be held, was
6 actually not held. I don't know if any meeting was held where all of
7 these people attended. I don't remember Stojan Zupljanin attending any
8 meeting of the Crisis Staff. We did attend some other meetings together,
9 however, when we were talking with the church officials of the Muslim and
10 Catholic faiths. I don't know of Stojan Zupljanin attending any Crisis
11 Staff meetings though.
12 Q. All right. Well, I'll come on a bit later to meetings you
13 actually had with Zupljanin, but can you turn to the next page or item 3,
14 which is certainly on the next page in the -- in English, and also I
15 think in the B/C/S.
16 Item 3:
17 "A new proclamation on the return of weapons should be drawn up."
18 Had there been an earlier proclamation that weapons had to be
19 returned to the police?
20 A. There were several proclamations -- or, rather, actions to
21 collect weapons and to place them under control in order to avoid gunfire
22 incidents in the area. I don't know which one you're specifically
23 thinking of or whether it was issued by the War Presidency or some other
24 structure. I don't know.
25 Q. Don't worry about that. All I'm -- but there were orders for the
1 surrender or return of weapons as a result of an order issued by the
2 Crisis Staff, the autonomous region Crisis Staff?
3 A. We didn't act in accordance with nor were any Crisis Staff orders
4 reaching us at the time, especially this type of orders. This is more of
5 an action than an order, and it has nothing to do with any decisions by
6 the autonomous region Crisis Staff.
7 Q. All right. And then finally on this document:
8 "A decision on the proclamation of individual enemies of the
9 Serbian people should be prepared ..."
10 Who were the individual enemies of the Serbian people?
11 A. Could you please help me, tell me where to find that item,
13 Q. It's item -- under item 3 after the bit I just read to you about
14 the return of weapons.
15 "A decision on the proclamation of individual enemies of the
16 Serbian people ..."
17 It follows straight on.
18 A. I see it. Well, please believe me, I really cannot answer that
19 question. I don't know. The way you ask me now, I don't know what it
20 referred to or whether such a decision was made. I don't know if anyone
21 had a problem with that or was placed on any list of that nature or
22 whether it -- this had any kind of practical value.
23 Q. You were there, Mr. Djekanovic. You were presiding over this
24 meeting. Whether it was carried out or not, a decision was apparently
25 made. Who was to be named as an individual enemy of the Serbian people?
1 What group?
2 A. I repeat that I don't know any individual enemies. I mean, it
3 says here individual enemies. I don't know specifically to whom this
4 referred. I really don't know. And we did not make any such list ever
5 nor are there any traces of such a list having been compiled.
6 Q. So it wouldn't have included, for example, Anto Mandic, or
7 Mr. Petrusic, or Mr. Sadikovic?
8 A. In my opinion, no, it was never so.
9 Q. All right. Thank you. That's all that I ask on that document.
10 Can that be made. That is a 65 --
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, I was just notified by my assistants,
12 Your Honour, that there might be a problem with the -- with the document
13 which was tendered as a P77, marked for identification. It's on page 17,
14 10 to 12
15 I was notified by my assistants that what was used yesterday was
16 10106 and not 105. The OTP, therefore, used 10106, and now -- now they
17 said they used 105, which is not correct, and that is -- that one has
18 been marked for identification under P77. Thank you very much.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it's quite right. I'm sorry, it's my
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MS. KORNER: It's quite right. It's my fault. It's 1 -- it was
23 101 -- 10106, not 5 as I said. So it's my fault.
24 Right. However, this one, this document that we've just looked
25 at was on our 65 ter list, and it was number 702. So could that be
1 admitted, please.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P78, Your Honour.
4 MS. KORNER: Yes.
5 Q. Could we just briefly please now move to the -- the hearing --
6 the meeting that was held on the 23rd of June, which is not on our 65 ter
7 list but has been given the fake number 10107. I just want to ask you
8 about one matter on this.
9 It's under item 1. Two matters, actually.
10 This is Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic informing the members of the
11 Crisis Staff about combat activities in and around the area.
12 He said this:
13 "The situation was stable, a breakthrough by which a corridor
14 would be established towards Serbia
15 the operations planned for today, Savo Tepic informed the Crisis Staff of
16 the situation and the police."
17 So at this state by the 23rd of June, you and other members of
18 the Crisis Staff were being kept fully informed. Is that what this says
19 about the military and police operations?
20 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I object. It's a very leading
21 question. Here is the document. There is no mention the action conduct
22 by the military and police. That's a very leading way.
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. Just tell us, would you, Mr. Djekanovic, what the Crisis Staff
25 was being informed about then.
1 A. That depends on who attended which session of the Crisis Staff.
2 Q. On this -- on this occasion, were you being kept, as it says, "of
3 the military operations planned for today"?
4 A. No. At the War Presidency sessions there was never any mention
5 of military or police operations which were to be conducted on that day.
6 Unfortunately, we had a situation in which there were rumours going for a
7 couple of days through the town saying there will be an operation this or
8 that day, but that topic was never discussed at War Presidency sessions.
9 Such a decision was never made, and the War Presidency was never notified
10 of such things.
11 Q. Sorry. So what that sentence reads is plain, downright wrong.
12 Is that what you're saying? You were not given any information about the
13 military operations.
14 A. We received some information -- or, rather, a brief analysis that
15 covered the territory of Republika Srpska. It was not an obligation on
16 the part of Mr. Peulic, but he just wanted to brief us on the situation
17 on the ground. There was no information or notification of any military
18 combat operations during the Crisis Staff sessions.
19 Q. Okay. I want to be very clear about this, Mr. Djekanovic. Are
20 you saying you knew nothing about the operations on Vrbanjci?
21 A. Vrbanjci?
22 Q. Vrbanjci. I apologise.
23 A. There were several operations in Vrbanjci and in the general
24 region of Vrbanjci.
25 Q. So you were told about them, and you were told about them, were
1 you, by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic or Captain Zupljanin.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Who told you about them?
4 A. On the day of operations, I with know when -- where they would
5 take place, but no -- Peulic or Zupljanin did not tell me that there
6 would be an operation at Vecici, no, absolutely not.
7 Q. How about Hrvacani?
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, may I?
9 MS. KORNER: Of course you can, certainly.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, I hear you say that you were not
11 informed of the operations to come. Were you informed of the operations
12 that had taken place beforehand?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not even that. As part of the
14 situation analyses, we would occasionally receive information on certain
15 operations sometimes, but there were no regular reports on military
17 MS. KORNER:
18 Q. Were you informed about the -- the takeover of Hrvacani?
19 A. No.
20 Q. I want you to think about this, please, Mr. Djekanovic, quite
21 carefully. Are you saying you were not told today?
22 A. That I was told that Vrbanjci had been taken up or occupied
23 Hrvacani? No. Even if you have that in a document, I claim with full
24 responsibility that such a thing was not conveyed to me.
25 Q. All right.
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, we're going to reach a stage
2 which I think is going to require some kind of discussion in respect of
3 what's contained in the interview and what the witness is now saying.
4 It's a situation that has arisen in a number trials, but my application
5 is going to be that I could put to him what he said in interview.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, so can I just interrupt for a minute.
8 There is law on this as well, on this issue. I don't know if there's
9 going to be any argument from the Defence. If there is, maybe the
10 witness ought to withdraw.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. Mr. Witness, do you understand English?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Then I would kindly ask you to take off your
14 earphones. The --
15 MS. KORNER: There was a --
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- situation, I suppose, is whether you will be
17 asking for the right to cross-examine your own witness.
18 MS. KORNER: Exactly. I mean, that's in essence what it comes
19 down to.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: But that requires a formal request from your
22 MS. KORNER: I'm making the request now, Your Honour. That's the
23 point. I couldn't make the request before the situation arose.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Are you now asking the Chamber to declare this
25 witness a hostile witness --
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour --
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- which will allow you to cross-examine? Be
3 specific about what it is you want.
4 MS. KORNER: I am, but it's an interesting -- the rules don't
5 actually deal with a question of a hostile witness. It's not like a
6 common law situation, and that's always been the interesting part of
7 practice here. There is no specific mention in the rules of either
8 leading or non-leading questions or indeed when a witness is -- should be
9 treated as hostile.
10 We are calling a witness who in essence, as Your Honours can
11 tell, is not sympathetic to the Prosecution's case. In a common law
12 situation that wouldn't happen, because it's clearly a witness is one
13 side or the other.
14 As my understanding of the civil law is, that doesn't apply
15 because the witness is there at the -- effectively at the Court's
16 request. There's, therefore -- and presumably that's because the rules
17 were drafted by a mixture of those who come from a civil law background
18 and a common law background no mention of hostile witnesses, but I'm
19 certainly saying, we've called this witness because we feel that Your
20 Honours need to hear from people who were on the other side and not just
21 from those who are victims, alleged victims of what happened. In so
22 doing, we have a problem in that they are not sympathetic, and
23 particularly where they've said one thing to us in interview and are now
24 saying another thing in court, we are asking for leave, if that's
25 required, to, as you put it, cross-examine our own witness. And as I
1 say, there's a -- there's an Appeals Chamber decision in the Popovic
3 JUDGE HALL: You indicated that the rules are -- just a moment,
4 Mr. Pantelic -- that the rules are specifically silent on this point, but
5 within the framework could you direct me to the -- such rule exists on
6 which peg you hang the present situation.
7 MS. KORNER: I'm hanging it on the jurisprudence of this
8 Tribunal, Your Honour. I can't -- there's no peg in the rules. It says
9 one side calls his witnesses and the other side calls his witnesses but
10 the rules are specifically silent on this.
