1 Thursday, 15 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 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 to everyone.
9 May we have the appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner, Matthew
11 Olmsted, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Appearing for Stanisic Defence, Zecevic and
14 Mr. Slobodan Cvijetic.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning. For Zupljanin Defence, Igor
16 Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, Eric Tully, and Harriet Taylor. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 Could we have Mr. Djekanovic back on the stand, please.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Just a correction to transcript, Ms. Harriet
20 Taylor, T like tango. Thank you.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Djekanovic, sir, good morning to you. I remind
23 you that you're still on your oath.
24 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
25 WITNESS: NEDJELKO DJEKANOVIC [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Djekanovic. We left off -- we
4 stopped yesterday for procedural reasons before we finished, so now we'll
5 try very briefly to go through a few points that remain unclear after
6 yesterday's examination, and I'll try to conclude as soon as possible.
7 The same caution as yesterday, please speak more slowly for the
8 interpreters. I understand your nervousness and your desire to explain
9 all these events, but please mind the speed.
10 I noticed in the transcript yesterday that perhaps because of
11 overlapping between us some things remained unclear. When you spoke
12 about that lunch, which you went to attend, you went practically because
13 Pejic told you the command was there; right?
14 A. Yes, Mr. Pejic suggested we go up there because he heard that
15 they were gathering there for some sort of social occasion, and I took
16 his advice, and Pejic and I went together.
17 Q. On that day or perhaps the day before that attack happened with
18 the initial military success and then failure, and at that point none of
19 the military commanders from the municipality were in town, nobody who
20 could deal with the problem and that's why you went there?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And you went practically to see Peulic, who was the absolute
23 commander on the entire territory of Varos
24 A. Yes, we went to see Peulic but we knew that the others were there
25 too -- I mean, I had been told that the others were there, the others in
1 charge of command.
2 Q. And at that time Peulic as the officer leading military
3 operations was the absolute commander in that region, there was a war
4 going on?
5 A. Yes, he was the absolute commander. I don't know if his force
6 was called tactical group, but I knew that the municipal brigade had its
7 own commander. But still they were in effect subordinated to him. He
8 commanded all the military operations, he made all the decisions, and led
9 all the military activity.
10 Q. And in a certain way, because you were under the immediate threat
11 of war, he also had a decisive influence on you in view of the war?
12 A. You couldn't say that he had decisive influence on us as civilian
13 authorities in areas of our competence. You couldn't say that he ordered
14 us about or commanded our activities.
15 Q. I'm talking now about military activities, combat operations,
16 control of territory in the area of combat operations. And in that
17 sense, when you say that he was the absolute commander it's in that sense
18 that I meant it.
19 A. Yes, yes, to the extent that we had any jurisdiction ourselves in
20 military things. You know that we did not have any competence in
21 military operations.
22 Q. You even mentioned that as far as combat operations are concerned
23 when you heard that there was an action planned to take place in town,
24 you had only been informed that the action had taken place?
25 A. Precisely. That happened often.
1 Q. And in this specific case concerning this attack, that was one of
2 the complaints you made during that picnic, if I can call it that?
3 A. Yes, because it demonstrated the complete lack of coordination of
4 these military operations, overlapping between units, all these things
5 that created problems for our men, for the army. And it was our good
6 intention and suggestion that this kind of conduct should be redressed.
7 Whether he really took note or appreciated what we said is another
9 Q. Mr. Djekanovic, you gave an interview to the Prosecution twice,
10 in 2003 and now in March 2009; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. On both occasions it was a suspect interview?
13 A. Yes, on both occasions I was designated as a suspect and summoned
14 as such.
15 Q. The latest interview in Sarajevo
16 investigator, an interpreter, a Prosecutor. Did you have the impression
17 that you were under pressure? Were you anxious about your status and
18 possible criminal proceedings that could ensue in Sarajevo
19 A. At the end I signed my statement and agreed to state that I gave
20 it voluntarily, which is true; but it's also true that I gave that
21 statement as a suspect, that I had been summoned as a suspect, and that
22 is not contested. And that certainly had an effect and has an effect on
23 my evidence and very frequently my inability to explain the problem the
24 way it occurred. You have to say yes or no to many questions rather than
25 explain how it really was. Of course somebody qualified can build the
1 whole picture out of that, but I was not always able to say all I know
2 about a certain event. Very often I had to say just yes or no. I was
3 very often interrupted, et cetera.
4 Q. In other words, you were asked leading questions and you were
5 asked to reply briefly and draw certain conclusions; correct?
6 A. I really would not like and will not comment here.
7 Q. And precisely because of this method and your status, you did not
8 want to appear voluntarily as a Prosecution witness; is that correct?
9 A. No, I did not want to be -- to appear voluntarily as a
10 Prosecution witness. Even before when I was invited by some other
11 parties to give statements, I did not agree. I refrained from all of
12 that. And I had been invited both in the Brdjanin case and in the
13 Krajisnik case, but by the Defence, not the Prosecution.
14 Q. And as far as I was able to see, in your interview there are many
15 incomplete answers, many assumptions voiced. You couldn't remember
16 always the dates, the event itself, all the details?
17 A. That's true. If you analyse my evidence over the past days, you
18 can certainly find dates that I had confused, the sequence of things
19 confused. But I have to say again, after 17 years elapsed and under the
20 circumstances under which I live, it's very difficult. I did not have
21 the will or the strength or the time to be honest to gather all the
22 information and to put things in chronological order. Whatever I had in
23 terms of documents I gave to the Prosecution, but I had no time to
24 dedicate to some sort of personal project to gather more information.
25 Q. But you never got a transcript from this latest interview, March
2 A. It was videotaped, so I received the videotape.
3 Q. And you listened to that tape after you came to The Hague?
4 A. I did. Not before I travelled, but here, yes.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I just consult my
6 client for a moment?
7 [Zupljanin Defence counsel and Accused Zupljanin confer]
8 MR. PANTELIC: In the meantime, Your Honour, just for the record
9 and it should be corrected transcripts from 7th of October -- sorry, 7th,
10 I think -- anyhow, page 1068, line 24, 25, this witness said that
11 Zupljanin was the chief of Crisis Staff, but probably he meant that it
12 was a context of question of my learned friend Ms. Korner that he was a
13 chief of CSB. Just to correct it or maybe I can clarify with the witness
14 if you wish.
15 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
16 Sorry, Your Honour, I don't need the mike then -- I'm just asking
17 what line -- I've got page 1068 open. Where do you say --
18 MR. PANTELIC: 24, 25.
19 Maybe it's 1069, sorry, it's my mistake. 24, 25. Sorry. I'll
20 correct it during the break.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which day was it?
22 MS. KORNER: I've seen it, Your Honour, it's 1069, lines 8 and 9.
23 It says: "Zupljanin was head of the Crisis Staff."
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, on which day?
25 MS. KORNER: On the 8th of October.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: Can I clarify that with the witness or it's already
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Djekanovic, just to remove one remaining
5 unclarity. At the beginning when you were talking about the Crisis Staff
6 of the Autonomous Region Krajina, it remained on the record that Stojan
7 Zupljanin was at the head of that staff. In fact --
8 A. Of course not. He was never the head of the Crisis Staff.
9 Q. Brdjanin was at the head of the Crisis Staff for a while. I
10 think you say so?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Djekanovic. I have no further questions for you.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, before I begin my re-examination, in
14 the light of all the questions that were asked about the interview and
15 the suggestions that were made to the witness about the leading questions
16 and the like, may I formally now apply to have both interviews exhibited
17 so that Your Honours can look at the context of all questions and
18 answers. I think there are about a dozen or so questions. So it's the
19 interview of the 25th of March, which will be 65 ter 10119 and the
20 interview of the 12th of March -- sorry, 12th of June, 2003, 10118.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, you have something to say about that
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence is
24 opposed to the admission of these documents. First of all, they're not
25 on the 65 ter list, which means that in keeping with the instruction
1 given by the Trial Chamber and the decision of the Trial Chamber they
2 cannot be exhibited. Second, using a suspect interview in the form of
3 interview not in the form of statement, unlike other witness statements,
4 would be inappropriate unless the Prosecution intends to impeach this
5 witness and treat him as a hostile witness. Since this is not the case
6 here, I believe it would be inappropriate to use a suspect interview.
7 And when I met with the witness, he did impart to me his impression that
8 he was under pressure and that frequently in that interview he was giving
9 some --
10 JUDGE HALL: If I may interrupt you there, Mr. Krgovic. You
11 can't give evidence, but having regard to your basic objection haven't
12 you made it an issue?
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That's why I didn't show the
14 witness his interview, for those reasons.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, but by your questions you've made it an issue,
16 haven't you?
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, but only on
18 leading questions and that was confirmed by the witness. That was his
19 impression of the way the interview led. If the Prosecution claims there
20 were no leading questions, I have no problem with that. I just asked the
21 witness about his impression without quoting from the interview. He just
22 confirmed. So if the Prosecution wants to --
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, you said the witness confirmed.
24 Didn't he say: I won't comment on this?
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] He said that questions were put to
1 him in such a way that he had to answer yes or no, which means that
2 that's the way questions were formulated. He does not know the term
3 "leading question" or what it means. He was frequently interrupted
4 during the interview. He was not allowed to finish his explanations or
5 state his position on certain issues, but right now during his evidence
6 he did explain his position on many things and that is his evidence.
7 Now, exhibiting the interview with a view to impeaching or discrediting
8 this witness I don't think is appropriate.
9 MS. KORNER: I'm not actually seeking to impeach the witness. I
11 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Ms. Korner, before you reply, I think
12 Mr. Zecevic also had something to say on this.
13 MS. KORNER: Oh, I see.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of
15 Mr. Stanisic is also opposed. Among other things, I believe that it is
16 completely inadmissible after the completion of a cross-examination for
17 the Prosecution to tender new documents. Essentially that would mean
18 that we have to go back to examination with these new documents and then
19 finish cross-examining the witness. I don't think that's acceptable.
20 MS. KORNER: The answer is there's no right to re-cross-examine
21 unless leave is sought. The simple issue is this: Mr. Krgovic in his
22 cross-examination raised with the witness the way he alleges the
23 interview has been conducted and he indeed went -- said even more in his
24 argument why it shouldn't go in. It is, therefore, only right and
25 proper, and I'm afraid that's the result of cross-examination like that,
1 that Your Honours have a chance to look at the interview, see how it
2 went, what was said, and what the form of the questions were. And I'm
3 afraid that's what results when cross-examination is conducted in this
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: In the Chamber's view, this matter is more simply
7 resolved than counsel on either side appear to understand it to be, for
8 the simple reason that when the suggestions were put to the witness by
9 Mr. Krgovic the witness at the end of it all says that it's something on
10 which he would not comment. So, therefore, there is no evidence - and I
11 underline the word "evidence" in that regard - and the Chamber will
12 simply disregard that whole exchange between the witness and counsel.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I -- at one point he said
14 I'm not prepared to comment, but he was agreeing with all the other
15 suggestions that were being made about the interview. In your interview
16 there are incomplete answers, many assumptions voiced, you couldn't
17 remember the dates, the event, or the details. That's true. And then
18 further down --
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, in our view that does not constitute
20 any wrong techniques for interview on the part of the Prosecution. I
21 mean, the only thing we have is an allegation made by counsel Krgovic
22 that it was all very leading. And as far as we understand the witness's
23 answers, he wouldn't want to comment on whether he thought they were
24 leading or not. And that's the end of the story, and hence our decision
25 to simply disregard the allegation made by Krgovic.
1 Re-examination by Ms. Korner:
2 Q. You -- let's deal with your interview, Mr. Djekanovic, because I
4 interviewed on tape, and you were given a copy of the tape. Is that
5 right? Mr. Djekanovic?
