1 Monday, 19 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.40 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, and as everyone would be aware we
9 started off this week with one of those reminders that in this modern
10 world we're all enslaved to the vagaries of technology. And you would
11 have observed the priesthood of that craft coming with their incantations
12 and rituals, and I gather that the problems have been corrected, so the
13 usher has informed me. One of the unfortunate effects of this is that we
14 would have lost about 35 to 40 minutes which we -- which we could not
15 immediately make up because bearing in mind that the accused men would
16 have been in court to begin on time as the schedule would have set out,
17 that we should take the usual breaks in order that the rhythm and system
18 in place for their convenience and comfort is not disrupted.
19 On Thursday, before the -- we took the adjournment, the Chamber
20 heard directly from the accused about their -- certain difficulties that
21 they were experiencing in terms of their -- the arrangements made for
22 them, particularly in light of the extended sittings that have been
23 arranged for this week. Among the complaints which they would have
24 raised would have been certain questions related to security, and I would
25 repeat what we would have said on Thursday, that the Chamber would say
1 nothing directly in response to those complaints because for obvious
2 reasons the Chamber would defer to the security team and the systems they
3 have in place. And if there is a problem over and beyond the ordinary
4 incidents attendant to being in custody, the accused persons through
5 their counsel would, no doubt, formulate the appropriate applications.
6 And unless and until that arises, we say nothing further about that.
7 A matter of concern to us is the consequence of the extended
8 sittings for this week, in that the routine, as we are advised, that is
9 in place for the accused to take their fresh-air exercise in the late
10 afternoon could not be met because of the impossibility of meshing the
11 transport arrangements from the Tribunal -- from the seat of the Tribunal
12 back to the Detention Centre. And the three days, possibly four, which
13 would occur this week, the only assurance that we're able to give is that
14 the provisions within the detention facilities for exercise, albeit not
15 in the fresh air, would somehow compensate for that inconvenience which
16 we recognise our decision to have extended sittings would have
18 So we trust that the accused, particularly Mr. Zupljanin who
19 would have articulated the concerns on behalf -- more so than his
20 co-accused, that he understands what we said. We recognise that our
21 explanation isn't satisfactory, but that is the -- as much as we're able
22 to say at this point.
23 May we have the appearances, please.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, Matthew Olmsted, Joanna Korner, and
25 case manager Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic and
2 Slobodan Cvijetic appearing for Stanisic Defence. Thank you.
3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Good morning. This morning for
4 Zupljanin, Pantelic and -- sometime we may change and use another
5 language in order to avoid -- at least we can use both official
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] From the Bench we are quite
8 satisfied. Thank you so much.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL: May we have the witness return to the stand, please.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I would remind the witness that he is still on
13 his oath.
14 Mr. Olmsted, my recollection is that you have completed your
16 MR. OLMSTED: No, Your Honour. I have about an hour left of it.
17 This is slightly more than we originally planned. The reason being is we
18 spent a lot of time last Thursday going over a lot of little bit dry
19 procedural issues regarding the prosecution service and how cases go
20 through the various procedures. This is important for our case and we
21 think by using this witness to go through those in the future we will be
22 able to cut tremendously on the amount of testimony of other witnesses
23 like this one, but I think we will be finished within the hour.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. First before we begin I
2 would like to make a correction to the record from last Thursday, page
3 1527, lines 4 and 11 and also page 1531, lines 5 and 9. This is no doubt
4 due to my poor pronunciation.
5 WITNESS: MILENKO DELIC [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
8 Q. Mr. Delic, could you spell for us the last name of the basic
9 prosecutor in Sanski Most prior to April 1992, if you could spell his
10 name for us.
11 A. Sabic.
12 Q. Just so we're clear, can you spell that -- spell it out for us?
13 A. S-a-b-i-c.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, prior to testifying here today, were you asked
15 to identify -- first of all, when we recessed last Thursday we were -- I
16 was asking you questions about the 1992 KT log-book from your basic
17 prosecutor's office. That was P121. And I'd like to go back to that
18 log-book at this time. We don't need to have it on the screen. Prior to
19 testifying here today you were asked -- were you asked to identify
20 criminal cases listed in this KT log-book in which the perpetrators were
21 Serbs and the victims were non-Serbs?
22 A. Yes, I was.
23 Q. And how many of those cases were you able to identify in the KT
25 A. I think there were seven cases.
1 Q. And do you recall -- I suppose you probably off your -- from your
2 memory cannot recall those specific entry numbers?