11 JUDGE HALL: And the Popovic appeal ruling says what?
12 MS. KORNER: The Popovic appeal ruling says -- I've just been
13 handed it -- that a calling party must -- I'm just going to the very last
14 page of the decision Your Honour. "The calling party must seek the
15 permission of the Trial Chamber to impeach its own witness in relation to
16 the credibility of that witness or the substance of his or her testimony
17 and the scope of challenge must be subject to the control of the Trial
18 Chamber." Effectively we can do it but we have to apply to you for
19 permission and then you control how much, how far we can go. I can get
20 copies of the whole decision for Your Honours if --
21 JUDGE HALL: And you say you're now making that formal
23 MS. KORNER: Yes, I am. Because the witness, in our submission
24 as you will see, said something directly contrary to what he said in
25 interview. Indeed he says -- and he actually referred to it obliquely by
1 saying he may have said something else on paper but he's now changing his
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic.
4 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, Your Honours. Yes. The essential here
5 about this particular situation is that as my learned friend Ms. Korner
6 mentioned that we are here dealing with the so-called hybrid of two
7 systems: Common law and civil law. So I believe that following this
8 arguments this witness should be questioned along the lines of his
9 personal knowledge on the direct questions of the situations in
10 accordance with the principle of civil law, because he is OTP witness in
11 chief. You are sitting here as a Trial Chamber to conduct these
12 proceedings, and of course you are also allowed and you will exercise
13 your right to pose any questions you might think which are important,
14 like you did in previous -- previous situation. That's a first level.
15 Second level is the specific -- second level --
16 [Trial Chamber and senior legal officer and
17 registrar confer]
18 JUDGE HALL: Please continue.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours. Second issue is
20 that my learned friend Ms. Korner, during the process of interviewing
21 this witness, misused her capacity and on many occasions she put it
22 suggestive and -- and leading questions to this witness where he was at
23 that time questioned in capacity of suspect.
24 JUDGE HALL: Are you giving evidence now, Mr. Pantelic?
25 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. I'm not giving evidence. I'm just making
1 submissions relating to the circumstances around this witness. And even
2 now he should be warned that answers which might be answered by him might
3 incriminate him in any future proceedings. So that's the point of my
5 I do not agree with the approach taken by OTP in this particular
6 situation, because they should limit themselves only on the line of
7 question regarding this witness and his personal knowledge about certain
8 situations. Otherwise, he is not a witness. He doesn't have capacity to
9 be a witness, because his personal answers might incriminate him, and we
10 don't see any particular warnings towards that. So thank you, Your
12 JUDGE HALL: Unless I have missed something you have said,
13 Mr. Pantelic, I don't -- you aren't taking issue with the jurisprudence
14 on this point that where in the OTP's view there is such an inconsistency
15 between the viva voce testimony of the witness and a previous statement
16 that they cannot seek to -- and I'm trying to avoid the language of a
17 hostile witness, but they are not prevented from seeking to do what they
18 are now implying. You aren't saying that. I understand your -- the
19 thrust of your reservation, but you aren't going so far as to suggest
20 that they can't do what they're now seeking to do.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. That's exactly the point and
22 the ground of my submission, because, you know, with this twisting of --
23 of strategy in approach of this -- to this witness is really without any
24 grounds in -- in legal and jurisprudence issues. That's --
25 JUDGE HALL: But you would have the opportunity, of course, in
1 cross-examination to deal with this, wouldn't you?
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I will be in situation, Your Honour, but you
3 know, this is a specific moment that we have to react, because this
4 witness was -- might be confronted with certain answers that he gave in a
5 previous proceedings; namely, the process of interview made by OTP on a
6 line where they didn't fulfil all standards of diligence in this -- in
7 this situation. They -- they submit this witness to -- to leading
8 questions, and they practically created a kind of situation which is not
9 applicable to this particular moment that we have here. So I really
10 object to -- to any reference to previous interviews that this witness
11 gave to the OTP.
12 So he is here. They have questions. They have line of
13 questions. He can answer, yes, no, remember, don't remember, simply as
14 that. Thank you.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, would it assist, it's pretty close to
16 the break anyhow if I were to get copies for you before you rule on this
17 of the decision in Popovic and also I can also provide it to my learned
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, did you wish to be heard on this point?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I fully agree with what Mr. Pantelic is saying. I
22 understand his reservations and I share them. I'm not sure I understand
23 all of it, but the part which I understand I do share, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE HALL: All right. Thank you.
25 Yes. We will take the break at this point then.
1 MS. KORNER: We'll get copies through your legal officer of the
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We have been alerted that in the extended
8 break when the Chamber's been considering this procedural question that
9 counsel has been similarly industrious, and, Mr. Zecevic, you would wish
10 to further assist us on this point.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I hope that I will assist you. It's just that we
12 did a quick research on the subject, Your Honours, and I would like to
13 raise a couple of issues. I think it will assist the Trial Chamber in
14 taking the decision.
15 First of all, let me just briefly say what I started. I think
16 the facts which are undisputed is that this witness has been -- has been
17 interviewed as a suspect, that's number one; and the second thing, what
18 we have is not his statement, it's just the transcript of his interview
19 in English, and he doesn't speak English, so there was no --
20 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, could you repeat the last point you just
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Witness was interviewed by the Office of the
23 Prosecutor and their investigators as a suspect. That is number one.
24 The second thing is, his interview, it is not the statement what he gave.
25 He gave an interview, and it has been transcribed in English language
1 which he doesn't speak. So he didn't have any opportunity to correct
2 possible mistakes. Those are the facts.
3 Now, Your Honours, it come to my attention that the law on the
4 transfer of cases from the ICTY to the prosecutor's office of BiH and the
5 use of evidence collected by ICTY in proceedings before the courts in BiH
6 of 2004, which is applicable right now in -- in the country where the --
7 where the witness comes from, in Article 5 really does give the
8 opportunity of the state court of BiH to use the evidence of this witness
9 in the proceedings before that court.
10 Now, I have researched the -- the European Court of Human Rights,
11 and I would like to draw attention of Your Honours to a number of cases.
12 Marttini v. Finland
13 McGuiness v. Ireland
14 jurisprudence of the European Court of law. Basically comes down to the
15 finding of the court that the appellant's right not to self-incriminate
16 goes beyond the right to refuse individual questions, meaning that he
17 cannot be forced to respond to the questions and then that be used
18 against him, in fact, self-incriminating him.
19 This raise -- this raises a concern with me, Your Honours, which
20 I -- which I wanted to share with you that I think that the witness
21 should be at least assisted by -- by an advice of the counsel in this
23 Thank you, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I think there's a point for
25 clarification. As far as I understand the matter before us, the issue is
1 not whether this witness can be held responsible for his actions relating
2 to the events in 1992. That is not the issue. He's not -- the issue
3 which we had before us here in this court today is not whether he should
4 be regarded as a suspect in relation to the events during the war. The
5 issue here is only whether the witness is testifying truthfully, and I
6 think the impression that this witness had made -- has made on the
7 Chamber, or at least has made on me, is that because of his -- his
8 knowledge of the events that took place in 1992, he may not have
9 testified with very much precision. I have understood some of his
10 answers to us during the course of his testimony here to be somewhat
11 vague, and I understand his reasons, and I think we should make it clear
12 to him that he will not be prosecuted before this Tribunal because of
13 what he has testified.
14 Now, whether his testimony here may be used before the special
15 court in Sarajevo
16 testify truthfully and accurately before us in this courtroom.
17 So when it comes to the issue of his previous interview, I fully
18 appreciate the fact that this interview was made not as an ordinary
19 statement made by the Prosecution's investigators, but was conducted as
20 an interview in which he was himself a suspect and that he was told that
21 he was a suspect. So that, of course, puts the interview in a very
22 special light. But we will take this into consideration if ultimately we
23 allow the Prosecution to confront the witness with what he is saying --
24 with his interview back then.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, if I may. I fully agree with your
1 assessment. It is not the -- you're 100 per cent right. It is not the
2 case before this Tribunal that he is suspect or anything. There is no
3 pending investigation as far as we know. But he is a suspect in his
4 country, and his country, by the rule of the law has the power to use his
5 statement over here in order to use it before the court of law in his
6 country. Therefore, what I'm concerned about is the witness -- there is
7 no doubt that the Trial Chamber has the wish to have a truthful answer
8 from the witness, but if this truthful answer would ultimately
9 self-incriminate him, then I would have a problem, Your Honours, and I
10 think we should -- that he should be cautioned and get separate legal
11 advice on how is he to -- supposed to -- to answer these questions before
12 this Trial Chamber. That is my concern, Your Honour. Thank you.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: But just to reply to that, as far as I have
14 understood, but we can ask Mrs. Korner about it, but as far as I have
15 understood the questions that have been put so far to this witness, these
16 questions do not seem to implicate the witness in terms of possible
17 criminal proceedings in Sarajevo
18 correctly, been addressed to the witness in order to elicit evidence from
19 this witness about the participation and the role of your client and of
20 Mr. Zupljanin, especially Mr. Zupljanin.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, in essence that is true, but, Your Honours,
22 the few last questions, I believe, have been directed directly against in
23 my -- at least in my view and my opinion against this witness, and that
24 is why ultimately our friend from the Prosecutor's side ask that he be
25 treated like a hostile witness. That is my concern.
1 Thank you very much. I'm sorry I took some time.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honours. If I may, I fully support the
3 submission of my learned friend Mr. Zecevic, and I would like to outline
4 another very important aspect of this particular issue.
5 Mr. Djekanovic, being treated or qualified as a hostile witness
6 will be in situation that in relation to the law of co-operation between
7 the jurisdiction of BiH and Tribunal might be confronted with certain
8 criminal proceedings there. He needs legal advice. He needs to be
9 informed about all aspects of possible consequences of his testimony here
10 and confrontation with the previous statement that he gave to the OTP,
11 and I think the Association of Defence Counsel here in the Tribunal
12 should be informed immediately about this particular situation, because
13 now we are entering into the sphere of the basic rights of a person to be
14 informed about the consequences, to be informed about the possibility to
15 have legal advice and aid, and so on and so forth.