6 A. I did receive a copy of the recording on the tapes --
7 MR. PANTELIC: [Previous translation continues]... because there
8 were two interviews and interview in Hague just for the record, please.
9 MS. KORNER:
10 Q. I said on the first occasion, in 2003, you had -- I didn't say
11 "interview in The Hague
12 A. Yes, I was given a copy of the tape immediately. I was given six
13 or seven audio-cassettes, yes.
14 Q. And indeed you had your own transcript prepared, or you prepared
15 your own transcript of what was said in that interview?
16 A. Yes, I needed quite some time to listen to it slowly and to type
17 the text out myself and to -- well, it's a question of how acceptable it
18 is as evidence, but it is true that I did transcribe parts of it that
19 were written in Serbian. I didn't type the bits that were in English,
20 but everything that was in Serbian I did type out for myself.
21 Q. And as you've told the Court, you on the second occasion the
22 whole interview was videotaped, and you were given a copy of the
23 videotape immediately on the conclusion of that interview. Is that
25 A. Yes, I've already confirmed that. Yes.
1 Q. And you were also told on both occasions, weren't you, that if
2 you wanted a lawyer present you could have a lawyer present?
3 A. Not entirely. In the first interview or during the first
4 interview I didn't know that I had the right to an attorney. This was
5 given -- told to me at the beginning of the questioning.
6 Q. Right. And were you told that the choice was yours.
7 "Q. Do you wish to have a lawyer present for this interview?"
8 And you said:
9 "Right now in this phase of the proceedings, I don't see that I
10 can change anything."
11 Is that right?
12 A. Yes, it is absolutely correct that I said that.
13 Q. And on the second occasion do you agree that you had definitely
14 been told in advance you had the right to have a lawyer present?
15 A. Even though the interview was conducted fairly recently, I
16 received a summons saying -- or that I was being questioned as a suspect
17 and that I was being interviewed in relation to the Zupljanin/Stanisic
18 case. This is what it said on the summons that I received.
19 Q. Did it tell you that you had the right to have a lawyer?
20 A. I don't dispute that it was perhaps said even though this
21 interview took place fairly recently, a couple of months ago, I'm not --
22 I'm not disputing that even though I cannot remember exactly.
23 Q. All right. I want to now go back over some of the matters you've
24 been asked about in cross-examination first of all by Mr. Zecevic. You
25 were asked about the community of Herceg-Bosna. Do you remember that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you identified the municipalities that you said belonged to
3 that community, including that of Jajce. Do you remember?
4 A. Yes, I remember that.
5 Q. Jajce in fact made an application, did it not, to join the
6 Autonomous Region of Krajina?
7 A. I don't recall that detail. Perhaps the Municipal Assembly of
8 Jajce had submitted such a request. I'm not talking about the
9 municipality of Jajce as part of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia
10 and Herzegovina
11 Jajce, including the municipality of Jezero
12 Republika Srpska area did that. But not the entire municipality of
14 Q. Well, I'll just show you a document, which I'm not going to ask
15 to exhibit - it's purely to refresh your memory. Could you have a look,
16 please, at -- what did you say the number was? 65 ter 10129. That's a
17 document headed: "The Assembly of the Serbian Municipality
18 dated the 22nd of February, 1992, so some three -- two weeks after your
19 municipality had applied to join. Request for admission into the
20 Autonomous Region of Krajina. And then if we go down the document in
21 English, please, the following delegates were elected to the Autonomous
22 Region of Krajina Assembly. And did you know those gentlemen who are
23 named there, Mr. Djekanovic?
24 A. I only knew the first person, and I stand by what I first said
25 that this was the Serbian municipality of Jajce and not the entire region
1 of the municipality of Jajce
2 still know him today.
3 Q. Can I say, I'm not disputing that it was claimed by Herceg-Bosna
4 as well. I'm merely pointing out that it also had links apparently with
5 the Autonomous Region of Krajina. All right, that's all I ask about
7 MS. KORNER: As I say, Your Honours, that was simply to remind
8 the witness, so I don't want it exhibited or even marked.
9 Q. Next I want to turn to the question of communications, please,
10 and what you said to Mr. Zecevic yesterday. And this is the transcript
11 at page 1426. It was put to you by Mr. Zecevic that telephone lines were
12 also cut off, right, and you said:
13 "The greatest part of that period, no telephone communications
14 were available at all. Only later did we establish one telephone line
15 through the post office in Banja Luka, but that was much later. In those
16 first days we had no telephones at all.
17 "Q. You mean to say there was one telephone line -- first of
18 all, at the beginning there was no communication with the outside world,
19 and then later one telephone line was established for the whole of the
20 municipality; correct?
21 "A. Yes, I'm talking about the whole of the municipality.
22 "Q. So your only means of communication, apart from your
23 physical ability or inability to leave the municipality and then only to
24 Banja Luka, was this one telephone that was made to work?
25 "A. Yes, in that period, yes."
1 And you confirmed the next page that was -- that in June and July
2 you had no power, no telephone communication, and the fact that there was
3 no electricity, et cetera. Do you want to think about that for a moment?
4 A. I don't know what you're thinking of. I know what was going on
5 at the time. I talked about the civilian telephone lines, and I didn't
6 speak about the military or the police lines. I don't know about that
7 and don't wish to talk about that, but as for the fact that there were
8 electricity shortages, telephone lines were cut off, we had to dismantle
9 fuel pump in the Proleks plant in order to provide some kind of mechanism
10 to be able to pump water. These are the difficulties that we were
11 encountering, but I don't really wish to speak about that in detail.
12 Q. No, I am only interested in the phones. Do you stick by your
13 answer, that in the whole of June and July there was no telephone
15 A. I really cannot say whether it was throughout the whole of June
16 until that conflict broke out on the 11th. There were conflicts over
17 those days and weeks, and they were gaining in intensity in Bosnia
19 problem, not only a problem of the Kotor Varos municipality. The Kotor
20 Varos municipality did have specific problems at the time -- a specific
21 problem --
22 Q. All right. Can you have another look, please, at document P87.
23 Okay. Crisis Staff meeting 7th of July. Can we move across the page to
24 the English, please.
25 Item 2: Under this item all Crisis Staff members reported one by
1 one on their activities in the course of a day. The planned harvest
2 programme in Kotor Varos municipality was upheld. Reconnection of
3 telephones for the needs of the public auditing services for Kotor Varos
4 was authorised. So, Mr. Djekanovic, you had a telephone line, didn't
6 A. I said that there was one telephone line that was provided, some
7 kind of technical re-connection was done. We didn't go into how this was
8 done in order to make it possible for the public auditing service to
9 work. Some phones were put into service. Later I know that telephone
10 lines were established again for some specific institutions. I don't
11 know exactly technically how this was done. All I know is that there was
12 one single telephone connection between Kotor Varos and Banja Luka
13 we proceeded on the basis of that.
14 Q. It says "authorised." Was it the fact that you were controlling
15 the use of the telephones, not that they weren't available or the
16 telephone lines?
17 A. We were not controlling or were able to control this, but there
18 were requests to enable lines to function by making switches at the post
19 office switchboard so that they could work. We did not have an unlimited
20 number of telephone lines at our disposal, and we did not authorise who
21 should have telephone lines or not.
22 Q. All right. Well, I'm not going to pursue this matter any further
23 either. You've said to I believe it was Mr. Zecevic yesterday - I'll
24 just check that, it may be Mr. Krgovic - yes, it was Mr. Krgovic, this.
25 You were dealing with the -- what you describe as the people coming into
1 town as refugees, and you said this:
2 "In any case, nowhere were civilians removed by force."
3 Again, is that an answer that you want to confirm -- sorry, I
4 should say it's page 1457. Mr. Djekanovic, is that the evidence that you
5 want the Court to understand is right?
6 A. As for the population being removed from their homes by force and
7 that they were forced to evacuate, I do stand by that.
8 Q. So you're saying at no stage in the whole of the conflict in
9 Kotor Varos was there ever a time when people were driven out of their
10 homes in villages and put into camps - is that what you're saying? - and
12 A. There were individual people being arrested or detained, but as
13 for entire families to be removed by force from their homes or entire
14 families being arrested, I definitely say that nothing like that
15 happened. A good part of the population came of their own initiative,
16 asking us to place them under protection briefly. But this didn't last
17 that long, and they asked for transports to be organised for them to be
18 able to move on.
19 Q. I just want to -- that's what you want the Court to understand is
20 your evidence about the events. All right.
21 Next, you were asked yesterday by -- this was by Mr. Zecevic
22 about the Crisis Staff, and this is page 1411. And the question was:
23 "When the Crisis Staff was formed, it became the sole authority
24 in the municipality, uncontested power; is that correct?
25 "A. Yes.
1 "Q. When I say 'uncontested,' what I mean by that is that all
2 the rights and duties for normal life in the municipality, the economy,
3 the utilities, the schools rested with the Crisis Staff?
4 "A. Yes, all matters except for military matters.
5 "Q. In that sense you absolutely didn't require any instructions
6 because the legal powers in that sense and the text of the law are very
7 clear in terms of what are your powers, responsibilities, rights; is that
9 "A. Yes."
10 I want to understand, and I think the Trial Chamber need to
11 understand, Mr. Djekanovic, what you're saying about that in respect of
12 the police. Is that answer intended to include the fact that you had
13 authority over the police in the sense of giving them instructions or
15 A. I myself wanted to ask for an opportunity to respond to this
16 question. It partially referred to the Crisis Staff decision to
17 introduce a curfew in the municipality. These are all dates after the
18 11th of June. Up until the 11th of June there was several Crisis Staff.
19 Each of the ethnic groups had their own Crisis Staff who were acting
20 within that segment of the population. The Crisis Staff that I was at
21 the head of didn't exist at that time. After the 11th of June it was
22 entrusted with the entire civilian power in the municipality of Kotor
23 Varos. When I say "civilian powers," it means that we did have the right
24 to provide logistic supplies for the military, to secure fuel. Often we
25 had to find ways to collect money, also to buy ammunition. I do not
1 dispute that we did that. As for the use of units, I do not dispute that
2 it was in the part of the powers of the municipality to deal with such
3 decisions because they were problems that we were facing in the Crisis
4 Staff, but the Crisis Staff could not decide on the use of police units
5 or military units. We -- the Crisis Staff that I was heading did not
6 have nor is there any evidence that they had the power to order any use
7 of the units. We did suggest very often, and the suggestions would refer
8 to such matters like that it was necessary to provide security for
9 populations of a certain area. The example is the village of Garici
10 which was a joint suggestion of the Crisis Staff to secure additional
11 forces to secure that village, and that is where we met with the support
12 of the military and the police. But again, we did not decide when some
13 military action would take place, how it would take place. We did not
14 have such powers. I state that with full responsibility, nor is there
15 any evidence that as the Crisis Staff we were able to do anything like
17 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry to interrupt, but I think -- I'm not
18 thinking, I'm sure, that the witness stated that Crisis Staff imposed
19 curfew in the municipality and that was a part of his -- I mean, its
20 authority. So I should -- I think that my learned friend should ask him
21 again for the correction in transcript or maybe our witness can confirm
22 that. He mentioned during his answer but it was not put in the
23 transcript you -- to the main issue that Mr. Djekanovic is speaking very
24 fast and that certain portion of his statement cannot go into the record.
25 And I kindly ask Mr. Djekanovic to please slow down for a half of speed
1 so that we have everything precise in the transcript. But this
2 particular part where he said that Crisis Staff imposed curfew and that
3 he was authorised -- and that Crisis Staff was authorised for that is --
4 it isn't a part of particular transcript, which is quite important issue,
5 I believe.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Isn't it at page 18, line 11?
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, that's a beginning of his answer, but later
8 on, it should be around line 19 or 20, he expanded his response in regard
9 to police authorities' curfew. Sorry.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I've raised over and over again now
11 what I say is an improper way of giving the witness the answer. If it is
12 thought that something else was said, then the witness can be asked to
13 repeat what he said and not given the answer in this way.