3 A. With difficulty.
4 Q. Is there something that you could refer to that will assist you
5 in recalling the numbers -- the entry numbers of those cases?
6 A. If I were shown a copy of the book, then perhaps I could.
7 Q. Well, as an alternative to that, do you recall making a written
8 statement last week in which you recorded the entry numbers of these
9 seven cases?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, to refresh this witness's
12 recollection, may we show him the written statement that he created last
13 week? We provided this to the Defence and to the Trial Chamber I think
14 it was Wednesday of last week.
15 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
16 MR. OLMSTED:
17 Q. Mr. Delic, you've been handed a written statement. Could you
18 please take a look at it and tell us if this is the written statement
19 that you provided last week.
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. And does this statement refresh your recollection about the
22 number of cases -- actually the entry numbers of the cases in the KT
23 log-book from 1992 in which there was a Serb perpetrator and a non-Serb
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. For the record, could you please provide those entry numbers as
2 well as the crimes that the perpetrators were charged with?
3 A. The first number is KT 110. It was the crime of murder pursuant
4 to Article 36.2 of the Criminal Code of the former Bosnia-Herzegovina,
5 that is to say there were multiple persons killed. The second number is
6 KT 115. It is the crime of endangering traffic safety, which is Article
7 181.3. The third case is 120, the crime of rape, Article 88.1. The
8 fourth number is 127, fraud and counterfeiting identification documents.
9 Article 158.2 in relation Article 217.1. The next KT is 129. It says
10 here looting, but it was actually a robbery related to Article 150. Then
11 KT 132, theft in -- from Article 147. Then KT 133, extortion and seizing
12 a motor vehicle, Article 153 and 160.
13 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, for the record the English
14 translation of P121 contains each of these seven entries.
15 Q. Mr. Delic, so if I understand this correctly, from April to
16 December 1992 the police reported to your office only seven cases in
17 which there was a known Serb perpetrator who committed a crime against a
18 Muslim or a Croat; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. What does this mean with regard to all of the other numerous
21 crimes that you were describing last Thursday that were occurring against
22 the non-Serb population, all the murders, the grievous bodily injuries,
23 the thefts, the rapes, the destruction of property, what about those
25 A. In cases of unidentified perpetrators in the KT log-book, cases
1 were registered as such. The cases were referred to just now involved
2 known perpetrators who had criminal reports submitted against them by the
3 police and were registered as such in the KT log-book that pertains to
4 the cases with identified perpetrators.
5 Q. So if I understand you correctly, this means that either the
6 crimes -- all these other crimes that are not here in the KT log-book
7 either went unreported by the police or they were reported by the police
8 as unsolved crimes with unknown perpetrators?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Which of these seven cases that you listed for us involved a
11 perpetrator who was a member of the police force?
12 A. I don't recall having any of these cases with a police force
14 Q. So would it be accurate to say that no criminal reports against
15 police perpetrators of crimes against non-Serbs were filed with your
16 office in 1992?
17 MR. PANTELIC: Objection. Leading question.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I'll change the questions, Your Honour.
19 Q. Can you tell us from your memory whether any criminal reports
20 against police perpetrators were filed with your office involving crimes
21 against non-Serbs in 1992?
22 A. I don't recall having such a report submitted.
23 Q. I would now like to ask you some questions about two of the
24 entries on the KT log-book, the murder and rape cases which appear to be
25 the only two violent crimes among the seven cases. The first -- the
1 murder case, which is KT entry 110, do you recall this case?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Could you tell us the facts surrounding this murder, the
4 ethnicity of the victims, the ethnicity of the perpetrators?
5 A. The perpetrators were Serbs. One of those reported was Goran
6 Mrdja. In any case, four persons were involved as perpetrators. The
7 victims were two Muslims. The incident took place in the village of
8 Skucani Vakuf. I recall the event, and I attended the scene of crime
9 investigation after the murders took place. Later on a trial was set up
10 to try the perpetrators of the crime.
11 Q. Now, under the crimes that the perpetrators were charged, what
12 was the minimum mandatory sentence that they faced?