16 I don't have, Your Honours, any problem if Prosecution will treat
17 him as before like OTP witness on the 65 ter list, but I have, personally
18 as a professional, this is actually the basis of my Code of Professional
19 Conduct, I have a problem seeing the possible violation of an
20 individual's right here without putting my submission on the record.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic and Mr. Zecevic, what you are
23 suggesting is that the Prosecution cannot cross-examine this witness
24 without somehow implicating him in the events that took place during the
25 war, and this is where, at least from my own personal point of view, I
1 may differ from you, because I think that it would be possible to
2 cross-examine a witness, even it is done by the calling party, for the
3 purpose of eliciting evidence that relates to the accused in this case.
4 I don't see that necessarily confronting this witness with what
5 may have told the Prosecution's investigators earlier on that this would
6 necessarily have to imply any criminal responsibility on the part of this
8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I agree with you if we are
9 speaking of the potential and future proceedings against this witness
10 before this court, but this witness needs now, at this moment, he needs a
11 personal legal advisor sitting beside him if he will be confronted with
12 an interview that he gave to OTP in his capacity of a suspect, simply as
13 that. Otherwise, he can -- he should be informed but not -- well, in
14 part by you but not by us or by OTP, but with an independent legal
15 advisor of the consequences of the possible answer that he will give in
16 confrontation with his previous statement which was made under a specific
17 mental condition where he was a suspect in the office of the prosecution
18 in Sarajevo
19 might have very, very serious consequences for him. That's my point.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner.
22 MS. KORNER: All right. Your Honour, the Defence counsel -- I'm
23 sorry -- are muddling a number of different concepts at the moment. The
24 first is the application that I made which is simply to treat, putting it
25 in its common law session -- way, this witness as a hostile witness, in
1 other words, hostile to the Prosecution's case. That is a separate in
2 itself and there is ample jurisprudence from this Tribunal that, subject
3 to Your Honours' leave I should be allowed to do it. That's perhaps that
4 matter, and they're not really dealing with that matter, because as Your
5 Honour Judge Harhoff has pointed out, putting to him what he said in his
6 original interview doesn't necessarily implicate him in anything.
7 The matter that they're now raising is a matter that effectively,
8 virtually since the trial of Brdjanin, which is the first -- in what I
9 call insider witnesses gave evidence has come up over and over again, and
10 that is why Rule 90(E) is in place.
11 Clearly where witnesses who are called who are suspects within
12 the meaning of the rules in that they are implicated in the events of --
13 which this trial is dealing with, and indeed this witness is so
14 implicated from the fact of his position and the actions he did or did
15 not carry out, should give evidence to enable the Trial Chamber to arrive
16 at the truth of what happened, and therefore, it's quite clear why Rule
17 90(E) was passed.
18 The situation of such witnesses giving evidence in these trials
19 has continued since the state court, not only in Bosnia but also in
21 is said under Rule 90(E) it's the witness's privilege to object to making
22 any statement which might tend to incriminate him. The Chamber may,
23 however, compel the witness to answer the question. Testimony compelled
24 in this way shall not be used as evidence in a subsequent prosecution
25 against the witness for any offence.
1 And, Your Honour, the reality is once that is --
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please read the sentence to the end.
3 MS. KORNER: Other than false testimony, yes. I'm sorry. I'm
4 leaving aside perjury for the moment. Your Honour, that's one thing
5 obviously one can show that when compelled, he told a complete lie,
6 that's one thing. But the reality is although the case papers concerning
7 this witness, for example, may be sent to the state court, once he's been
8 compelled in this way to answer - and can I say that I spent some months
9 in setting up the war crimes court in Sarajevo, in the Prosecutor's
10 office - it cannot be used against him. It's not admissible against him
11 even in a proceeding in the state court, and that I know is the situation
12 that is being followed.
13 So from that point of view, it's not a valid argument made by
14 Mr. Zecevic or Mr. Pantelic, but as I say, at the moment that's an
15 entirely separate issue. All that Your Honours are considering at the
16 moment is whether or not on this particular aspect, namely, whether they
17 were told about the actions in these various towns he said something
18 totally different in the interview to what he has now said to the Court.
19 That's all I'm asking.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Just very quick, Your Honours. I appreciate what
21 Ms. Joanna Korner said about the law in BiH, but I have provided the
22 copies to Ms. Featherstone and to all parties of that particular law, and
23 let me read Article 5:
24 "Evidence provided to ICTY by witness --"
25 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, just a moment. Can I have a copy? You
1 haven't given us a copy.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I sent it by mail. Well, I'm sorry, I don't have
3 the means to print it out in court.
4 "Transcript of testimony of witness given before the ICTY and
5 records of the positions of witnesses made before the ICTY in accordance
6 with Rule 71 of the ICTY RPE shall be admissible before the courts
7 provided that that testimony or this position is relevant to a fact in
9 Under 2:
10 "The Court may exclude evidence given by a witness with
11 protective measures where the probative value is outweighed by its
12 prejudicial value."
13 And 3:
14 "Nothing in this provision shall prejudice the defendant's right
15 to request the attendance of witnesses referred to in paragraph 1..." and
16 so and so on.
17 It is my reading that this Article 5 gives the power of the Trial
18 Chamber in Sarajevo
19 witness, and in that respect I do not agree with the overview that --
20 JUDGE HALL: That's notwithstanding our own Rule 92(E)?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry? You mean Rule 90(E)?
22 JUDGE HALL: Rule 90(E), yes.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe so.
24 JUDGE HALL: I see.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber and senior legal officer confer]
2 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honour, just one word. Again for the
3 record. This man, Mr. Djekanovic, needs a legal help. He needs to -- I
4 don't know, whether it's the registry who will take care about his
5 rights, but definitely before entering in any kind of scenario here, he
6 needs legal advice. Thank you.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
8 We have discussed the matter, and the ruling is the following:
9 That according to the Appeals Chamber's most recent decision of 1st of
10 February, 2008, in Popovic, we can divide the proceedings here into two
11 steps: The first step is that we can allow the Prosecution to confront
12 the witness with an earlier interview or statement without having to
13 declare this witness adverse or hostile, but only for the limited purpose
14 of clarifying one particular issue and only one, and this is what we will
15 do. So we will allow the Prosecution to confront Mr. Djekanovic with his
16 earlier interview but only for the limited purpose of clarifying whether
17 or not he was informed of the actions taken as a part of the military
18 operation and for that purpose only. For this, we do not need to declare
19 him hostile at this moment, and for that same reason we do not see it
20 necessary to have a counsel.
21 Now, if during the further examination of this witness the same
22 problem arises again, then we will proceed to step two, which is then to
23 declare him formally, upon the Prosecution's request, an adverse witness.
24 And I'm using the term "adverse" in order to avoid the special
25 connotation under common law that applies or that attaches to the
1 expression "hostile." So we will call him adverse. But if the problem
2 continues during the further examination-in-chief, then the Prosecution
3 may ask the Chamber to declare him an adverse witness, and then we may
4 proceed to do so with the consequence that from that point on the
5 Prosecution can cross-examine him and put earlier and other statements to
6 him in order to challenge his -- to impeach his credibility.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. Just for the record, I think that the
8 particular inconsistency we're talking about is not only about the
9 military operations but as well the police operations. Both military and
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, just so it's clear, this particular
12 inconsistency relates specifically to the military actions.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do the parties agree to this?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, it is your ruling. We have to accept it,
15 Your Honours.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, it's an absolutely reasonable
17 ruling, but if I well understood you, for the other line of questioning
18 that you might allow, I believe, and I again outline my position that he
19 should have legal advice prior to enter to this second line of
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, it was your own submission that you
23 would have no objections to the Prosecution continuing to examine him in
24 chief as a viva voce witness, and that is exactly what we'll do, and if,
25 as I said, if the problem occurs again, we will then consider a request
1 from the Prosecution to declare this witness adverse, and at that point
2 we will also consider to supply him with a counsel, and the registrar is
3 currently in the process of checking out with the ADC whether there is a
4 counsel available for this purpose. So we are preparing ourselves for
6 Let's proceed.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour. It was my understanding,
8 too, so thank you.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 MS. KORNER:
11 Q. Mr. Djekanovic, I'm going to give you one last chance to answer
12 the question before I show you the interview. Did you, as is stated in
13 that document that we were looking at, the 23rd of June, 1992, get a
14 briefing from the military about the operations they were carrying out?
15 A. As I've already said, from time to time, occasionally at some
16 sessions there were some tentative briefings, very superficial, and I do
17 not in any way claim that there were no such desultory bits of
18 information at that session, but as to what type of means would be used
19 and where exactly we had no such information. No mention was made at
21 Q. All right. In which case, do you agree you were informed about -
22 and I keep mispronouncing this - Vrbanjci? Do you agree?
23 A. Specifically what operation or action are you referring to I'm
24 not sure, but from time to time I was informed on actions in Vrbanjci as
25 well as some others.
1 Q. And the others included, didn't they, Hanifici, Crko Brdo, and
3 A. Cirkino Brdo.
4 Q. You were told about those operations, weren't you?
5 A. Not specifically. Not separately. I was not informed of those
6 operations, nor was it anyone's duty to inform me thereof.
7 Q. Well, then if -- we keep getting side-tracked. If it wasn't
8 their duty to inform you of it, what was the purpose of
9 Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic attending the Crisis Staff meetings then?
10 A. For the needs of the army -- or, rather, for their normal
11 functioning it was necessary to provide supplies in the rear -- or,
12 rather, logistics. We needed to provide them with clothes, shoes,
13 foodstuffs. There was a lack of all of these items. It was necessary to
14 take out the wounded, to take them for treatment, those who were wounded,
15 to inform their families, and so these were the aspects where we received
16 detailed information so that we could take measures on our part.