14 Q. Right. Can we go back to the question I actually asked,
15 Mr. Djekanovic, which was this: When you said what you said about the
16 powers of the Crisis Staff - and can we simply concentrate on the police,
17 forget about the military - were you saying that you could give orders to
18 the police?
19 A. No, we could not issue orders to the police and there are such
20 minutes from Crisis Staff meetings. They were shown here as well, where
21 it is clearly stated that the Crisis Staff is not authorised to interfere
22 in the jurisdiction of the police. There are such minutes of meetings
23 here and they were shown here.
24 Q. Yes, I agree. I just want -- so that everybody's clear about
25 what you are saying. So in relation to the document that you were shown
1 about the curfew, you say that the powers of the Crisis Staff included
2 imposing a curfew and the police obviously would have to carry it out.
3 If the police, for whatever mad reason, had refused to carry it out,
4 would you have had the authority to order them to carry it out?
5 A. No, I understand -- I don't understand the question sufficiently.
6 We didn't have the need for something like that. The member of the
7 police was a member of the joint Crisis Staff, so we reached our
8 decisions together. At different points in time different organs make
9 decisions relating to the crisis situation or the Crisis Staff. We were
10 in a situation of imminent danger of war, and the situation which was
11 such that war was already being waged in the municipality -- in the whole
12 area of Bosnia-Herzegovina war was waging -- war was being waged --
13 Q. Yes. All right. Okay. I think you explained earlier, but the
14 point of a Crisis Staff, having the police and a representative of the
15 military attend, was to coordinate activities. Is that right? I think
16 you said that earlier on. Is that right, Mr. Djekanovic? A simple yes
17 or no will do.
18 A. Members of the Crisis Staff were people in certain positions in
19 the executive arm of authorities in Kotor Varos. Among them was the
20 chief of police and of course naturally it was the task of the Crisis
21 Staff to coordinate, to interlink, organise, and assume responsibility
22 for the civilian life in the territory of Kotor Varos.
23 Q. Right. Well, I think we've covered that and you've explained
24 your position.
25 I want to deal now with the special police as such. And can we
1 understand what your evidence is now about the special police. First,
2 did you ask for assistance from Banja Luka to take power on the 11th of
4 A. Yes, we asked for assistance from Banja Luka.
5 Q. From whom was that assistance sought?
6 A. We knocked on every door, the corps command, the police.
7 Q. Right. Did Stojan Zupljanin, as head of the police, the CSB,
8 supply you with assistance?
9 A. I don't understand the question at all. I don't know if he
10 supplied us with assistance, but as help to the -- to our police one unit
11 from the Banja Luka police was sent.
12 Q. Right. And --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. May -- can you ask him again to repeat the
14 answer because it is not precise in transcript, line -- it's page 22,
15 line 4. I don't give any details, so you can proceed. Thank you.
16 MS. KORNER:
17 Q. I'll repeat the question, Mr. Djekanovic. Did Stojan Zupljanin,
18 as head of the police, the CSB, supply you with assistance? Could you
19 tell us again what your answer is.
20 A. The competent authorities of the police in Banja Luka sent one
21 unit to assist Kotor Varos.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. PANTELIC: But witness -- witness said first army and then
24 police, so please ask him to confirm or not to confirm what he was --
25 said. We have -- we have audio -- audio file here.
1 MS. KORNER:
2 Q. Did you mention that the army sent assistance?
3 A. I said we knocked on every door. We addressed the army, the
4 corps, and the police for assistance, and I'm saying this with full
6 Q. I understand that, but I'm asking you -- in fact, you did say
7 that earlier and it's been recorded. But I'm asking you now about
8 whether the police sent assistance and you said twice: Yes, they did.
9 MR. PANTELIC: He said simply and clearly: CSB sended [sic] a
10 police in assistance to military unit, in assistance to military unit,
11 and to the police then. That was his real answer, but okay, I will
12 clarify that with the audio files. Thank you.
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. I've asked you twice now and you've given the same answer twice,
15 Mr. Djekanovic, but I'm going to ask you for the third time: Did the
16 Banja Luka CSB in accordance with your request for assistance send you a
18 A. The Banja Luka centre of security services did send a unit, but I
19 have to add - and it's very difficult for me as a man who's between a
20 rock and a hard place, I'm aware of this - it's equally clear that others
21 sent help too to units, and there was a headquarters of this action. The
22 main commander, the chief commander, of all combat and military
23 operations in Kotor Varos was Commander Peulic.
24 Q. Yes. Who -- I'm sorry, have you ever said this before to
1 A. The question is whether anyone ever asked me. No one ever put a
2 question to me about who was the commander of military operations, who
3 commanded the armed units in the municipality of Kotor Varos.
4 Q. We are talking about the special police, Mr. Djekanovic, and I
5 want to understand what your evidence is at the end of this. Are you
6 saying that a unit known as the special police was sent from Banja Luka
7 or not? It's as simple as that.
8 A. For the umpteenth time I'm answering Your Honours within three,
9 four minutes. A unit from Banja Luka was sent.
10 Q. No. I'm asking --
11 A. Which format, which size, I don't know.
12 Q. No. Was that unit known as the special police unit?
13 A. To that question you can answer this way or that way. In my
14 interviews you did not allow me to explain this. Yesterday in my
15 evidence I said in that unit, for all I know, there were some
16 people - and I gave a few names and I thought over now it - there were
17 some people who had never been in the police, I'm talking about that unit
18 that arrived in Kotor Varos. I mentioned Slobodan Dubocanin, who I
19 believed to be the head of that unit. I know that he had never been in
20 the police before, and there was also his relative, a military volunteer
21 who had participated in the war in Slovenia
22 for all I know had never been in the police. There were also some other
23 people --
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Djekanovic, I wonder is that the criterion?
25 You told us at the beginning of I think yesterday that Savo Tepic when he
1 was appointed head of the police in your municipality was never in the
2 police before.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that post of the
4 commander of the police is a case in point. That happened often. I
5 don't know if that is reason, but for someone to be admitted into the
6 police without first undergoing --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues]... you said that
8 doesn't prevent you to be in a police unit at a certain moment, does it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's possible. I'm not
10 challenging that.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
12 MS. KORNER:
13 Q. You've referred to your interview and you said we wouldn't let
14 you explain --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MS. KORNER:
17 Q. You've referred to your interview and you said we wouldn't let
18 you explain, so I'm going to take you through the parts, please. First
19 interview in May -- I'm sorry, 12th of June, 2003, page 69 on the screen,
20 please. Oh, it's 10118.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I think that we have decision that
22 this interview can be used, if I understand your decision correctly.
23 MS. KORNER: No, the decision was I couldn't make it an exhibit
24 in this case. I'm perfectly entitled now that he has raised the matter
25 to go through it with him, and I'm going to.
1 [Prosecution counsel confer]
2 MS. KORNER: Oh, I'm afraid that my -- okay, it's page 70. Is it
3 on the screen? Right.
4 Q. The context is there's been a break, and I may say on the page
5 before it's said to you: "If at any stage you feel you're too tired to
6 go on answering questions please let us know straight away."
7 And the context was you were looking at the Crisis Staff minutes
8 of the 21st of June. And you said -- and I -- you were asked whether --
9 you'd reminded yourself before you came to the meeting, and you said --
11 "No, what I meant is that I understood these issues better
12 because I was an active participant. But it's entirely possible that I
13 do have a copy of these minutes ... we must say that when the undesired
14 events did occur, people were driven away, houses were left empty and
15 deserted. And then looting began. Destruction of property, destruction
16 of items in the house. Especially the special unit of the police that
17 was stationed there acted badly."
18 And the investigator Mr. Dupas, who was interviewing you, said,
19 We'll talk about the special unit in a moment, and it goes back to
21 Do you agree, because you've got a transcript of this yourself in
22 your possession, Mr. Djekanovic, the first mention of the special police
23 unit in this interview came from you?
24 A. The special unit, special police, that's what we called them,
25 whatever name anyone chose to gave [as interpreted] them. I don't
1 dispute that I mentioned this.
2 Q. Right. Then on the next -- I'm not sure where the page is, page
3 71. Right. You asked about the special unit.
4 "Did you know Ljuban Ecim?"
5 And you said:
6 "I met him for the first time a couple of days after he first
7 arrived. I did not see him a lot, but I met him, yes."
8 "Did you know Mr. Dubocanin?"
9 And you said, yes, you knew him before. And then you were asked
10 whether you knew he was a Crisis Staff -- a regional -- member of the
11 regional Crisis Staff.
12 "You say this special police unit was in Kotor Varos. Who had
13 sent it to Kotor Varos?
14 "That was part of the activities that had to be put under some
15 kind of control, so this came I assume was ... co-ordinated from Banja
16 Luka, it was not under initiative.
17 "Do you mean it was sent from Banja Luka without any consultation
18 with you or your Crisis Staff?
19 "I'm not saying nobody asked us or consulted us, but we could not
20 decide who was going to participate in the units, in the take-over.
21 There was a need for the Banja Luka security services centre to become
22 involved" -- sorry, it's the next page, is it?
23 And then can we go to the page after that.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MS. KORNER: Page 74 I'm told.
1 Your Honour, I have no idea why the hard copy and the thing in
2 the e-court are different page numbers. No, no. Page 72. Yes. Right.
3 Q. Page 72:
4 "Q. Did you ask the Crisis Staff and the CSB in Banja Luka
5 provide you with extra police manpower for the purposes of the take-over?
6 "A. We did ask for assistance to preserve control over
7 everything, to prevent others from taking control.
8 "Q. Is what you're telling us in relation to this Crisis Staff
9 meeting" --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down.
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. -- "the men who got out of control?
13 "A. The special unit of police, yes. That's clear. I mean, you
14 could see in many of the minutes of the Crisis Staff, I asked for it,
15 many of the other members asked for it. It was a problem we needed to
16 solve because the assistance we had originally asked for just ended up
17 giving us a headache ..."
18 And as I say, there are endless other references to the special
19 police unit, Mr. Djekanovic, in this interview and the next. Can we have
20 your final answer, please.
21 Are you saying this special unit was a special police unit sent
22 by Banja Luka, who then -- well, that's the first question. Is that what
23 your evidence is or not?
24 A. [No interpretation]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please start again.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness -- Mr. Djekanovic, sorry, the
2 interpreters didn't catch your answer, so, please, would you repeat your
3 answer. Thanks.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer was that a unit was sent
5 from Banja Luka, and I'm asserting here that we requested that
7 MS. KORNER:
8 Q. Was the unit, the special unit, a special unit of the police as
9 far as you were concerned?
10 A. I could fall into a deep confusion if I tried to pretend that I
11 know how the unit was formed, what were its origins, and what was its
12 size. I know that it arrived, that the centre of the security services
13 was involved, and I know that in the territory of Kotor Varos
14 military units are now aside, were under the command of Mr. Peulic. He
15 was the Commander-in-Chief of all these units -- in fact, every unit of
16 course had its own commander, its own command. But the commander of all
17 military operations in the municipality of Kotor Varos was Mr. Peulic,
18 who was the commander of one of those military units, the biggest, the
19 best-equipped unit.
20 Q. Look, I don't -- I'm not asking you how the unit was formed, what
21 its origins were, or what its size was. Was there a special unit from
22 the Banja Luka CSB under the authority of Mr. Dubocanin who was reporting
23 to you at the Crisis Staff meetings? That's all I want to know.
24 A. You now sort of expanded the question, whether it was under the
25 command of Dubocanin and whether it was responsible to us. I cannot
1 answer in the affirmative.
2 Q. Not -- all right, one more time and then I will leave it,
3 Mr. Djekanovic. Was there a unit of the special police operating in
4 Kotor Varos?
5 A. Everybody called it that, special police unit, and I have no
6 reason to call it otherwise.