13 A. In this case we have a qualified murder of several persons. The
14 law envisages the minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment.
15 Q. And you mentioned that there was a trial. What sentence was
16 imposed by the basic court in Sanski Most against these perpetrators?
17 A. The perpetrators were sentenced to a term in prison of one year.
18 Q. Well, why were they all given only one-year sentences when they
19 should have faced at least ten years?
20 A. I think the lady judge became afraid. In the course of the trial
21 in front of the court building a large group of armed people gathered
22 firing their weapons and they were drunk. A policeman escorting the
23 accused from detention to the court told me that certain individuals from
24 the group wanted to know about me, wanted to know who I was, because I
25 was supposed to present the indictment against those Serbs. They issued
1 threats and the situation was quite tense.
2 Q. You mentioned that this was an armed group. Could you tell us
3 what the ethnicity of this armed group -- of the members of this armed
4 group was and also what they were wearing?
5 A. They were Serbs since they were complaining about Serbs being
6 tried because they had killed some Muslims. They were in uniform, and
7 they carried long-barrelled weapons.
8 Q. Do you know where these armed men in the -- in uniforms -- where
9 did they come from?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Did they fire their weapons that day?
12 A. One could hear several shots.
13 Q. What actions did the police take to prevent these armed men from
14 disrupting the trial?
15 A. I'm not familiar with any actions the police may have taken.
16 Q. And are you aware whether the police ever conducted a criminal
17 investigation into this incident?
18 A. I'm not familiar with that either.
19 Q. I would now like to turn to the rape case, which is entry 120 on
20 the KT log-book.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the next document is sensitive in
22 nature because it contains not only the victims -- the rape victim's
23 name, but also her location and the facts surrounding the rape. And we
24 ask that it not be published to the public.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
1 MR. OLMSTED: May we see 65 ter Exhibit 1122. And if we could
2 look at the second page in both the English and the B/C/S.
3 Q. Mr. Delic, if you look at the top of page 2, what sentence did
4 the perpetrator of this crime receive for raping a Muslim woman?
5 A. They were supposed to serve a term in prison of one year, which
6 will not be executed unless the accused commits a new crime within two
7 years. It was a suspended sentence.
8 Q. Is this an appropriate sentence for a rape case of this nature?
9 A. I wouldn't say it was an appropriate sentence.
10 MR. OLMSTED: If we could look at page 5, paragraph 4, of this
11 document, which is also page 5, paragraph 4 of the B/C/S version.
12 Q. And we can see here that the Court justifies the perpetrator's
13 suspended sentence by providing a number of mitigating factors including,
14 and I'll quote:
15 "That the victim has changed her address as did the majority of
16 locals of the same ethnicity, making it reasonable to expect that mere
17 cautioning combined with the threat of punishment will have sufficient
18 effect on the accused to stop him from committing the same or similar
19 crimes in the future."
20 Mr. Delic, are such considerations appropriate when determining
21 what sentence to impose upon an accused?
22 A. Such an explanation is probably a result of the circumstances in
23 which the trial took place, that is to say the state of war. I suppose
24 that is why such a mild sentence was pronounced. Perhaps the best person
25 to explain this to you would be the president of the chamber that issued
1 this decision.
2 Q. Well, is this another instance where the Court was under pressure
3 or intimidation to impose a low sentence for a crime against a non-Serb?
4 A. Most likely, most likely that was the reason for such a mild
5 sentence in relation to a sentence that may have been pronounced in --
6 under other conditions such as those prevailing now.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this exhibit be admitted into
8 evidence under seal?
9 JUDGE HALL: So admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P122 under seal, Your Honours.
11 MR. OLMSTED:
12 Q. Mr. Delic, what measures did the police undertake to protect you
13 and the members from the court from pressure or intimidation when you
14 attempted to prosecute Serbs for crimes against non-Serbs?
15 A. I don't know of any protective measures having been taken then.
16 Q. And how interested were the police in ensuring that there were
17 full investigations of these kind of cases where it was a Serb
18 perpetrator and a non-Serb victim?
19 A. Well, I'm not sure what to say, but I suppose that they did as
20 much as they could under the circumstances. It is difficult to provide a
21 precise answer to your question.
22 Q. Well, if it was a Serb perpetrator and a Serb victim were the
23 police more willing to fully investigate that case during this
24 time-period, the 1992 time-period?