17 Q. All right. I'm going to leave the topic. Can you just look,
18 however, at the next page of the document in English. It's the same
19 page, actually, in B/C/S, but it's page 2 in English.
20 MS. KORNER: It's the same document we were looking at. You mean
21 you've taken it off. In English it's two pages. In B/C/S, you're right,
22 it's one page. 23rd of June. Okay. It's all one page. I'm sorry.
23 It's just a different copy of the translation.
24 Is the B/C/S up? Yes. Thank you. And the English up, please,
25 as well.
1 Q. Under item 2, the members of the Crisis Staff are to -- who are
2 to go to Banja Luka to carry out certain tasks were designated. What
3 were the tasks to be carried out in Banja Luka?
4 A. It was necessary to provide food. We were to find such
5 foodstuffs. Also, fuel. We also had to find donors in order to provide
6 these supplies, because all normal supply routes were cut off. There was
7 no electricity. The phone lines were down. There were no medicines.
8 And we had dead people on a daily basis. They had to be buried. We had
9 to visit their families and provide them with some form of subsistence.
10 And this was the most frequent reason why we went to Banja Luka, because
11 that's where we sought all these means in order to provide a normal
12 existence for these people as much as we could.
13 Q. Okay. And was that assistance sought from the Crisis Staff of
14 the autonomous region?
15 A. Well, we sought assistance from companies, from individuals,
16 donors, and also from the regional Crisis Staffs. Why not? We sought to
17 find assistance wherever we could in order to provide any minimal
18 quantity of fuel, if we could, and so forth.
19 Q. Thank you. I'm going to move to the next meeting.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may that just be marked for
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P79, marked for identification, Your
1 MS. KORNER:
2 Q. Can we then move, please, to 65 ter number 075. The meeting of
3 the 24th of June.
4 Under item 3, please:
5 "Inspector Pejic informed the Crisis Staff about the work of the
6 security service and the results of the questioning of the persons who
7 had been brought in."
8 Now, is that the inspector Pejic that you referred to who had the
9 first name of Zdravko?
10 A. Yes. That was the only inspector Zdravko Pejic.
11 Q. And what was he telling you about the results of the questioning?
12 A. Well, 17 years on I can't really recall the things that he
13 mentioned then.
14 Q. Did he tell you that he had questioned, for example, Mr. Petrusic
15 who was the --
16 A. No.
17 Q. That was fairly quick. Or Anto Mandic or anybody like that?
18 A. No, he did not discuss the questioning of these individuals.
19 Q. Well, then, can you -- can you think back? I mean, this dramatic
20 period of your life, Mr. Djekanovic. What was he telling you about the
22 A. I've already said that I cannot really recall the details of the
23 questioning, whom it was that he questioned, and 17 years is really a
24 long time, and I can't recall the details. If there were -- if there was
25 any more detail in these minutes perhaps that would jog my memory, but
1 just off the top of my head I really can't.
2 Q. He goes on to suggest that a session of the Crisis Staff be
3 devoted to the problem of detained persons. What was the problem of
4 detained persons?
5 A. There were a number of ways in which persons were detained. One
6 of the ways, and this was of concern to the Crisis Staff staff and where
7 we engaged in some sort of action, was in the situation where there were
8 families who had been abandoned after certain combat operations and the
9 families were not provided for. And frequently those families themselves
10 would just come and seek for some kind of protection so that they could
11 be put up and accommodated somewhere. And for the most part, most of the
12 time we discussed how to provide accommodations and where for those
13 families, how to feed them, to provide them with food, because I've
14 already mentioned before what the living conditions were then and all the
15 things that we did not have.
16 Q. Just a moment, Mr. Djekanovic. Are you telling us that the word
17 "detained" effectively means people who've been made homeless? Is that
18 what you're telling the Court? As opposed to people who had been
20 A. Well, this refers more to people who did have their homes, but
21 these homes were exposed. They were not protected. There were a lot of
22 armed members and armed groups milling around. They were from all sorts
23 of structures. These people did have their homes, but they did not feel
24 safe there, and they sometimes felt they needed to leave them and seek
25 some sort of protection or shelter. Sometimes they wouldn't even -- they
1 weren't even sure that they would reach the next morning.
2 MR. PANTELIC: [Previous translation continues] ... simply
3 inspector Pejic allegedly informed me about the detained persons known
4 Serb nationality who allegedly committed blah, blah, blah and they were
5 in the prison and they were questioned by the authorities. Because here
6 we're going along the lines whether it was some kind of people, displaced
7 people, et cetera. It doesn't have any sense this kind of -- thank you.
8 MS. KORNER: Well, I must say I'm amazed by that interjection.
9 Absolutely amazed. One it's improper, but, two, is it now suggested that
10 I should put to the witness that he's certainly not telling the truth and
11 this is all about people who have been captured and imprisoned? Is that
12 what Mr. Pantelic would like me to do?
13 MR. PANTELIC: No, Ms. Korner. I mean, of course you can do
14 whatever you think that's appropriate to do, but I'm telling you that
15 this transcript is not logical due to your maybe unprecise question or
16 maybe due to the interpretation, because this witness is speaking --
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic.
18 MR. PANTELIC: -- about displaced person and you are thinking
19 about the people who were --
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic.
21 MR. PANTELIC: -- detained. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think this can be sorted out during your
23 cross-examination. I think we should leave it for the moment to
24 Mrs. Korner to complete the examination-in-chief of this witness.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I just try to help Ms. Korner in this
1 respect. I believe there is a slight ambiguity about the -- about the
2 translation of this, because the word in Serbian which is written on this
3 document does not clearly, hundred per cent, correspond to "detain," to
4 be "detained." So maybe that could be clarified with the witness. Maybe
5 that's the reason for miscommunication between Ms. Korner and the
7 MS. KORNER:
8 Q. All right. What does the -- can you just read out, so that I can
9 get a translation, please, the sentence that begins, if it does begin,
10 "He suggested." Can you read it out from the actual original document.
11 A. He proposed that a meeting of the Crisis Staff be devoted to the
12 problem of persons who had been detained or brought in. After the
13 discussion of the work of the security station, it was concluded that the
14 Crisis Staff has no right --
15 Q. It wasn't, was it, Mr. Djekanovic, that Inspector Pejic was
16 talking about people who had been made homeless. He was talking about
17 people who had been arrested and brought into the police station.
18 A. I don't remember session -- that Pejic talked about interrogating
19 persons who had been detained at the public security station, at the
20 Crisis Staff, and the Crisis Staff was not authorised over such matters.
21 Q. All right. Well, let's -- all right. Let's move on to the next
22 sentence which you started to read.
23 "After a discussion of the work of the security station, it was
24 concluded that the Crisis Staff had no right to interfere in the
25 professional work of the police and the army and that no one wishes
1 to ... take upon itself security and the creation of conditions..." et
3 As far as you were concerned, did the Crisis Staff have the
4 authority to order the police what to do and how to do it?
5 A. No, the Crisis Staff did not have that authority. The Crisis
6 Staff only sought the assistance of the police occasionally when it was
7 necessary to secure or to provide protection for certain people or for
8 certain persons or families. We could not issue orders to the police.
9 We didn't have the right to do that.
10 Q. All right. So who had the right to issue orders to the head of
11 the SJB in Kotor Varos, namely Savo Tepic?
12 A. I never worked at the MUP and am not familiar with the
13 organisation and the hierarchy of the police.
14 Q. All right. We'll move on.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may that then, please, be exhibited as
16 it's on our 65 ter list.
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P80, Your Honours.
19 MS. KORNER: 26th of June, please, which is exhibit -- 65 ter
21 Q. This particular meeting, no doubt, Mr. Djekanovic, you do
22 remember quite clearly.
23 A. This is your assumption. I really only slightly recollect these
24 events, and in the preparation for this hearing a few days ago I read
25 something. Some things I saw for the first time, but as for the nature
1 of that, I don't recall -- it is my nature I don't recall things that
2 happened three days ago or something. So I'm not able to remember things
3 that happened 17 years ago in every detail.
4 Of course, I do recall generally what happened, but I don't
5 remember each move, each detail, no.
6 Q. Well, if we look at that, and you had a chance to read it
7 yesterday and you were asked about it in interview, this meeting came
8 after the killings, didn't it, outside the medical centre in Kotor Varos?
9 A. Yes, but this was preceded by some other events.
10 Q. Sorry, what was preceded by some other events, the killings or
11 this meeting?
12 A. The killings preceded the meetings. There were killings. There
13 were some of our people who died. There were ambushes, killings, and
14 then this other killing occurred in return for this other killing which
15 we disagreed with.
16 Q. I'm sorry, you've lost me completely. Are you saying that the
17 killings that took place at the medical centre in Kotor Varos were in
18 retaliation for some other killings?
19 A. More or less uncontrolled revenge, an uncontrolled reaction to
20 the killings that had taken place before it was a totally unnecessary,
21 uncalled for reaction.
22 Q. You're saying -- I'm sorry, it's still not clear. We need to
23 make this clear. The killings at the hospital were an uncontrolled
24 reaction to killings that had taken place before; is that what you're
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, those killings were carried out by whom according to the
3 information that you were given at that meeting and possibly before?
4 A. These killings or this uncalled for incident at the health centre
5 was carried out by, I assume, members of the Special Police or some
6 members of the Special Police who were stationed there.
7 Q. Well, that's what you were told, wasn't it, because if we look at
8 the document, at the -- in the second paragraph, Lieutenant-Colonel
9 Peulic is providing you with detailed information about yesterday, that's
10 what the minutes say and say some members of the CSB special unit and
11 other individuals had behaved in and authorised manner.