7 Q. We have looked at - and I'm not going to ask you to look at it
8 again - endless Crisis Staff meetings dealing with the problems that were
9 being caused by the special police. Was it that group that was -- the
10 complaints were being made about and that Mr. Dubocanin told you was
11 going to leave Kotor Varos at the beginning of July?
12 A. From my statement you can conclude that it is the way you put it
13 because I did not have the opportunity to explain in full all of the
14 problems that surrounded this matter. We spoke a lot in the past few
15 days about those undesirable things and the people within that unit who
16 were out of control, not by the Crisis Staff but they were out of the
17 control of their own commands, and they did all sorts of things. I never
18 contested that. And the Crisis Staff certainly did demand that such
19 conduct by one part of the personnel be put an end to. But not all of
20 the unit was like that, nor is it true that the whole unit was out of
21 control or that the whole unit, as you would like to have it, did these
22 things. Yes, individuals did, and we opposed it clearly in the Crisis
24 MS. KORNER: Right, Your Honours, I know it's time for the break
25 but in light of the answer "from my statement you conclude it's the way
1 you put it because I did not have the opportunity to explain in full all
2 of the problems," I'm renewing my application to make these documents
4 JUDGE HALL: We'll take the break now.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, you asked again for the earlier
9 statements of Mr. Djekanovic to be admitted into evidence. Let me give
10 you the result first and then the reasons afterwards. The result is
11 negative. We will not allow it to be admitted into evidence. The
12 reasons are the following: First of all, this interview was given by the
13 witness when he was a suspect, and that is the main reason why we think
14 that it would be ill-advised to allow it to be admitted into evidence.
15 There are too many caveats that surround a statement that has been given
16 by someone who was a suspect that it would be safe for the Chamber to
17 admit such statements into evidence.
18 Secondly, we understand that the reasons why you now apply for
19 the statement to be admitted was different from the reasons why you
20 applied the first time because the first application was made, as we
21 understood it, as an attempt to counter counsel Krgovic's allegations
22 that the statement had been given under pressure. And for the reasons
23 that we explained, we simply disregarded that allegation.
24 Now the second time was for the purpose of supplementing his oral
25 testimony in court with the written material information that he gave
1 about the identity of the special police unit and the actions in Kotor
3 MS. KORNER: No. That's not right, Your Honour. I accept the
4 decision Your Honours have made, but just for the record, I applied
5 because he said: You didn't give me an opportunity to answer. That's
6 the reason I applied. I repeated my application. Not because of a
7 supplement --
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: In that case, that just fortifies our decision,
9 namely, that we ruled on that matter once, and we're not going to
10 reconsider it. We thought that your second application was actually
11 founded in something different, namely, for the purpose of clarifying the
12 material evidence.
13 MS. KORNER: No. If I --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, let -- I mean, let's not go into a
15 discussion. The ruling is clear.
16 MS. KORNER: Yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: The third reason why we thought it would be
18 unwise is that if we were to allow the statement to come in as such in
19 toto the entire statement, then we would probably have to allow the
20 Defence counsels to bring up certain other aspects. Now the Defence
21 counsels have had the chance to put all the questions to the witness
22 relating to his earlier statements because they've had the statements in
23 advance and they've had the chance to read it and they could have used it
24 in cross-examination, but I suppose that the questions that the counsels
25 did ask in relation to his statements were asked under the premise or
1 under the condition that these statements would not be admitted into
2 evidence. And if now we admit them, we think it would be only fair to
3 the Defence counsels to actually give them a chance to review any
4 questions that they might wish to put.
5 So in order to simply avoid the issue of re-opening the
6 cross-examination, we add that third argument to our decision.
7 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honours -- I understand, and I accept the
8 decision that you've made. Can I just say this: It is almost axiomatic
9 so that for the future we don't have the situation arising again, that if
10 suggestions are made about the way in which an interview is conducted,
11 either by counsel or by the witness himself, well, then it is only fair
12 that Your Honours should be able to see how the interview went. So if
13 these suggestions are being made again, I will be renewing this
14 application. It's axiomatic in the jurisdiction of which I come from and
15 I think Judge Hall comes from that if counsel ask questions and a lot of
16 questions or make suggestions about a document, the document is made part
17 of the evidence.
18 As I say, I accept your ruling on this occasion.
19 The second thing is that I don't know whether Your Honours are
20 aware that a witness who is treated as a suspect has rights which are not
21 given to other people who are interviewed, one is the presence of a
22 lawyer and one is the right not to answer questions. Those are read to
23 him in each and every occasion.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: We are fully aware of --
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I won't take up any more time in this.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: And let me just, since you raised it yourself,
2 remind both counsels as counsel from both sides, that of course the legal
3 system that applies before this Tribunal is not a common law nor civil
4 law. It is a hybrid, and it is a system that applies and develops on its
5 own premises and its own terms. So you cannot always rely exclusively on
6 answers provided in one or the other legal system because here we have to
7 do things differently. Now --
8 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour, you are just
9 reading my thoughts. That was the -- thank you so much.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: The issue relating to the material evidence which
11 we perhaps erroneously thought was behind your second application, we
12 intended to address that issue by allowing you, if you wish, to confront
13 the witness with whatever other parts of his earlier statements that have
14 to do with the issue of the special police unit. Because it is obvious
15 that this issue is crucial to the evidence of -- given by this witness.
16 And so what we will do you -- will allow you to do once we have ruled
17 that the statements are inadmissible is to allow you to put up to the
18 witness further parts of his statements which supplements or maybe even
19 contradicts his oral testimony in court.
20 And for the record, I don't think that any doubt should be left
21 about the priority of evidence given. It applies to both legal systems,
22 both the common law and the civil law, that's evidence given under oath
23 directly and orally before the Court prevails over written statements and
24 written evidence not given under oath. So in both legal systems no doubt
25 remains that in the end it is the spoken word in the court in front of
1 the Judges that will prevail.
2 Now, if this information is supplemented in one way or the other
3 by earlier statements made by the witness, then of course that goes into
4 the final basis on which we will assess the probative value of the
5 witness's testimony.
6 So, Mrs. Korner, you will have another chance to put to the
7 witness a couple of other parts if you wish; but otherwise, that's as far
8 as we will go.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I say, I'm going to move on because
10 I'm anxious that Mr. Olmsted gets the chance to call the next witness.
11 Your Honours have in any event the transcript of the earlier evidence he
12 gave about the special police, and I don't think there's much point in
13 taking it any further.
14 So, Your Honours, I've just got one short topic further to deal
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Usher, will you bring in the witness.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 MS. KORNER:
19 Q. Mr. Djekanovic, I just want finally to ask you about the meetings
20 or meeting you had with Stojan Zupljanin. When you were testifying about
21 this on the 8th of October at page 1108 you had been asked about one of
22 the meetings of the Crisis Staff, and you were asked this:
23 "You had a meeting, did you, with Mr. Zupljanin?
24 "I don't recall details whether on the following day I held or
25 there was held. I did have a couple of meetings with Zupljanin. They
1 were not overall official meetings. You can see from the report that
2 we'd entrusted the head of the police station, but I don't recall that on
3 the following day a meeting with Stojan Zupljanin was held."
4 And this was -- perhaps I better give the exhibit number of this
5 meeting you're referring to. I'll just find it. P81 it was.
6 "Will you did, however, have a meeting, didn't you, with Stojan
7 Zupljanin and you said more than one meeting but after these killings?
8 "After those killings, I did have meetings with Stojan Zupljanin.
9 How many times, when, what the dates were I don't remember but there
10 weren't many such meetings.
11 "All right. What were you saying to Stojan Zupljanin at these
13 "I conveyed to him the positions of the Crisis Staff about our
14 remarks and information, about the conduct of individuals as part of the
15 special unit.
16 "What did you want him to do?
17 "We wanted him for the unit to be organisationally and structural
18 constantly under control, that it should not relax and it should not be
19 permitted for individuals to wilfully do the things that we had referred
20 to earlier. In any case" -- oh, sorry.
21 "And how many meetings, and what was his response to that?
22 "In any case the event was" - this is your answer - "that he
23 would do everything that was in his power to prevent these people
24 behaving in the way that they did.
25 "Who did this? Who was in command of the special unit?
1 "At the beginning of yesterday's hearing I said I don't know
2 exactly who it was. According to my information it was Slobodan
4 Now, yesterday and today you appear to be saying that you only
5 had one meeting, an informal meeting at a picnic at which Stojan
6 Zupljanin was present and all you did was talk in general terms about the
7 military in particular, and you never addressed any specific complaint to
8 Mr. Zupljanin. Which is right? What you said last Wednesday or what you
9 said yesterday and earlier today?
10 A. I didn't say yesterday that the topic of the conversation with
11 Stojan Zupljanin was just the military. I said that the topic were
12 co-ordination and the functioning and the overlap of the authority or the
13 powers, and I said that meeting was not only attended by Zupljanin but by
14 Peulic and by some other commanders of the units. From what I remember
15 this is what I said. I don't see that the first and second statements
16 are that different. I did mention the conclusions of the Crisis Staff,
17 but it's also true that the topic was much broader than what can be
18 concluded from the answers during my first interview.
19 Q. Can we just finally on this topic have a look at the second
20 interview at page 59, and it's 65 ter 1019 -- sorry, 10119. And could we
21 go, please, to page 59 of 67. Yeah.
22 In the middle of the page -- well, thank you very much.
23 "All we are really trying to establish is this: At whatever
24 meeting you had with Stojan Zupljanin, did you tell him that the
25 behaviour of these murdering criminals had to be prevented?"
1 The previous page it talks about the special police.
3 "And that effectively the members of the special unit had to be
4 pulled out of Kotor Varos?
5 "Very soon after that this happened."
6 So is that right what you said in interview, you told him that
7 the murdering -- the behaviour of these murdering criminals in the
8 special unit had to be prevented?
9 A. Individuals from the special police and the special unit, yes.
10 This is what I said. That was the topic of discussion at many Crisis
11 Staff meetings and you can see that in the minutes. I cannot dispute
12 that here. I mean, that is correct.
13 Q. Yes. Thank you.
14 MS. KORNER: That's all I ask.
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Djekanovic, thank you very much for attending.
16 That concludes your testimony. You are now released as a witness. We
17 appreciate your assistance, and we take note of your patience and the
18 personal inconvenience that you would have experienced having regard to
19 the breaks in your testimony. So you may now return home, and we wish
20 you a safe trip. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 JUDGE HALL: Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
24 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour, sorry. We are ready to call our
25 next witness.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
2 MR. PANTELIC: In the meantime, Your Honours, if our clients at
3 certain stage will be in situation to address the Chamber about the issue
4 that I raised yesterday on 65 ter Conference about the actual state and
5 conditions of their health and, you know -- if you think that it's
6 necessary to be informed. I mean, I'm not urging you now, maybe after
7 this witness or whatever is convenient for this Trial Chamber.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, Witness. Will you please make the
11 solemn declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Will you please tell us your name.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Milenko Delic.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Your date of birth, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 30th of March, 1959
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: What is your profession?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a notary now.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: And your ethnicity, please?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Serb.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Did you ever previously testify
23 before this Tribunal in another procedure?
24 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: No. Thank you very much. You may sit down.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 WITNESS: MILENKO DELIC
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Olmsted:
5 Q. Mr. Delic, I would first like to go over your legal background
6 briefly. You started your legal career as a judge at the Sanski Most
7 basic court. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. And how long were you a judge for?
10 A. For two years approximately.
11 Q. And could you tell us what those two years were, what years?
12 A. 1990, 1991, until late March 1992.
13 Q. And kind of cases did you hear as a judge?
14 A. Civilian matters -- civil matters.
15 Q. And from your position as a judge, what was the next position you
16 held in Sanski Most?
17 A. After that I was appointed as public prosecutor in the basic
18 public prosecutor's office in the municipality of Sanski Most.
19 Q. And can you tell us approximately when you were appointed to that
21 A. It was towards the end of May 1992.
22 Q. And who formally appointed you to that position of basic
24 A. I received a letter of appointment signed by the then-president
25 of Republika Srpska, Mr. Radovan Karadzic.
1 Q. And how long were you the basic prosecutor in Sanski Most?
2 A. Until the 10th of October, 1995.
3 Q. And after you left that position in Sanski Most, did you hold the
4 position of deputy prosecutor in Banja Luka until 2004?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And then after that position, between 2004 and 2008, were you
7 working for the district prosecutor's office in Banja Luka?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. As you are the first prosecutor witness to testify in this case,
10 I would like you to describe briefly the organisation of the prosecution
11 service and the courts in the Republika Srpska from April 1992 throughout
12 the rest of 1992. First of all, according to the laws of the Republika
13 Srpska under which ministry of the government did the prosecutor's
14 offices and courts fall?
15 A. The court prosecution offices were separate organs of the
16 judiciary branch of Republika Srpska. They were organised at the basic
17 level, the level of basic courts and basic prosecutor's offices for the
18 region of the municipality. There were higher courts and higher
19 prosecutor's offices, and they comprised several basic courts and
20 prosecutor's offices. And then there was also the Supreme Court of
21 Republika Srpska and the republican prosecutor 's office.
22 Q. Thank you for that answer, and it is relevant to our case, but my
23 question was in this 1992 time-period, there were the courts and there
24 was the prosecution service. They fell within a ministry at the
25 Republika Srpska level, and which ministry was that?
1 A. These were organs of the judiciary and were under the authority
2 of the Ministry of Justice.
3 Q. Okay. Now we've just described the various levels of both the
4 prosecution service and the court service so we won't cover that any
5 further. I want to move on to what kinds of criminal offences did the
6 basic courts have first-instant jurisdiction over?
7 A. The basic courts were in charge of all the crimes somewhere in
8 1992. The law was changed and all the powers were transferred to the
9 basic level, the basic courts and basic prosecutor's offices as far as
10 criminal matters were concerned.
11 Q. And I would like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 2621. And I'd like
12 you to take a look at the first decision. It's marked -- I think it's
13 number 170. Do you recognise that decision?
14 A. Yes. There is a title: "The Decision on Real Jurisdiction on
15 Regular Courts in Criminal Cases."
16 Q. And is this the decision that gave the basic courts and
17 accordingly the basic prosecutors jurisdiction -- first-instance
18 jurisdiction over all criminal offences in the Republika Srpska?
19 A. Yes, that's precisely what's written in Article 1 of this
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this document be marked and
22 admitted into evidence?
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P114, Your Honours.
25 MR. OLMSTED:
1 Q. Now, in 1992 what criminal codes applied to the territory of the
2 Republika Srpska?
3 A. At that time the criminal code of the former SFRY was in effect
4 and the criminal code of the former Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as
5 far as substantive law is concerned.
6 Q. And which of those criminal codes applicable to the Republika
7 Srpska in 1992 criminalised war crimes and crimes against humanity?
8 A. Those criminal cases were governed by the former criminal code of
9 the SFRY.
10 Q. Now, what -- we talked about the substantive criminal law. What
11 criminal procedure code applied to the Republika Srpska as of April 1992?
12 A. Yes, that was the Law on Criminal Procedure of the former SFRY.
13 Q. Now, I'd like you to take us through the procedures for
14 investigating and prosecuting a criminal case that existed in the
15 Republika Srpska during the April to December 1992 time-period, and in
16 particular what were the roles of the police, the prosecutor, the courts
17 in this process? Let me ask the question. First of all, how were
18 criminal proceedings initiated? What had to happen first before a
19 criminal case could begin?
20 A. Most often the police would submit to the competent prosecutor's
21 office a criminal report, a criminal complaint. In that criminal
22 complaint information would be given about the person suspected of having
23 committed a crime, with a brief description of the crime itself and the
24 legal qualification of the act. And along with this criminal report
25 evidence would be submitted, be it documentary evidence such as witness
1 statements or something else.
2 Q. You mentioned that mostly it was the police who submitted
3 criminal reports to the prosecution office. Who else could submit
4 criminal reports?
5 A. A criminal report could be filed by any physical or legal person.
6 Q. But how often would that happen as far as the number of type of
7 criminal reports where it was filed by someone other than the police?
8 A. Most often the police would file criminal reports. Perhaps 90
9 per cent of all criminal reports would be filed by the police. The
10 remaining 10 per cent were filed by other persons.
11 Q. Now, in the 10 per cent of cases where someone else filed a
12 criminal report with the prosecution office, who verified the allegations
13 in the criminal report? Who collected any additional evidence necessary
14 to substantiate that criminal report?
15 A. In those cases the competent prosecutor would ask the police to
16 conduct vetting and run checks, collect evidence and any information that
17 would be useful in conducting criminal proceedings.
18 Q. And prior to a police officer filing a criminal report with your
19 office, what actions were the police supposed to take to investigate the
20 case they were going to bring to you?
21 A. The police. Depending really on what kind of case it was, the
22 police collected material evidence such as documents, would take
23 statements from witnesses who had the facts of the case. It was not
24 unusual for investigative actions to be taken such as on-site
25 investigation, and that on-site investigation would be handled by an
1 investigative judge with a team of scene-of-crime officers, and a
2 forensic technician, and the prosecutor would frequently attend.
3 Q. Now, who was responsible -- who had the responsibility to
4 identify and arrest perpetrators of crimes?
5 A. Well, it was primarily the task of the police to detect
6 perpetrators and collect evidence relevant to criminal proceedings.
7 Q. And was it also the police who was responsible -- who were
8 responsible for arresting perpetrators as well?
9 A. Yes, yes. The police was duty-bound to arrest the perpetrator
10 and bring him or her before the investigative judge if that was
12 Q. And what means did the police have at their disposal to locate
13 and arrest perpetrators during this time-period?
14 A. The police had the human resources and the equipment to do that.
15 Q. Did they also have informants in the field that allowed them to
16 identify perpetrators of crimes?
17 A. Usually information is required about possible perpetrators, and
18 the police staff member would get such information from so-called
19 informers, people who cooperated with the police.
20 Q. Now, if a prosecutor's office received a criminal report from the
21 police that lacked sufficient evidence to proceed with the case, what
22 could the prosecutor do?
23 A. Usually the prosecutor would require additional evidence to be
24 collected, evidence and information that he could use in starting and
25 conducting criminal proceedings.
1 Q. And just to be clear for the record, the prosecutor would require
2 additional evidence to be collected by whom?
3 A. Usually the prosecutor would turn to the police, although he
4 could get certain documents from legal persons as well such as
5 businesses, in certain criminal cases in which they believe legal persons
6 such as businesses would have the documents required.
7 Q. Now, once the prosecutor's office has a sufficient criminal
8 report and substantiating evidence, what is the next procedural step in
9 the process?
10 A. The next step would be for the prosecutor to submit a request for
11 investigation, and the whole case file would be put before the
12 investigative judge. And the prosecutor would request the investigative
13 judge to conduct an investigation that would include certain
14 investigative actions.
15 Q. Now, in order to conduct those investigative actions, what
16 assistance would the investigative judge require from the police?
17 A. Usually investigative actions would include the questioning of
18 the suspect and witnesses. For instance, if the suspect or a witness
19 would fail to respond to the court summons, the court could ask the
20 police to bring the person in by force.
21 Q. And could the investigative judge also use the police to conduct
22 searches and seizures?
23 A. Yes. The investigative judge could also ask the police to do
25 Q. And what about assistance with forensic work, would that also be
1 the responsibility of the police?
2 A. Yes, within the centre for public security, specifically in Banja
3 Luka, there was a section for forensic expertise. They would provide
4 forensic expertise in different cases, such as ballistic expertise of
5 weapons or dactyloscopic expertise or different expertise.
6 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier on-site investigations. Are these
7 types of investigations conducted typically before or after the criminal
8 report is filed with the prosecutor's office?
9 A. Usually the on-site investigation would be conducted before, as
10 soon as a report of an event came, for instance that a body was found or
11 that a road accident had taken place. The police would inform the
12 investigative judge and a prosecutor, and then the investigative judge
13 together with the prosecutor and a crime inspector and a crime technician
14 would come on site. And the investigation would be led by the judge.
15 The purpose of that investigation would be to describe the incident as
16 accurately as possible and to find clues such as casing of ammunition,
17 something that could be subjected to forensic expertise and used as an
19 Q. And after one of these on-site investigations were completed,
20 what happened?
21 A. After that was done, the investigative judge would make a
22 protocol of the on-site investigation. One copy would be given to the
23 police and one to the public prosecutor.
24 Q. And when you as the public prosecutor received one of these
25 on-site investigation reports, what would you do?
1 A. In that case I as the prosecutor would require the police to take
2 certain actions within their competence in order to find the perpetrator,
3 to collect evidence, material evidence or witness statements if any on
4 the facts that are needed for criminal proceedings. And then I would
5 further require if the perpetrator is found by the police that a criminal
6 report be filed and that all evidence be placed before the prosecutor's
7 office for further processing.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 1117. And
9 perhaps if we just look at, yeah, generally the first page.
10 Q. And my question for you is: What generally is the set of
11 documents you're about to look at, if you could tell from the first page?
12 A. From this first page you see that this is a document called
13 Criminal File in a Criminal Case Against an Unidentified Perpetrator. It
14 cites Article 36, paragraph 1, which means that it's a murder. In the
15 left top corner you'll see the number which designates the public
16 security station of Sanski Most and the number of the file and the date.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we could look at page 8 of the English,
18 page 6 of the B/C/S.
19 Q. Mr. Delic, is this an example of an on-site investigation report
20 by an investigative judge?
21 A. You can see that this document is called Record of On-Site
22 Investigation. In the left top corner you see the number designating the
23 court in Sanski Most, the number of the case and the date. This copy is
24 bad. You can't really read it, but this is a record of on-site
1 Q. Did you attend this on-site investigation?
2 A. No, I can't see my name here. I can see the name of the judge,
3 Slavica Blagojevic; and you see the crime inspector, Mile Dosenovic; the
4 forensic technician, Zoran Despot; the name of the doctor, Zarko Bubulj.
5 I know this case because it was assigned to me -- I'm sorry, I received a
6 copy of the record from the court.
7 Q. Could you tell us who were the victims, in particular, how many
8 and what their ethnicity was?
9 A. There were four victims in this case: Smajo Pasalic, his two
10 sons, and another relative. They were Muslims. And I knew Smajo Pasalic
11 before the war. He kept a shop selling construction material in a place
12 called Ostra Luka.
13 Q. To your knowledge, were the perpetrators of this crime ever
14 arrested or prosecuted?
15 A. Not as far as I remember never.
16 Q. Let's take a look at pages 5 and 6 of the English and page 4 of
17 the B/C/S.
18 Mr. Delic, just very briefly, can you tell us what this document
19 is, what's the purpose of this document?
20 A. This is a letter I sent to the public security station at Sanski
21 Most asking them to collect any information and evidence and to file a
22 criminal report if they find the perpetrator of this crime. That's after
23 I received the record of on-site investigation from the court.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this document be marked and
25 admitted into evidence?
1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit Number P115, Your Honours.
3 MR. OLMSTED: While we're at it, why don't we look at another one
4 of these, 65 ter Exhibit 1118. I'm sorry, it's Exhibit Number -- got it.
6 Q. Mr. Delic, is this another example of a criminal case file
7 pertaining to an unknown perpetrator?