12 So you were getting on this occasion, no question about it if
13 these minutes are right, Mr. Djekanovic, detailed information from
14 Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic.
15 A. Yes. I got more information from Dr. Gajanin rather than Colonel
16 Peulic. I think Colonel Peulic wasn't there.
17 Q. Wasn't where? Oh, I see, at the killings, sorry, yes. All
18 right, if we go down, we can see that Mr. Tepic informs the Crisis Staff
19 and says that it was his impression that many members of the special unit
20 were acting without authorisation but no one dared to criticise them
21 because of the threats they made.
22 Apart from the killings, what else were the special unit doing?
23 A. You already mentioned that part. As far as the matters that I
24 can speak about, as far as the military part of the matter is concerned,
25 the soldiers did have a very, very good professional job and had they not
1 done it like that, the number of victims in Kotor Varos would have been
2 much higher, and in the event that they had not --
3 Q. Stop, please. I'm asking you what it was that Savo Tepic was
4 complaining to you and the other members of the Crisis Staff was being
5 done by the special unit acting without authorisation.
6 A. In extra combat activities, certain members of the Special
7 Police, as well as members of other armed units, other armed personnel,
8 were involved in taking or stealing items from abandoned homes. They
9 would also steal abandoned cars and take them to Banja Luka. And a major
10 part of the aspect of our dissatisfaction, first of all, related to this
11 kind of behaviour by these individuals.
12 Q. And what were they actually doing at the police station to your
13 certain knowledge, Mr. Djekanovic?
14 A. I didn't understand you.
15 Q. There were prisoners at the police station, weren't there?
16 Non-Serb --
17 A. Yes. There were. There was a certain number of persons detained
18 at the police station.
19 Q. And what was happening to those people?
20 A. This is not a question for me. I wasn't at the police station.
21 I know what I had heard, just like you know what you heard, that
22 sometimes there was some improper conduct and beatings, but people who
23 were detained at the police station or those for whom authorised persons
24 recommended measures that they should be -- of detention, they would be
25 in the position to say what happened to them, because in the police
1 station itself there was no space for detention. So there were no
2 detained persons there. I mean, there were some who would spend the
3 night there or something, a certain number of people.
4 Q. You talked about the beatings. You knew yourself about the
5 beatings, didn't you? You didn't have to be told by Mr. Tepic.
6 A. How do you mean I knew about them? That is why there were Crisis
7 Staff meetings where we were all informed about particular areas of
8 activity. I was not at the police station, so I did not know what was
9 happening, and it was not my job to know what was happening at the police
11 Q. Did anybody report to you, not just at the Crisis Staff meetings
12 but elsewhere, that they could hear the beatings?
13 A. I did not receive a report in writing, but we just got
14 information at the Crisis Staff meetings.
15 Q. And what was that information that you were getting about the
17 A. I got information just like the other members of the Crisis Staff
18 did, that a number of people were detained, that there had been beatings
19 by individuals, and I mean, you can see that I didn't receive anything
20 else in particular about that.
21 Q. Did you yourself hear, as you passed the SJB, any noise?
22 A. It's too suggestive. No, I didn't hear that.
23 Q. Did anybody else tell you that they had heard noises coming from
24 the police station of the sounds of people being beaten?
25 A. I repeat, I received information at the Crisis Staff meeting. I
1 don't recall anybody else telling me that.
2 Q. All right. I'm not going to pursue that. You yourself are
3 recorded as speaking to Mr. Dubocanin about everything going on at the
4 health centre, and that you had been assured by Mr. Dubocanin it would be
5 prevented. Well, what did you say to Mr. Dubocanin about the killings at
6 the health centre?
7 A. I told him that such conduct in any event is not a good thing.
8 It's impermissible, and it's not good either for the medical centre or
9 for the Serbian people or for the Kotor Varos municipality and that
10 wilful behaviour by individuals should be prevented.
11 Q. So you didn't suggest to him that his unit was guilty of murder?
12 A. If I did speak with him about the conduct of members of his unit,
13 then the conclusion is that we spoke about the members of his unit. We
14 didn't talk about these things being committed by some others who were
15 outside of their -- or outside of his control.
16 Q. You've just told us that you would report -- it was reported to
17 you that members of the Banja Luka special unit led by Mr. Dubocanin, or
18 he was in charge of them in Kotor Varos, had committed murders outside
19 the health centre. Did you say to him anything about the fact that this
20 was murder?
21 A. The question is being repeated. I already said that this was
22 impermissible, that things should not be done in this way and must not be
23 done in this way.
24 Q. Okay. You also apparently said that all these questions had to
25 be cleared up and information provided on the behaviour of the members of
1 the special unit at the meeting with Stojan Zupljanin, the chief of the
2 SCB -- sorry, the CSB, scheduled for tomorrow.
3 Now, you had a meeting, did you, with Mr. Zupljanin?
4 A. I don't recall details, whether on the following day I held or
5 there was held a -- I did have a couple of meetings with Zupljanin. They
6 were not overall official meetings. You can see from the report that we
7 had entrusted the head of the police station, but I don't recall that on
8 the following day a meeting with Stojan Zupljanin was held.
9 Q. Well, you did, however, have a meeting, didn't you, with Stojan
10 Zupljanin, and you said more than one meeting, but after these killings?
11 A. After those killings I did have meetings with Stojan Zupljanin.
12 How many times, when, what the dates were I don't remember, but there
13 weren't many such meetings.
14 Q. All right. What were you saying to Stojan Zupljanin at these
16 A. I conveyed to him the positions of the Crisis Staff about our
17 remarks and information, about the conduct of individuals within or as
18 part of the special unit.
19 Q. Right. And what did you want him to do?
20 A. We wanted him for the unit to be organisationally and
21 structurally constantly under control, that it should not relax and it
22 should not be permitted for individuals to wilfully do the things that we
23 had referred to earlier.
24 Q. And how many meetings -- I'm sorry. And what was his response to
1 A. In any case, the event was that he would do everything that was
2 in his power --
3 Q. I'm sorry --
4 A. -- to prevent these people from behaving in the way that they
6 Q. Well, who -- who did this -- who was in command of this special
8 A. At the beginning of yesterday's hearing I said that I don't know
9 exactly who it was. According to my information, it was Slobodan
10 Dubocanin. I don't know if it was somebody else, if they changed. I
11 don't know what the structure was and who was at the head of that unit.
12 I said yesterday that I had information that it was Slobodan Dubocanin
14 Q. You say that his response was he would do everything that was in
15 his power to prevent these people behaving in the way that they did.
16 What did you understand he could do?
17 A. I understood that he would prevent that, people wilfully leaving
18 the camp or the base and going to search other people's homes without
19 need to take all of those things and take them to Banja Luka. I
20 particularly asked that we mustn't react uncontrollably in the event that
21 we had certain losses. We had no right to react in such a way towards
22 other people.
23 Q. I'm sorry. Searching other peoples homes and things. What about
24 the killings? Didn't you mention those to him?
25 A. I mentioned later that at the end I did refer to the killings, of
1 course. I did mention the killings.
2 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Djekanovic. What did you want him to do about the
3 fact that members of this unit had deliberately and cold-bloodedly killed
4 a number of people outside the health centre?
5 A. The fact is that people were killed, and the fact is that we
6 asked that this should not happen again, that this must not happen again,
7 must not happen again especially in the compound around the medical
8 centre. The fact is that we asked that this stop. Our authority on
9 initiating an investigation or possible criminal reports at the point in
10 time when all of that was functioning in a pretty disjointed manner, when
11 all the institutions were not carrying out their functions, it was not
12 within our jurisdiction to submit criminal reports, but actually now I am
13 aware of the fact that anyone can submit criminal charges or a criminal
14 report if they are able to.
15 Q. Yes. I just want to ask you one thing about your answer --
16 A. Submit them to someone.
17 Q. Sorry. You say this must not happen again, especially in the
18 compound around the medical centre. Do you mean it was all right if it
19 happened elsewhere?
20 A. Well, you are drawing that conclusion. I am of the opinion that
21 this is something that should not happen anywhere. There was a war. I
22 cannot influence who is going to be killed in the war, but I did believe
23 all other killings, especially after a person had been detained, should
24 not take place.
25 Q. All right. Can we very quickly just look at one other matter on
1 this set of minutes. It's at page 2 in both B/C/S and English.
2 Under item 3:
3 "Savo raised the question of detainees of whom there are about
4 73 ..."
5 Was that 73 people in the police station, in the SJB?
6 A. No, this was not in the SJB. This was in detention that was
7 behind the prison building.
8 Q. "... and what should be done with them. He was told it was a
9 matter for the police to investigate."
10 So it was being left to the police, was it, to decide what to do
11 with these prisoners?
12 A. It's true that on the basis of a text written the way it is you
13 can draw conclusions that you need to draw, but my view was that those
14 people had to be fed. They had to be guarded. Security had to be
15 provided for that prison. As for what had to be done with them, that was
16 not our decision and there was no decision about whether somebody would
17 be released or sent to a different prison or what you're implying. The
18 activities were to provide food for the prisoner, someone to guard them.
19 All of these things were a source of problems to provide.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may ask that that be admitted as an
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P81, Your Honours.
24 MS. KORNER: All right.
25 Q. Can we move on, please, very quickly, just to see what happened
1 to the Special Police in Kotor Varos.
2 The next document, please, is, yes, 65 ter 708.
3 This is called -- it's a publication called the "Bulletin" of the
4 Crisis Staff, dated the 26th of June. Was this a document that was
5 issued for the public?
6 A. Yes. A bulletin was published for a certain period of time in
7 order to inform people in the field, because any other form of
8 communication, because of shortages of electricity, TV, and television,
9 did not exist, and radio. We would issue bulletins from time to time. I
10 don't know how it exactly went from what issue to what issue and from
11 which date to which date.
12 Q. Right. I just want to deal with two parts of this: In the first
13 paragraph you talk about 15 days of war, 35 men being wounded, all
15 "These figures show and remind us that we are in a war that was
16 started to bring about the extermination of the Serbian people from these
17 parts ... we are in a war with an enemy that took the oath of 'Besa' in a
18 holy war, a jihad."
19 We looked at the order of the 19th of December which said you
20 should have propaganda activities. Would this sort of paragraph be
21 classed as propaganda in your view?
22 A. If one speaks about the number of losses and that some people
23 went missing, then that cannot be classified as propaganda. It was a
24 fact that there were warring parties opening fire at each other.
25 Everyone knew that. That cannot be propaganda.
1 As for the conclusion, well, that depends on the person. You can
2 draw a conclusion yourself.
3 Q. I'm asking you. I'm asking you, sir. You're person who arranged
4 for the issue of this document. Do you consider this to be propaganda?
5 Simply yes or no.
6 A. I see the first paragraph as a way of informing. Hence, the
7 answer is no.
8 Q. All right. And in the second paragraph:
9 "The enemy is leaderless and in disarray, experiencing heavy
10 losses. Their twin strongholds of Hrvacani and Bilice have been
11 destroyed. We currently control most of the municipality's territory
12 except for the area to the left of the river Vrbanja from Vecici to
14 Is that accurate?
15 A. I don't know what we controlled on this date of the 26th of June.
16 In any case, I think Bilice was completely taken over much later, and I
17 don't know exactly which of these locations fell under our control at
18 what point in time. We did control a lot of the field but even under
19 such circumstances and in those areas and along those roads there were
20 killings daily.
21 Q. All right. Your Honours, that's all I ask about that document.
22 May that please be exhibited?
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P82, Your Honours.
24 MS. KORNER: All right. Next can we move, please, to -- it's --
25 JUDGE HALL: We alert counsel that we will be taking the break at
2 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour, I can deal with this last
3 document then. It's -- it's P -- oh, it's already been exhibited. Thank
4 you. P46.
5 Q. Under item 2:
6 "All those willing to move out of Kotor Varos are to make a
7 statement at the lower court leaving their immovable property to the
8 social political community."
9 And a bit further down.
10 "Ljuboje Gavric is to take part in the Crisis Staff and take
11 responsibility for organising population resettlement."
12 People -- non-Serbs were being moved out, weren't they, of Kotor
13 Varos in a fairly large-scale fashion? That's right, isn't it,
14 Mr. Djekanovic? That's why --
15 A. Yes, there were people being moved out of the territory of Kotor
16 Varos municipality in different periods of time, in different stages, and
17 for different reasons.
18 Q. But by the end of 1992, there were hardly any Muslims or Croats
19 left, were there?
20 A. No. There was a larger group of Croats from Kotor Varos who
21 moved out even after the signing of the Dayton Accords in 1995. Some
22 large Muslim villages in the area of the municipality remained almost
23 completely populated throughout 1992. People were moving out. There
24 were villages which became completely empty, but it is also correct that
25 there were villages that remained practically intact. To repeat, there
1 were many Croats who left after the Dayton Accords. I don't know on
2 whose orders or whose invitation but it came about after the signing of
3 the accords. We have proof of that. We have arguments.
4 Q. Could you tell us, please, which villages remained -- leaving
5 aside Vecici, which was a special case, which villages in Kotor Varos and
6 I'll have the map up, remained populated heavily by Muslims or Croats
7 after 1992?
8 A. Siprage, the entire local commune there for the most part. Many
9 Muslims in Garici, Dzube, Maslovare, some in Kotor Varos.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Can the witness be shown a map so we can follow --
11 MS. KORNER: Yes. It's up on -- oh, sorry. It's P65.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
13 MS. KORNER: P65? Okay. Perhaps we can blow it up slightly.
14 Thank you.
15 Q. Now, which ones do you say, Siprage?
16 A. This part here.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Maybe the witness can be given the pencil. He
18 can ...
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
20 MS. KORNER: I don't know. Yes, fine. Give him one.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Muslims remained in this part
22 here. There were some Muslims remaining here.
23 There were many Muslims who remained in the town. Croats
24 remained in Sibovi and Zabrdje up until the Dayton Accords and
1 Q. Okay. So apart from those, so we've got --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MS. KORNER: Sorry.
4 Q. We've got one village at Garici, one around Siprage, and one
5 around -- I can't read it because you've marked it, but anyhow, near
6 Zabrdje --
7 A. Sibovi and Zabrdje, the Croatian population.
8 Q. As a matter of interest, why when Cirkino Brdo, Hrvacani,
9 Hanifici, and those were all the subject of military operations and the
10 people were in fact expelled, why was that one village allowed to
11 continue? Garici.
12 A. No one was expelling entire villages. Anyone who did not put up
13 military resistance who did not stake up arms or partake in the
14 functioning of units could -- was allowed to stay. Towards the end of
15 1992 or even before that, we had Muslim members amongst the police.
16 Towards the end of 1992 in the Municipal Assembly we already had Muslim
17 employees. In TO units, even among those in command, we had Muslim
19 Q. Name them, please.
20 JUDGE HALL: Is this a convenient point, Ms. Korner?
21 MS. KORNER: Can we just see this and then it would be, Your
23 Q. Can you name any Muslim officers in the TO, please, in 1992 who
24 were in a senior -- in a command position?
25 A. Alagic I believe his last name was from Vrbanjci. He belonged to
1 the staff of the TO. He remained with it until the end and worked in the
2 rear units. For a while he even commanded them. In the police Sejdo
3 Tatar remained there who was in command, I believe. In addition to him
4 there were two or three other policemen. In the Municipal Assembly, I
5 made it possible for Mesud Imamovic to come back then Zahinovic who
6 returned from the unit in the field. Later on we had a person working in
7 the boiler room and working on the maintenance of the building. I think
8 his name was Rasim. I was the one who hired him that year.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us the officer -- the police officer you
10 named? You say he was in command. What rank?
11 A. Sejdo Tatar. I am not familiar with police ranks. I know that
12 he was a capable policeman. He was an athlete, Judoka. I think he
13 was -- his name was Sejdo.
14 Q. You said he was in command. So what was he in command of?
15 A. Well, police doesn't have an extensive command structure. I
16 don't know whether he was an assistant commander or something of the
17 sort. In any case, I know that he worked with those people, cooperated
18 with them. They didn't have command personnel per se.
19 Q. All right.
20 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE HALL: Twenty minutes.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may. I'm sorry, but there is a
1 procedural matter that popped up in relation to disclosure for the next
2 week for the witness that appears on the videolink. So I believe it's a
3 matter of some urgency, and maybe I suggest that we should either now or
4 that we reserve 15 minutes at the end to address this. I can -- I can
5 briefly inform the Trial Chamber if it pleases the Court.
6 Yesterday we received the disclosure of batch 86. The batch 86
7 of disclosure contains 32 documents of Rule 68 material for Mr. Basara,
8 the witness which is on a videolink on Monday.
9 We have a deadline tomorrow at noon to provide the court officer
10 with hard copy of the documents we intend to use with Mr. Basara.
11 Unfortunately due to this late disclosure we are unable to even review
12 that, and not to -- not to, I don't know, decide. Of course we will be
13 able to review it by tomorrow and then we have to decide which documents
14 are we going to use for the cross-examination of Basara.
15 Now, we want to ask the Court either to prolong this deadline and
16 that somehow we deal with this situation for the future that, there is --
17 there is a ruling, for example, that the Office of the Prosecutor is
18 required to provide us with the Rule 68 material at least a week before
19 the witness appears in court.
20 I appreciate the problems, the late searches and all that, but
21 still, this is putting us in a very problematic situation. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: You will appreciate the difficulties that the
23 obligation under Rule 68 is an ongoing obligation, so it will be
24 impossible to set any time limit for that purpose.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I understand it's an ongoing
1 obligation, but we have this witness, which is supposed to appear next
2 week. Of course these documents have been in the possession of the
3 Prosecution for some time, obviously. Therefore, if the search has been
4 done on a timely -- in a timely manner, which means at least 15 days
5 before the witness appears in court, we would have been given these
6 documents on time.
7 Now we received it only yesterday. I don't think that's proper
8 despite the Rule 68 article and the jurisprudence of this Tribunal. This
9 is not something which just appeared at the very late stage. This is
10 something which is in the database of the Prosecution for some time.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, can you explain why it was filed so
14 MS. KORNER: It's not in a database that the Prosecution access
15 same Rule 68. The -- as I've said on a number of occasions, we've
16 explained to Your Honours we had to reorganise our witness list. The
17 searches were originally set out in the order in which we intended to
18 call our witnesses. We moved Basara up. The searches arrived towards
19 the end of September. They were done yesterday, and it's turned up
20 not -- I don't think it would make much difference. Not 32, actually,
21 it's 21, but that's splitting hairs, I accept.
22 And for the majority, the oddity is that there are documents
23 implicating Basara in the crimes in Sanski Most. So, therefore, in one
24 sense they're not Rule 68 at all except that we're calling him as a
25 witness, and that's why we decided they should be called Rule 68. But as
1 I say, they're all fairly short documents. There are 21 of them, and
2 we're just doing our job as efficiently as we. It may not sound like it,
3 but the searches from ISU turned up literally hundreds of documents that
4 in some way related to him. I know because I was doing them on Sunday.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: But there is a difference between documents that
6 relate to a witness and exculpatory documents.