8 A. Yes. You can see that this is the cover page of the criminal
9 file of this public security station, Sanski Most, against an
10 unidentified perpetrator. Again, this is murder, Article 36, paragraph 1
11 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The victim is Petar
12 Ivankovic and others.
13 MR. OLMSTED: And let's please have a look at page 8 in the
14 English, page 7 in the B/C/S.
15 Q. Mr. Delic, is this another example of an on-site investigation
16 report by an investigative judge in 1992?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. And did you attend this on-site investigation?
19 A. Yes, and you see it in the record. You see that I was one of
20 those who attended, and I remember this case.
21 Q. Could you tell us who the victims were, what their ethnicities
22 were, and what their genders were?
23 A. The victims were Croats, Petar Ivankovic, and there were three
24 others, three women. I remember we got a report from the police that
25 there were three -- sorry, four bodies in the village of Kljevci
1 male, three female. And together with investigative judge Mira Dosenovic
2 and crime inspector Zdravko Savanovic and medical doctor Nada Tadic, I
3 went to the scene. We did not find the bodies there. On the way we ran
4 into an old [Realtime transcript read in error "oiled"] man and asked him
5 if he knew anything about that. He could not give us any real
6 information. We spent some more time searching the area, but since we
7 couldn't find the bodies we just went back. And this is all written in
8 the record.
9 Q. To your knowledge were the perpetrators of this homicide ever
10 arrested or prosecuted?
11 A. Not that I remember.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this document be marked and
14 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P116, Your Honours.
16 MR. OLMSTED:
17 Q. Let's go back to where we left off in the criminal investigation
18 process that existed back in 1992. After the prosecutor requested the
19 investigative judge to conduct an investigation and once the
20 investigative judge had completed that investigation, what was the next
22 A. When the investigative judge completes an investigation, he
23 submits the case to the prosecutor. The prosecutor would examine the
24 documents, and if there is sufficient evidence and suspicion that the
25 person committed a crime, then the prosecutor is obliged to issue an
1 indictment. Often it would happen that the investigation is not
2 completed and that in that case the prosecutor would return the case file
3 to the investigative judge, requesting additional work. And in the event
4 that the prosecutor concludes that there isn't sufficient grounds to
5 suspect a criminal act, then he would state that there would be no
6 official investigation pursued, in which case it would be suspended.
7 Q. Now, the procedures we've just gone through, how would they
8 differ if the perpetrator was a member of the police?
9 A. The Law on Criminal Procedure applied to all persons who possibly
10 perpetrate a crime regardless of who the persons were. The Law on
11 Criminal Procedure had to be applied equally in relation to any person.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MR. OLMSTED: Just for the record, please note that at the
14 transcript on page 50, line 2, it says "oiled man," I think it was "old
16 Q. So, Mr. Delic, it was essentially the police's responsibility to
17 investigate their own crimes; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, all crimes regardless of who the perpetrators were.
19 Q. Under the criminal procedures we've discussed, what would happen
20 if the police suddenly failed to perform their functions under these
22 A. The procedure could not be completed.
23 Q. I want to move on to another subject. I would now like to
24 discuss the personnel changes in Sanski Most prosecutor's office and
25 basic court after April 1992. Prior to April 1992, who was the basic
1 prosecutor in Sanski Most?
2 A. Before April 1992 it was Mr. Suad Sapic [as interpreted]. His
3 deputy was Mr. Slobodan Milasinovic.
4 Q. Could you tell us what the ethnicity of Suad Savic was?
5 A. He was a Muslim.
6 Q. And prior to April 1992 who was the president of the basic court
7 in Sanski Most.
8 A. The president of the basic court was Mr. Adil Draganovic.
9 Q. And what was Mr. Draganovic's ethnicity?
10 A. He was also a Muslim.
11 Q. Now, other than Mr. Savic and Mr. Draganovic, were there other
12 non-Serb judges and prosecutors working in Sanski Most prior to April
14 A. Yes, and two other judges, Enver Ceric and Nedzad Suljanovic.
15 They were both Muslims by ethnicity.
16 JUDGE HALL: Counsel, we're coming -- it's time for the usual
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- Recess taken at 12.04 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. Mr. Delic, prior to the break we were discussing the non-Serbs
24 who were working for the prosecutor's office and the basic court prior to
25 April 1992. Now, after April 1992 what happened to these non-Serb judges
1 and prosecutors?
2 A. They -- employment was terminated. I don't know exactly at what
3 date, but I think it was in May 1992. We had a meeting at the -- at one
4 of the courtrooms in the court. We were all present, judges and the
5 prosecutors. Vlado Vrkes attended the meeting as well. At the time he
6 was the president of the Sanski Most SDS party, something like that, and
7 he was accompanied was several armed soldiers. And he simply stated that
8 persons of Muslim and Croat ethnicity could not work anymore. And he
9 also said at the time who would be the prosecutor, who would be the
10 president of the court. He also said that Mr. Radovan Stanic was
11 appointed president of the court, and he said that I would be the public
12 prosecutor, my deputy would be Rajko Indjic, and so on.
13 Q. Let me ask you some questions about what you just told us. First
14 of all, at this meeting at the courthouse were the non-Serb judges and
15 prosecutors also present at that meeting?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you mentioned that Vlado Vrkes, the president of the SDS,
18 arrived with armed guards. Could you describe what kind of weapons those
19 guards were carrying?
20 A. They had automatic rifles, and there was a combat vehicle, a
21 so-called three-barrel gun, and it was parked on the parking. And there
22 were three heavily armed soldiers in camouflage uniforms that came with
23 the vehicle.
24 Q. Now, you mentioned that Vrkes announced that the new president of
25 the basic court would be Radovan Stanic. What is Mr. Stanic's --
1 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
2 MR. KRGOVIC: Sorry -- I'm sorry to interrupt. [Microphone not
3 activated] Please ask witness to repeat, not me to say what was said,
4 just to repeat his answer about the uniform and all things.
5 MR. OLMSTED:
6 Q. Mr. Delic, did you hear the issue there. I think the Defence
7 would like you to repeat what you saw as far as what they were wearing,
8 the uniforms of these soldiers that accompanied Vrkes to the courthouse
9 that day?
10 A. They had military camouflage uniforms, and they were equipped
11 with automatic rifles.
12 Q. Now, you mentioned that Vrkes announced that Radovan Stanic would
13 be the president of the basic court. Could you tell us what ethnicity
14 Mr. Stanic was?
15 A. Mr. Stanic is a Serb.
16 Q. And at this meeting did Mr. Vrkes tell you who had authorised
17 these removals and appointments?
18 A. No. He just said that this decision was made, and as of that day
19 on that's how things would be.
20 Q. Prior to this meeting, were you ever asked whether you wanted to
21 be basic prosecutor, or did you ever apply for that position?
22 A. There was no vacancy or any official vacancy announcement.
23 Q. How would you describe the atmosphere at this meeting led by
25 A. The atmosphere -- just the presence of armed men for us made it
1 uncomfortable. People were mostly quiet. There were no comments or
2 anything like that. They listened to the decision calmly. It didn't
3 take that long.
4 Q. Now, you've already testified that you received a formal letter
5 from Radovan Karadzic appointing you as basic prosecutor in Sanski Most.
6 How long after this meeting did you receive that letter?
7 A. A few days had passed, not a very long time. It was just very
8 short period of time, of a few days.
9 Q. And what about the other judges and prosecutors who were
10 appointed that day, did they also receive letters from the President
11 Karadzic regarding their appointments?
12 A. I don't know about others, but I assume that it was the same.
13 Q. Mr. Delic, are you aware what happened to Adil Draganovic after
14 he was removed from the position of president of the court?
15 A. I heard that after a few days he was taken to the Manjaca camp
16 and that he spent a couple of months there, perhaps two or three months.
17 After that he was transferred to Germany, and he remained in Germany
18 probably as a refugee.
19 Q. How well did you know Mr. Draganovic?
20 A. I knew him well. I began to work at the courts as a result of
21 his insistence, the Sanski Most court. Before that I was working at a
22 bank in Prijedor.
23 Q. To your knowledge had Mr. Draganovic committed any crimes that
24 warranted his placement within the Manjaca camp?
25 A. I don't know that he ever committed any crime. He was the
1 president of the court for a few years before that.
2 Q. And the police never brought you a case against Mr. Draganovic,
3 did they?
4 A. No, no criminal report or charges were ever issued against him.
5 Q. And what about Mr. Suad Savic, what happened to him after he was
6 removed as the basic prosecutor in Sanski Most?
7 A. I think that he also spent a period of time at the Manjaca camp,
8 just like Adil Draganovic.
9 Q. And again, to your knowledge had Savic committed any crimes that
10 warranted his placement within the Manjaca camp?
11 A. I have no information that he committed any crime, and no
12 criminal reports were submitted against him for any kind of criminal act.
13 Q. Now, after these personnel changes at the prosecutor's office,
14 was your office able to perform its basic duties as a prosecution office?
15 A. As far as the circumstances permitted, the prosecution, I was
16 working, the judges were working, and this depended on how far the
17 circumstances, the war, and everything allowed us to do our job properly.
18 That is another matter.
19 Q. If the police came to you with a criminal report, was your office
20 open for business? Could it accept that criminal report? Could it begin
21 the investigation, the prosecution? Could the investigative judges
22 conduct on-site investigations, et cetera?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. I would like you to take a look at 65 ter Exhibit Number 641.
25 Mr. Delic, did you have an opportunity to see this particular
1 document back in 1992?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now, this report is from the Sanski Most public security station
4 and discusses several hundred arrests of non-Serbs beginning 27th of May,
5 1992, and I want to draw your attention to the last sentence and in
6 particular the last sentence of the second paragraph, which reads:
7 "The offences in question are most often the offence of armed
8 rebellion, smuggling and dealing in weapons, illegal arming, and
9 possession of weapons, but reports are not being submitted because the
10 courts are not functioning."
11 Do you agree with this assertion, that in July 1992 that the
12 police could not file criminal reports?
13 A. Criminal reports could be submitted, but as for how far the
14 courts were able to function, well, it's the case that their work was
15 made more difficult because of the shortages of electricity, lack of
16 fuel, and a general chaos caused by the war. I mean, its definitely that
17 the -- our ability to do our work was hampered, but it was possible
18 nevertheless in spite of the conditions.
19 Q. You mentioned the issue of lack of electricity during the
20 conflict. Was that throughout the municipality, or did certain essential
21 entities within the municipality, did they have access to electricity and
22 other -- fuel and other things?
23 A. Especially during the summer, in August. I think for more than
24 two months there was no electricity at all, and from before that there
25 was no fuel. The shops were closed. The windows -- the shop windows
1 were broken, smashed. There were no articles. The towns were blocked.
2 At the exits to the town they had set up check-points, armed people --
3 MR. OLMSTED: Go ahead.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: Part of his answer is missing from the transcript
5 especially when he mentioned the months so -- after -- "especially during
6 the summer ..." and after that some part is missing. So can you ask the
7 witness to repeat the answer on this part.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Well, it seems, he says that, "especially during
9 the summer, in August, and I think more than two months there was no
10 electricity ..."
11 Is that sufficient?
12 MR. KRGOVIC: He mentioned June and July, and after that August
13 so --
14 MR. OLMSTED:
15 Q. Mr. Delic, could you just repeat for us which months were there
16 problems with electricity in Sanski Most?
17 A. June, July, and August 1992. So for more than two months in that
18 period there was no electricity at all, and I don't know if individual
19 institutions or facilities perhaps did have electricity. But just
20 regular citizens did not have electricity in that period.
21 Q. So it's possible that some institutions within the municipality
22 would have access to electricity and fuel during that time-period?
23 A. It's possible that the most important institutions had, but I
24 really wouldn't have any precise information.
25 Q. Who signed this report that is before you?
1 A. Could you scroll down so I can see the signature. It's chief of
2 the public security station, Mirko Vucinic -- Vrucinic, sorry. V-r-u,
4 Q. Do you recognise the signature?
5 A. I know the man. I suppose that's his signature. I mean, I know
6 Mirko personally. I don't know if that's his signature. I suppose it
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, can we mark this document for
10 JUDGE HALL: It is so marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P117, marked for identification, Your
13 MR. OLMSTED:
14 Q. Now, during this 1992 time-period how frequently would you meet
15 with Chief Vrucinic?
16 A. Not very often. Two or three times. I wouldn't know exactly,
17 but not often.
18 Q. When you met, what would you discuss?
19 A. The usual things that were foremost in everyone's mind at the
20 time. I remember once we had that meeting at the municipality. I got an
21 invitation, and Mr. Vrucinic was present there. Mr. Rasula too. There
22 were other people, and among other things they criticised my work, why I
23 do not prosecute persons who have been found to have illegal weapons.
24 And I tried to explain that in order to prosecute I must have information
25 who these people are, names, surname, which crime they are to be charged
1 with. They criticised me, specifically one gentleman who had come from
2 Zenica, he was the most vocal in criticising me. He said that I could on
3 my own based on rumours and informal knowledge start proceedings, whereas
4 I explained that criminal proceedings run along a certain procedure. I
5 have to have information about a particular person in order to take them
6 into consideration, in order to prosecute. We had a sort of verbal duel
7 there, and after that I left the meeting, and I couldn't say what else
8 they discussed after.
9 Q. You mentioned that Vrucinic and this person from Zenica were
10 complaining that you were not prosecuting illegal weapons cases. Who
11 were the supposed perpetrators of those illegal weapons crimes?
12 A. Vrucinic was present and this gentleman from Zenica was
13 criticising me more than others. Those were Muslims who have been found,
14 allegedly, in possession of military weapons and that would be the crime
15 of illegal possession of weapons and ammunition. And then I explained to
16 them that in order to prosecute any crime the prosecutor must have
17 specific information on the suspect, on the alleged crime, which weapon
18 was found, the number of the rifle, et cetera.
19 Q. How many illegal weapons charges or criminal reports were filed
20 with your office in 1992 by the Sanski Most police?
21 A. I remember one criminal report, my first after I assumed the
22 position of prosecutor. It concerned a person of Muslim ethnicity by the
23 name of Kuzelj, last name Kuzelj. An automatic rifle was found in his
24 possession with around 1.000 rounds, and the police filed a criminal
25 report against him. And I submitted to the investigative judge a request
1 for investigation, and that was my first case as prosecutor.
2 Q. Did you receive any other cases that you remember during the 1992
3 time-period regarding illegal weapons?
4 A. I don't remember. Perhaps one more, perhaps none.
5 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 610. Now, if you look under
6 item 2 you see your name is mentioned -- misspelled but mentioned,
7 "Milanko Delic." Is this the meeting that you were describing just a
8 moment ago attended by Rasula and Vrucinic?
9 A. Yes, that's the meeting of the coordination board to which I was
10 invited once. That is the one that I attended, but I didn't stay until
11 the end. You could say that I sort of quarrelled with them at the end.
12 Q. Could you tell us what this Sanski Most municipal assembly
13 coordinating committee was, what it was supposed to be doing?
14 A. It was something like a parastate board, in my view completely
15 unnecessary because the municipality had its own agencies, including the
16 Executive Board. If you ask me, it was a completely unnecessary body.
17 What its role was, I really couldn't tell you.
18 Q. Now, you mentioned that Nedeljko Rasula was present. Did you
19 have many interactions with Mr. Rasula during the 1992 time-period?
20 A. No, no. I did not.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, can this be marked and admitted into
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, marked and admitted.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P118, Your Honours.
25 MR. OLMSTED:
1 Q. Now, before this you were discussing interactions with the chief
2 of police Vrucinic and you mentioned this one meeting and I think you
3 suggested there were also others. During any of your interactions with
4 Vrucinic did he ever complain to you, either in writing or orally, that
5 the prosecution office, your office, or the courts were not functioning
6 beyond this issue of not processing or not taking on these illegal
7 weapons cases?
8 A. I don't remember that this gentleman, Vrucinic, had any
9 objections or complaints against the work of the prosecution, at least
10 none that he shared with me.
11 Q. As a basic prosecutor, who would you regularly have contact with
12 at the SJB Sanski Most?
13 A. Most often I had contact with crime inspectors and crime
14 technicians, such as during on-site investigations; and then we discussed
15 which steps should be taken, which investigative actions. And also when
16 a crime inspector handles a criminal report, sometimes, although not very
17 often, he would come to my office for a consultation usually about how to
18 qualify the criminal acts legally, which legal qualification to assign to
19 it. But that didn't happen often.
20 Q. Were there any non-Serbs among the police officers that you
21 interacted with as a basic prosecutor in Sanski Most in 1992?
22 A. I'm not sure. Perhaps, perhaps, but I'm not sure. At least none
23 that I had contact with.
24 Q. Now, once the conflict began in Sanski Most, what kinds of
25 serious crimes were being committed against the Muslim and Croat
1 population in the municipality throughout 1992?
2 A. For instance -- let's say from end May to the end of 1992 there
3 were rather a lot of murders. You can see that from the KTN record book
4 and from the protocols of on-site investigations. That was a frequent
6 Q. Were there also a number of rapes, grievous bodily injury,
7 aggravated thefts during this time-period against non-Serb population?
8 A. Yes, there was one case of rape and theft was on a massive scale
9 because at that time a large number of Muslims and Croats had left or
10 were leaving the municipality of Sanski Most, and there was a lot of
11 abandoned property, so that looting of that property was a frequent
13 Q. And what about fires and explosions in non-Serb houses and
14 businesses, was that a frequent occurrence once the conflict began in
15 Sanski Most throughout 1992?
16 A. Yes, yes. There were cases of bombing of houses and other
17 buildings. It usually happened during the night. There were cases of
18 shooting at the houses of these persons and these things also usually
19 happened at night.
20 Q. And how frequent were these crimes?
21 A. It was frequent. I don't have the data in front of me, but from
22 the log-book you can see because the police filed criminal reports
23 against unidentified perpetrators. But in cases where perpetrators were
24 found, criminal reports would be filed against specific persons.
25 Q. Now, how did the number of serious crimes targeting non-Serbs in
1 Sanski Most after April 1992 compare to the number of such crimes before
2 the conflict began?
3 A. Well, the difference is huge. Before the war in Sanski Most the
4 greatest incidence of crime was in the category of forest theft. Before
5 the war Sanski Most was an almost idyllic place where crime was rare, and
6 you can see that best from the log-book, from April and May 1992, you can
7 see the breakdown of criminal acts. And then from May 1992 until the end
8 of 1992 serious crimes appear such as murder, aggravated theft, robbery.
9 All of these were extremely rare before.
10 Q. And those crimes were mostly against the non-Serb population; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Most often.
13 Q. Now, when the police came to you with a criminal report would
14 your office record receipt of that report somewhere?
15 A. Yes. All the reports, all the submissions that reached the
16 prosecution office would be logged.
17 Q. And which log-books would those criminal reports be logged into?
18 A. If it was a criminal report against an identified person with a
19 name and surname, it would be put into the KT log-book, whereas reports
20 against unidentified perpetrators would be logged in the KTN log-book.
21 There was also a KTA log-book which was an auxiliary log-book, in which
22 we recorded other written filings. And there was also a KTM log-book for
24 Q. And I believe you've testified that it was the responsibility of
25 the police to identify the perpetrators. Would there ever be
1 circumstances in which the police could lawfully refuse to provide you
2 with the name of a perpetrator of a crime?
3 A. I think that possibility did not exist in the law. As soon as
4 any information is obtained on the perpetrator, it is the duty of the
5 authorities to draw up a criminal report and submit it to the prosecutor
6 for further action.
7 Q. What legal consequences could a police officer face if he or she
8 failed to report a criminal act or information concerning a crime to your
9 prosecution office?
10 A. I think that the criminal code even contains a stipulation that
11 non-reporting a crime constitutes a crime in itself. So a person who
12 would fail to report a crime would open themselves to prosecution.
13 Q. And could we take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 3436.
14 And, Mr. Delic, first of all, could you tell us what this
15 document is. It's quite a large document.
16 A. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
17 Socialist Republic
18 applied -- the criminal code applied in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could look at Article 188, paragraph 2,
20 that's on page 79 of the English and pages 86 and 87 of the B/C/S. I'm
21 sorry, I must have the page -- I'm looking at the page number at the
22 bottom -- I'm sorry -- yes, it's page 97 of the English and page 84 of
23 the B/C/S.
24 Q. Mr. Delic, is this the article you were referring to that
25 criminalises the failure to report a crime?
1 A. Yes. Yes. For instance, you see here in Article 188 it
2 stipulates that non-reporting a crime or the perpetrator is a crime. And
3 that crime carries punishment up to the -- non-reporting a crime that
4 carries the sentence of death. Whoever has knowledge of the commission
5 of such a crime and fails to report it shall be punished by imprisonment
6 for a certain time. And then in paragraph 2 and 3 you have other
7 provisions, but non-reporting a crime in itself and non-reporting the
8 perpetrator is qualified as a crime.
9 Q. Right. And if we look at paragraph 2, does that one specifically
10 refer to instances where an official or competent person fails to inform
11 of a criminal offence, that he is at that stage negligent in his duties
12 and could face a criminal sentence?
13 A. Yes, yes, right.
14 Q. Now, does a police officer's obligation to report a criminal
15 offence vary depending on whether the perpetrator is a civilian or member
16 of the military?
17 A. The law prescribed the duty to report any offender or perpetrator
18 of a crime, a crime that must be reported ex officio. This caused
19 certain problems due to parallel jurisdiction with regard to perpetrators
20 who were in the military, the military authorities, the court and the
21 prosecutor would be in charge and for civilian perpetrators the public
22 prosecutor and the lower court would have responsibility.
23 Q. Yes. And what you're describing now is a jurisdictional issue,
24 whether the civilian courts would ultimately hear that case or the
25 military courts would hear that case. However, did the police,
1 nonetheless, if they discovered a crime, regardless of whether it was a
2 military person or a civilian person, did they have a legal duty to
3 report that crime somewhere?
4 A. Right, yes. They could file a criminal report either to the
5 military investigative authorities or the public prosecution office. For
6 instance, let's take one example. If they submit a criminal report to me
7 as a prosecutor for a crime committed by a person who is in the army, I
8 would forward that criminal report to the competent military prosecutor.
9 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 3437.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours just reminded me, yes, could we
11 please admit and mark 65 ter Exhibit 3436 into evidence.
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P119, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, I wonder if at any point all of these
15 laws will be batched into the legal library or whatever we have come to
16 call it in this trial, the whole bunch of public acts so that we don't
17 have to admit them into evidence.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour, that certainly is a possibility
19 and we are working with the Defence on a stipulated agreement on a law
20 library. This -- the laws I'm talking about today are quite, of course,
21 central, the criminal code and the criminal procedure code. So I think
22 they do need to be in evidence. Whether we need to have them exhibited
23 or not, of course that's up to Your Honours. I just -- I'm cognizant of
24 your prior ruling that anything that the Trial Chamber looks at needs to
25 be on the exhibit list, and I wanted to do that in an abundance of
2 Q. Mr. Delic, could you tell us what this rather large document is?
3 A. I can see in front of me the Law on Criminal Procedure.
4 Q. And is this the Law on Criminal Procedure that was in effect back
5 in 1992 in the Republika Srpska?
6 A. Yes, the law was in force then, yes.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Can we please take a look at Article 150, paragraph
8 3, that is page 43 in the English and page 121 in the B/C/S.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Delic, if you could look at Article 150, the third
10 paragraph. Is this the provision you were just discussing which allowed
11 the -- allowed a police officer to file a criminal report with your
12 office, and if it later turned out that that case belonged in the
13 competence of the military courts that your office could forward that on
14 to the military court?