7 MS. KORNER: Yes, but we've got to -- what happens, Your Honour,
8 in case you don't know, we ask the ISU to do a search on the name Branko
9 Basara. They then do the search, provide us with all these documents
10 which -- some of which when we look at them will be Rule 68, many of
11 which are in B/C/S and we can't get translated -- we have to get somebody
12 to read. We get everything that mentions the name Branko Basara,
13 literally everything, and the same with all the other witnesses, because
14 that's what the search is supposed to do.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
16 MS. KORNER: So with the best will in the world, Your Honours,
17 and I'm sorry it happened in this way and it shouldn't normally but
18 because of the change in the witnesses, the searches for witnesses who
19 are coming very soon are only just turning up, and we are doing our level
20 best to make sure the Defence get them.
21 As I say, in this case it's not Rule 68 in the way that Your
22 Honours might imagine.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: So you're saying that these documents are not
25 MS. KORNER: They go -- he is being called as a witness by the
1 Prosecution in the same way as this witness is being called. He was in
2 command of the 6th Krajina Brigade which carried out the crimes in Sanski
3 Most. He's being called to deal with those crimes, and he was
4 interviewed in the same way as this witness was as a suspect. So,
5 therefore, what we're turning up -- but because he's our witness and
6 because the Defence may want to undermine his credibility completely by
7 saying, "You are, in fact, a criminal who committed these crimes," we
8 have been giving them all the documents that relate to the crimes he
10 Now, if that's what the Defence want to do they're entitled to
11 that, and that's why we've seen it as Rule 68. So it's not Rule 68 in
12 the same way as with other witnesses.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, we are a bit at a loss in
15 understanding what exactly you're asking for.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we are asking for two things: First
17 of all, we are asking to deal with this immediate matter because we have
18 a deadline for tomorrow at noon
19 hard copy of all the documents that we intend to -- to use at the
20 cross-examination of the witness which is appearing over the videolink
21 because the e-court doesn't work there. So that is the number-one
22 problem. That is the acute problem. And the second problem is that we
23 need to -- we need to somehow deal with this situation.
24 Now, in all honesty, I am getting more concerned now than I was
25 before I made the submission, because now I see that there might be some
1 documents which are under Rule 66(B) which have not been disclosed to us.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's be very practical and settle this issue
3 quickly so that we can continue with the witness.
4 May I ask you, Mr. Zecevic, when do you -- when would you be able
5 to disclose the list of documents that you -- to the -- to the Registry?
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, probably by tomorrow evening.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: At what time?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: But we have the afternoon. I would say 7.00.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: 7.00?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Is that possible?
12 [Trial Chamber and senior legal officer confer]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, the problem, as I understand it, is
14 that because it's a videolink, the documents have to be retrieved
15 physically and brought to -- to Belgrade
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I know. That's why I'm bringing it up.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Is there any chance you could make it by, say,
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we're sitting in court until almost
20 quarter to 2.00, so I'll do my best. We're trying to do our best, but
21 I'm not -- we cannot promise.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Registrar, when do you leave The Hague -- or
24 what does the Registry leave The Hague?
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, we're now currently trying to figure
2 out if you can provide the list of documents by 6.00 tomorrow afternoon.
3 Then we're trying to find out if it is possible for the Registry to
4 identify the documents when they -- and bring them with them physically
5 to Belgrade
6 Mr. Pantelic, I hope that it is quick.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Just for the record, Your Honour, what would
8 be discriminating, what would be discriminating for this particular
9 witness is obviously a line of defence of our client, so that should be
10 considered as Rule 68. And in addition, the -- I would like to remind
11 the obligation on OTP on the basis of Rule 66(B) that we have right to
12 inspect all documents in their custody which are material for our
13 defence. Just for the record, Your Honour. Thank you.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, just -- I got -- I got a chance from my
15 assistant's back office. They tell me that a number of documents has not
16 been translated and that might be also a problem, because it is -- as far
17 as I understand, the documents are in Serbian, so then we will have to
18 deal with that somehow.
19 I am just putting the Trial Chamber on notice about that. Thank
21 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, on that we don't have an
22 obligation to translate Rule 68, but he's right, they are. Most of them,
23 I think.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I wasn't suggesting anything of the kind, that it
25 was the obligation of the OTP, I'm just saying as a fact. Thank you.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's bring the witness in.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I should have asked for that map that
4 he marked to be in some way exhibited, I think.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P83, Your Honours.
6 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
7 Q. In fact, I want to stay on maps, please, for a moment,
8 Mr. Djekanovic. During this period, between June and, let's say, the end
9 of July 1992, were you actually living in the town of Kotor Varos?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I'm going to ask for the same map to be put up that you marked
12 before, which is P66. And can you just indicate, please, again with the
13 aid of a pencil or whatever that thing is in red, where you were living.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. So that's just behind the Catholic church; is that right?
16 A. A little bit above the Catholic church. The last building has
17 several parts, and some 5 to 600 metres from there is the Catholic
19 Q. Right. And was Mr. Tepic also living in that area?
20 A. Tepic
21 he lived, if you can believe me. It could have been close to my
22 mother-in-law. I think he rented a flat there. I don't know exactly
23 where. I think certainly he would have had to live there.
24 Q. Don't worry. All right. How far away from where you were living
25 and where you have marked the SJB were you actually living? I mean, how
1 far was where you were living from the SJB?
2 A. The road to the station, I think, is about a thousand metres
3 long, a hundred metres more or less, perhaps, but about one kilometre.
4 Q. I'm sorry, you were living a kilometre away from the SJB? Surely
5 not. You've told us the municipal building was only 800 metres from the
6 SJB, and that's considerably further. You were in a matter of yards,
7 weren't you, of the SJB? I can't translate yards into metres, but a few
8 metres from the SJB where you were living, weren't you?
9 A. No. That is your conclusion. I've said, and I pointed out the
10 place where I lived. Where I worked was at the municipal building in
11 Kotor Varos, and I marked that locality. I never lived in any area close
12 to the police station.
13 Q. But, I'm sorry, I thought you just marked that blue thing behind
14 the Catholic church. Is that where you were living?
15 A. Well, that's what I was telling you. That's where I was living.
16 Next to the Catholic church there was a settlement, a residential area,
17 and I lived in the building that was farthest from the Catholic church.
18 Q. Yes. But the SJB, where you marked it on that map, is very close
19 indeed, isn't it?
20 A. That's not very far because it's not a big town, but I said that
21 the street or the road between where I lived and the station would have
22 been about 800 to 1.000 metres, a kilometre. I can't tell you exactly
23 and precisely, but approximately thereabouts.
24 Q. All right. Well, we'll hear other evidence about this anyhow,
25 but are you sure you didn't yourself personally hear the screams of
1 people being beaten in the SJB?
2 A. No.
3 Q. I'm going to then, please, move very, very quickly, I hope,
4 through the remaining meetings.
5 Did I ask for the last meetings to be exhibited? I think it was
6 29th of -- yes. It was the 29th of June, Your Honours. Can I have
7 that -- that is exhibited, P46.
8 Very quickly can we look at the 2nd of July, 65 ter 713. Oh,
9 yes, and could we exhibit, I'm so sorry, exhibit that map as marked. Oh,
10 it's already exhibited. It's not.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Not with the new marking. If you want that to
12 be --
13 MS. KORNER: A separate exhibit. All right. Yes, please.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P84, Your Honours.
15 MS. KORNER: All right.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. Please proceed.
18 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. I think I asked for the minutes, the 2nd July, 65 ter 713 to be
20 put up.
21 In item 3, please.
22 Someone set fire to the Catholic church, didn't they?
23 A. Yes, someone did set fire to it.
24 Q. Presumably you must have seen it yourself as you were living
25 right next to it.
1 A. Well, I didn't see it in that sense. Actually, I was informed
2 that it had been set on fire, and I went there together with members of
3 civilian protection, and we tried to put out the flames. Unfortunately,
4 we were not successful. So I did see it burning. The interior was
5 highly flammable. We tried, I and other -- and members of the civilian
6 protection, to put it out, but unfortunately it was impossible. But I
7 didn't see it from where I lived. I actually came from my office to the
9 Q. Just dealing with destruction of religious institutions in Kotor
10 Varos, nearly every single mosque when the whole municipality was
11 destroyed, wasn't it, during 1992?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the same with Catholic churches?
14 A. No. The Catholic church in Vrbanjci Donji was intact. Perhaps a
15 mirror -- a window or so was broken, but that would be about it. Then
16 there was the Catholic church in Zabrdje. That, too, was intact
18 Q. All right. And then again under item 3:
19 "Considering the situation in the SJB and the behaviour of the
20 special unit members, Ljuban Ecim and Stojan Zupljanin are to be called
21 for interview."
22 So even after the meeting on the 26th of June where the murders
23 had taken place, on the 2nd of July Special Police are still there.
24 A. Yes, the Special Police was still there.
25 Q. And did you have a meeting with Ljuban Ecim -- or an interview,
1 sorry, and Stojan Zupljanin?
2 A. Not at that time with Ljuban, especially not with Ljuban. The
3 conversation with Stojan came later, and we'll probably touch upon that.
4 Q. Well, okay. Let's deal with it now, because we're rapidly
5 running out of time. Let's have your -- what conversation did you have
6 with Stojan Zupljanin?
7 A. Well, I've already told you we were privately friends, and on
8 that day when we actually had this meeting there was some kind of
9 military operation where our forces were successful, so that a good
10 number of people from the command of the unit actually participated in
11 this celebration. However, the situation changed suddenly, and some
12 people were taken prisoner. Some people were arrested. The driver of
13 the ambulance was wounded. Some people were taken prisoner, and there
14 was panic. Panic set in in the town itself and also in the ranks of the
15 unit. That is when I went with Mr. Peulic to this location which was
16 over 20 kilometres away from Kotor Varos, and Commander Peulic and some
17 other commanders were there, among them Stojan Zupljanin.