15 A. The provision talks about the manner of proceeding if one
16 receives a criminal report from somebody who is not an official source or
17 if I were to receive a criminal report that I believed I was not
18 authorised to deal with then I would send it to the organ that is
20 Q. Now, in the instance that you received a criminal report that you
21 later determined was in the competency of the military courts, would you,
22 nonetheless, record that criminal report -- your receipt of that report
23 in the log-books at your office?
24 A. Yes. Anything that is officially received by the prosecutor's
25 office must be registered in the adequate register, and this is also the
1 procedure in the event of a criminal report that I believed I was not
2 authorised to deal with. It would also be registered under a certain
3 number in the log-book and then it would be submitted to the organ that I
4 believe would be authorised to deal with with that particular charge.
5 Q. And that would be the KT log-book if there was a known
6 perpetrator and the KTN log-book if it was an unknown perpetrator; is
7 that right?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. And just to be clear, once the police were able to identify one
10 of the perpetrators of a crime, that case would move from the KTN
11 log-book to the KT log-book; is that correct?
12 A. [No interpretation]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Delic, would you be kind enough to repeat
15 your last answer because the interpreters didn't get it.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last thing that I was speaking
17 about is that in the event that the prosecutor's office received criminal
18 charges, which they believed they were not authorised to deal with, those
19 criminal -- that criminal report would be entered into the appropriate
20 log-book and then it would be submitted to the organ that the prosecutor
21 believes is authorised for further processing.
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. And let me ask you again the question. Once the police were able
24 to identify at least one perpetrator of a crime, if that crime was
25 initially recorded in the KTN log-book at that time, since there was a
1 known perpetrator, it would move into the KT log-book. Is that correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Now, I'd like to show you 65 ter Exhibit 2500.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, given the size of this next document,
5 a log-book, we did not translate the whole thing into English. What we
6 did is we translated the column headings and then the entries that we
7 would like to discuss with this witness.
8 Now, perhaps -- I'm sorry, I was just reminded. Can we have
9 Exhibit 3437 marked and admitted into evidence?
10 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] -- admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P120, Your Honours.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Now, perhaps Madam Usher could just flip through a
13 few pages of the B/C/S version for the witness so he can have a sense of
14 what he's looking at if it's possible.
15 Q. Could you identify this document, Mr. Delic?
16 A. This is the KT register.
17 MR. OLMSTED: And maybe we could turn to the first page again.
18 Q. And could you tell us is this the KT register for Sanski Most for
19 the cover 1992?
20 A. Yes, it says register for 1991, 1992, and 1993, and 1994.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Now may we turn to the next page, yeah. And just
22 to show the Court and Defence that there is headings along the top of
23 this document.
24 Q. I don't want to go through each one of these headings at this
25 stage, but there's a number of column headings and they're numbered 1
1 through 46. And could you just give us generally the purpose of these
2 various columns.
3 A. The register contained the most important actions and decisions
4 first by -- you would have the case number, then the date of receipt,
5 then the person who sent the report, then the information about the
6 person that was the subject of the criminal report, the name of the
7 criminal act, the injured party, the actions taken by the prosecutor, and
8 the date, and so on.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I should have mentioned this before.
10 Because this log-book contains the names of perpetrators as well as
11 victims, we ask that it not be published to the public, and then when we
12 do admit it that it be admitted under seal.
13 Q. So, Mr. Delic, essentially this log-book tracked the progress of
14 a criminal case from its criminal report when it's first filed with your
15 office through its resolution. Is that an accurate statement?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, prior to testifying today while you were here in The Hague
18 did you have an opportunity to review the entries on this KT log-book?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And did you also have an opportunity to review the indictment in
21 this case, and in particular, the schedules of the indictment that list
22 the particular crimes committed against the non-Serb population in Sanski
23 Most in 1992?
24 A. Yes, yes, I did see that.
25 Q. In performing that review, could you find any of the crimes
1 listed in our indictment in this KT log-book?
2 A. I did see which criminal acts are involved, for example, a
3 killing was reported, and I think there was a theft. There was a seizure
4 of a motor vehicle, maybe some kind of fraud. I would really need to
5 remind myself. I think there were two murders.
6 Q. Yes. And we're going to go over those particular crimes that you
7 identified for us in a bit, but this is a different question. I want you
8 to focus on the indictment that you had an opportunity to review which
9 charges very particular crimes occurring in Sanski Most in the 1992
10 time-period, and whether any of those crimes charged in our indictment
11 you could find somewhere in the KT log-book?
12 A. I couldn't find them.
13 Q. And just putting aside the KT log-book, after you reviewed our
14 indictment do you personally recollect any of the crimes charged in the
15 schedules of the indictment being brought to you by the police in the
16 1992 time-period to prosecute?
17 A. I don't recall that there were any.
18 Q. Now, let's return to the KT log-book. Prior to testifying here
19 today --
20 JUDGE HALL: Counsel, may I interrupt you briefly to inquire of
21 counsel for the Defence as to how much time we need to reserve today to
22 hear directly from the accused as to their complaints so that counsel for
23 the Prosecution would know how to -- at what point he should break.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, ten minutes.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
1 MR. OLMSTED:
2 Q. Mr. Delic, returning to the --
3 JUDGE HALL: Counsel --
4 MR. OLMSTED: Sorry.
5 JUDGE HALL: -- rather than embarking on what is not likely to
6 result in a short answer, inasmuch as we are only 15 minutes before the
7 break, would this be a -- would this not be a convenient point for us to
8 hear from -- for your cross-examination -- for your examination to be
10 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, that would be fine, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 Mr. Delic --
13 MS. KORNER: May I also mention very briefly in one minute the
14 position about witnesses next week as well?
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Delic, you may have gathered from what has
16 passed between the Chamber and counsel that your examination-in-chief is
17 not completed, and you're going to be excused at this point but not
18 released to return when the Court resumes on Monday morning. Now,
19 because you have been sworn as a witness in this matter, you cannot
20 discuss with counsel on either side -- you cannot have any discussions
21 with counsel on either side. And in your discussions with anybody
22 outside of the courtroom it cannot relate to your testimony in here. Do
23 you understand what I have said? Yes, thank you.
24 So you are now excused until Monday morning. And we trust that
25 you have a safe and restful weekend. Thank you.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE HALL: And while I'm on the subject of Monday morning,
3 counsel may be disappointed to learn that we are in Courtroom I, and I
4 would also remind parties that we have extended sittings Monday, Tuesday,
5 and Wednesday. Thank you.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, before we address the issue raised by
7 the Defence counsel, since we've been discussing this 65 ter Exhibit 2500
8 would it be possible for at least us to mark it for identification at
9 this stage? We could even move to admit it. He's identified it.
10 JUDGE HALL: You mean the log-book that we were just looking at?
11 MR. OLMSTED: That's correct, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Of course under seal, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P121, under seal, Your Honours.
16 Mr. Stanisic.
17 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, despite all
18 of our efforts for this trial to proceed as efficiently as possible, we
19 are coming to a position questioning our physical endurance. We are
20 spending the bulk of the day in the courtroom, and then we're waiting for
21 a long time for the transport. We turn -- we return early. We're unable
22 to take any air. We're constantly in closed spaces and sitting in
23 chairs. I'm personally trying to go through all of that. I'm not
24 feeling any problems right now, but I was a sportsman, and I have
25 recommendation that once or twice a week at least I need to have some
1 physical activity and be out in the open, the fresh air. I'm afraid that
2 we might be put into the position that we cannot really bare this pace
3 and there might be some problems as a result of that. Thank you very
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
6 Mr. Zupljanin.
7 THE ACCUSED ZUPLJANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support
8 what Mr. Stanisic has said. A dungeon is a dungeon, a prison is a prison
9 and all of that takes its toll. So in spite of our physical stamina, in
10 view that these proceedings will not take a day or two, a week or two, a
11 month or two, but a year or so, that takes its toll. We have to get up
12 at 6.30 to be ready in time to come here. We spend a lot of time waiting
13 for half an hour or more in this small 2 by 2 room for the transport to
14 take us back. When we go back to the prison it's already 4.00 or 5.00,
15 all the activities are over, we cannot go out for a walk, we cannot go
16 and have any kind of physical exercise. And as I said, this is not going
17 to last for a day or two. We would also like to actively participate in
18 the preparation of our defence. We didn't understand that our role here
19 would be to be just wax dolls and to sit here and no contribution from
20 our side and just to stare blankly as things are going on.
21 The other thing is that you know that we are brought here in
22 handcuffs and special flak jackets, and we have injuries on our wrists
23 because of that. And I would like to remind you that 12 times a day for
24 as long as the proceedings go on we are placed in handcuffs, 12 times a
25 day, brought into the courtroom, taken out of the courtroom. Each time
1 they're putting handcuffs on us so this can be a traumatic experience for
3 The next thing that I would like to ask you is that regardless of
4 the pace of work supported by this Tribunal, this also suits us because
5 we're innocent people brought before proceedings here, I would kindly ask
6 that you review the possibility for no proceedings to be held on Fridays.
7 I'm coming out with this request because there is already the previous
8 practice of having four-day proceedings for the accused coming from
9 Herceg-Bosna, from Bosnia and Herzegovina, so four days would seem to be
10 a reasonable pace so that then we would be able to keep up with what is
11 going on. We are exposed to constant stress because we are now again
12 facing past events, and I'm afraid that as a result of all these things
13 you will not have us here anymore.
14 The third thing is that I would like to remind you that in 1996 I
15 had a very serious traffic accident where I broke a vertebrae in my neck,
16 so for me it's very difficult and it causes headaches for me to have to
17 sit here for 80 minutes per session. I would kindly ask you to review
18 these requests in full appreciation of the requirements for these
19 proceedings to proceed and to be completed, but we would still kindly
20 request that the Trial Chamber take into consideration our health
21 requirements and conditions and all of these matters that we have brought
22 to your attention. Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Stanisic, Mr. Zupljanin, the Chamber has heard
1 your complaints, and we will make the necessary inquiries of the
2 responsible authorities and give a considered response at the earliest
3 possible opportunity, sometime during the upcoming week we trust. Thank
5 Yes, Ms. Korner. You have five minutes.
6 MS. KORNER: Yes, it won't take five minutes. As regards next
7 week, the witness whom we discussed yesterday will not be coming next
8 week; however, we have discussed the matter with the -- both Defence --
9 lead Defence counsel. It's clear this witness will be going into Monday
10 in any event, and I think there's about -- I believe the estimate for
11 cross-examination is about two hours in all. There are then two other
12 crime base witnesses -- one other anyhow. We're going on to, I'm afraid,
13 a different municipality because of the ban. And then on Tuesday or
14 Wednesday Ms. Hanson will testify subject to Your Honours' ruling on her
15 ability to testify to all, that is to say on the Defence motion. And I'm
16 told that --
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: And that would be on which day?
18 MS. KORNER: It would be Tuesday or Wednesday.
19 We've been told by Mr. Zecevic that cross-examination of her is
20 likely to take a very long time, something in the region -- I think he
21 estimated -- I hope you won't hold it to me, but I think he said
22 something like six hours. Yes, six hours. I see Mr. Cvijetic nodding.
23 So that will easily take us into Thursday.
24 As regards Dr. Nielsen again with agreement by the Defence
25 because of the translation problem we're going to put him back until the
1 beginning of December and move up witnesses who are affected by the ban,
2 but it's been agreed that the Defence are not taking any point on that so
3 that we don't have any gap. I'm sure that by December Your Honours would
4 have made a ruling on whether they can appeal.
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
6 So we take the adjournment, and I wish that everyone has a safe
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.40 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of
10 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.