18 This is when I went to object to them, to protest, and to ask
19 that the command and control should be at a higher level and so forth,
20 that it should be raised. That was the substance of the conversation.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Just correction to transcript. It's page 74, line
22 22. Witness did not say that they were privately friends. He said that
23 they were on kind of private occasion, unofficial occasion, when they
24 met. And also, he didn't say that on -- it was line -- it's page 75,
25 line 5, in transcript it says Mr. Peulic, but I think that witness said
1 that it was Mr. Pejic who was police expected. Maybe my colleague can
2 clarify that or simply witness can confirm.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I went to that locality with the
4 police inspector Mr. Pejic, and indeed this was a kind of private event.
5 So I never had an official meeting with this man, but we took advantage
6 of this -- the private meeting that we had, unofficial meeting that we
7 had to relay our concerns regarding the organisation and so on, and the
8 premature release and so forth.
9 MS. KORNER:
10 Q. Okay. Well, two questions, first of all. What concerns on this
11 occasion did you express privately to Mr. Zupljanin?
12 A. Well, this wasn't a private conversation. There were other
13 people there present. We talked about the general situation and the
14 problems that arose, the fact that the men were getting a bit
15 disorganised and less disciplined, and also we discussed the problems
16 that had occurred on the previous days, especially the problems relating
17 to abandoned houses and villages, and that was about it.
18 Q. So again you didn't mention killings or beatings to him?
19 A. I said that I -- mention was made of everything that was
20 happening, and there was no special emphasis made on that. Of course, we
21 did probably mention those things as well, among others.
22 Q. All right. And secondly, why -- why have a private conversation
23 with him rather than putting in an official complaint or even going to
24 Zupljanin's superiors?
25 A. We communicated officially through the chief of the station,
1 Mr. Tepic. From the minutes, the earlier minutes, it was clearly said
2 that the Crisis Staff could not interfere with military or police
3 matters, and we could only express our opinion or dissatisfaction, but we
4 could not actually tell them what to do or how to do it. In other words,
5 in -- on several occasions in the minutes of the meetings it was said
6 that this was mentioned and that Mr. Savo Tepic would advise him of it
7 and so on.
8 Q. All right. And whilst we're dealing with meetings with -- with
9 officials, did you ever have any meetings with General Talic about the
11 A. Yes, I had many meetings with Mr. Talic.
12 Q. In respect of what? What were you complaining about to
13 General Talic?
14 A. Well, at -- for a while there was the problem with the personnel
15 in Kotor Varos who were not getting logistical support. Then on other
16 occasions and later on on these occasions where we visited, we had
17 occasion to take a gift to these people or maybe take some supplies if we
18 managed to get some boots or uniforms, pieces of clothing for these
19 people, or we would go and talk simply to encourage each other, to boost
20 each other's morale.
21 Q. Stop. So you are saying you were taking gifts or clothing or
22 whatever and boots to General Talic?
23 A. No, not to General Talic but to the units that he was in command
25 Q. All right. Did you ever make any complaints about what troops
1 under his overall command in the Krajina Corps were doing in Kotor Varos?
2 And that's simply yes or no, please.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. And what was it you were complaining to General Talic
5 that his troops were doing in Kotor Varos?
6 A. Well, there was a general disarray, lack of organisation,
7 overlapping of authorities. Frequently it was not clear who was in
8 command of what unit. We had a Light Brigade in Kotor Varos, as there
9 were in other towns, and there were combat operations in Kotor Varos and
10 yet this Light Brigade was for a very long time without a commander and
11 it was not within the system of the Republika Srpska Army. It was
12 without a commander for a very long time, up until the end of June or
13 maybe even through July. Sometimes --
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, were you complaining about all this?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we were complaining, and we
16 asked them to resolve these issues.
17 MS. KORNER:
18 Q. Right. Okay. Can we move, then, please, to the next document --
19 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes. Could I have the last one exhibited,
20 please. That's 65 ter 713.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As P85, Your Honours.
22 MS. KORNER:
23 Q. Can you look, please, at the 4th of July meeting.
24 MS. KORNER: That hasn't been given a 65 ter number, Your Honour,
25 a proper one, so it's 10109. And I'm just going to ask that to be marked
1 for identification. Thank you.
2 Q. Very quickly, item 3. No, it's different. It's different. No.
3 It's completely different. All right. Can I just look at the top page.
4 Does it say the 4th of July at 1730? No. It's the 15th of August. I
5 thought that wasn't right.
6 MS. KORNER: Okay. I don't want to -- I'll come back to that,
7 Your Honour, if I may, later. Can we move, then -- I hope this one -- to
8 the next one, 65 ter 715, please.
9 There's a complete -- sorry, Your Honour. No, didn't want that
10 one. It's my fault.
11 7th of July, 717, please. No, that will do. That's fine. 717
12 will do, thank you.
13 Q. Again, sir, just very quickly. This is a second -- another
14 bulletin that you issued, is it, of the Crisis Staff activities, but this
15 time on the 7th of July.
16 A. That's correct, but I believe it's issue number 4. That is the
17 fourth, not the second bulletin.
18 Q. I just want --
19 MS. KORNER: I'm not going to go through that because of timing.
20 Could I just have that exhibited, please?
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: What for, Mrs. Korner?
22 MS. KORNER: If you want me to go through it I'll explain.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
24 MS. KORNER: It's full of stuff, but it's just the timing.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: I realise the timing but you are as much as in
1 control of it. We are hesitant to admit documents that we have no idea
2 about what they say or what they're purported to bring, so please specify
3 and --
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. I will, does this -- if we look under fight -- the heading
6 "Fighting Becoming Fiercer," do we see these words because you quarreled
7 with my words about takeover:
8 "The takeover of power and attempt to introduce order and rule of
9 law into enterprises agencies ... encountered fierce opposition from
10 forces representing the Croat-Muslim coalition ..."
11 Do you confirm that that's what it says, "the takeover of power."
12 Yes? Is that what it says?
13 A. Yes, I can see that.
14 Q. Yes. Does it also say that "In addition to active and reserve
15 policemen, the following units participate in this broad scope operation
16 to confiscate arms, special units of the Banja Luka CSB, Serbian
17 Territorial Defence, and units of the 122nd Light Infantry Brigade"?
18 A. Well, obviously that's what it says there.
19 Q. And was that accurate? Is that right?
20 A. In operations to collect weapons, all units that were in the
21 field were involved in this in their areas of responsibility.
22 Q. And in the second paragraph under that first heading "Fighting
23 Becoming Fiercer," do we see:
24 "Still the hardest battles are to come. The fiercest extremists
25 and fanatics have got away to be extremely well-fortified and --" it
1 doesn't make much sense in English, but anyhow, "defended villages of
2 Vecici, Sokoline, Ravne, and some others. Although their jihad is
3 destined to be these parts as our dreams of a Muslim municipality in
4 which Serbs would once again be servants and plebeians, this is not the
5 time to relax because as we've already stated the hardest battles are to
7 Did you authorise such language to be put into these documents
8 which were being distributed to the public?
9 A. The content of the bulletins was never analysed at the Crisis
10 Staff. There was a man who was in charge of drafting, preparing the
11 bulletin, and printing it off using a very primitive printing device, but
12 we did not discuss the contents thereof at the Crisis Staff.
13 Q. But once you'd seen the first one that used this kind of
14 inflammatory language, talking about jihad, did you take any steps to
15 say, This is not language that is going to have an effect of peaceful
16 co-existence, for example? Did you say anything like that?
17 A. I don't know who, if anyone, was ever able to prove that there
18 was no jihad in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including our
19 own municipality, and I should add that there were armed forces and
20 that -- they used, and using such a strong term was quite appropriate,
21 because everyone was using them, all sides at the time.
22 Q. Yes.
23 JUDGE HALL: Do you renew your application to have that
25 MS. KORNER: I do, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P86, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE HALL: Is it that time, Ms. Korner.
4 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honours, we asked Ms. Featherstone if she
5 could speak to you about whether we could sit tomorrow to see if we could
6 finish the second witness, and I think it may be possible.
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, it looks as if, in fact, the entire
9 afternoon tomorrow might be taken up by this. So we would have to sit
10 literally all day, from 9.00 in the morning until 6.00 or maybe 7.00 in
11 the evening.
12 MS. KORNER: I don't -- no. This witness, no. I mean, I
13 honestly -- I know it doesn't sound it, but I only have about another
14 four or five meetings to show him, and I understand -- I don't know
15 whether Mr. Zecevic is able to assist, but I understand that he may be
16 having shorter cross-examination. My application was in respect of the
17 following witness, to try and deal with him.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, but our concern is that if we take for
19 granted the time indications that the Defence counsels have given, then
20 effectively we will be using all morning with this witness.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes, that's right.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And then probably most of the afternoon session
23 tomorrow afternoon for the next witness, which would bring us in the end
24 to spend all day in court, and I think that there is an issue, at least
25 with the accused, for them to sit the whole day.
1 MS. KORNER: Because I thought that's rather like the extended
2 sittings that you've organised for the next week.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: If we had been talking about adding perhaps one
4 extra session of 90 minutes, then we could have discussed it, but it
5 looks more realistic to me that this wouldn't do it. We will have to use
6 at least two if not all three session of tomorrow.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Presiding Judge says that it appears to be no
9 as an answer.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I thought we were rising, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE HALL: There is a procedural matter with which I must deal.
13 Sir, I must remind you, as I did again yesterday when we
14 adjourned, that your evidence is still ongoing, and therefore I repeat
15 the admonition that you cannot speak to the lawyers from either side, nor
16 can you discuss your testimony with anybody -- your testimony -- in your
17 conversation with anybody else you can't discuss your testimony before
18 the Chamber.
19 So we resume at 9.00 tomorrow morning in this Chamber.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
21 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th of October,
22 2009, at 9.00 a.m.