25 A. There were such cases too where both the perpetrator of the crime
1 and the victim were of the same ethnicity, and the police undertook the
2 same actions from within their remit. There were reports or, rather, I
3 received reports about such cases too.
4 Q. Well, we have been discussing -- there was quite a number of
5 crimes against non-Serbs that were never prosecuted in 1992. How did the
6 non-Serb population -- civilian population in Sanski Most react to the
7 failure of the criminal justice system to protect them?
8 A. The non-Serb population was very frightened at the time. They
9 were mostly trying to leave the territory of the municipality by
10 whichever means. They were extremely scared.
11 Q. And what was the non-Serb civilian population's attitude towards
12 the police and the work of the police?
13 A. I had few contacts with non-Serbs. The neighbours with whom I
14 had contact were simply frightened. The entire situation, the beginning
15 of the war and all that, took us all by surprise. And the very fact that
16 crimes were being committed affected the population in the sense that
17 they were scared.
18 Q. Did the non-Serb population trust the police?
19 A. It's hard to answer that question. You would have to ask someone
20 who lived -- someone of non-Serb ethnicity who at the time lived in the
21 territory of Sanski Most.
22 Q. All right. Let's take a look at 65 ter Exhibit 1788. Now, this
23 is a report by the SJB Sanski Most to CSB Banja Luka, and on the first
24 page it appears to list a number of crimes of violence committed against
25 non-Serbs between the end of October and the beginning of November.
1 First of all, have you -- did you see this document back in 1992?
2 A. No, I didn't.
3 Q. Let's take a look at page 2, paragraph 1. In the B/C/S version
4 it's page 2, the second full paragraph. Now, in this paragraph the
5 Sanski Most police chief states, I quote:
6 "At this moment we know who some of the perpetrators are;
7 however, we think that in a situation like this we neither can nor is it
8 advisable to undertake measures of arresting and criminal prosecution
9 because of the safety of SJB employees and legal organs."
10 Mr. Delic, were you aware that at the time you were receiving the
11 significant number of unsolved cases of crimes against non-Serbs that the
12 police were withholding the names of physical perpetrators of these
14 MR. PANTELIC: Objection. It would be fair for this witness to
15 say - my learned friend said the significant number of unsolved cases.
16 Maybe my colleague can clarify that with the witness, simply asking him:
17 Did you receive a number of criminal charges or complaints against
18 unidentified person. Because it's not clear here in this question, and
19 that will call for speculation of course, that -- it is not the way what
20 this witness explained, a significant number of unsolved cases. Number
21 one, police is not in charge to solve the cases; it is the duty of the
22 prosecution. And he explained that in detail. So maybe you can rephrase
23 your question. Thank you.
24 MR. OLMSTED: All right. I thought we were going to get another
25 speaking objection there. What I will do is I will just rephrase the
1 question to simplify it.
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, it actually strikes me that a number of
3 questions that you have been -- you have been asking for conclusions, and
4 I'm surprised that this is the first objection that I have heard. So you
5 will rephrase your question accordingly.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Delic, were you aware during this time-period, I think this
8 document is from November 1992, that the police were withholding names of
9 physical perpetrators of these crimes?
10 A. No, I am not familiar with that. I saw a mention of a case on
11 page 1, the murder of nine persons of Croatian ethnicity. I know that
12 case. I was there at the on-site investigation, and I know that the
13 perpetrators of that crime were or had been reported.
14 Q. Mr. Delic, did you ever have a conversation with the police in
15 which you stated you were unwilling to prosecute any of these cases due
16 to your own security concerns?
17 A. No.
18 Q. If the police had brought you one of these cases fully
19 investigated and provided you the names of the perpetrators, would you
20 have refused to prosecute them?
21 A. No, I wouldn't.
22 Q. Why not?
23 A. Because it was my duty to prosecute persons who had committed
24 crimes and about whom the police had filed criminal reports, and if there
25 was -- there was a foundation for considering these persons really having
1 been the perpetrators of that crime.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this document be marked for
3 identification purposes?
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P123, marked for identification, Your
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. I would now like to turn to the issue of arrests and detention of
9 non-Serbs in Sanski Most during the 1992 time-period --
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, counsel. Could we try and elicit from
11 Judge Delic if he knows whether or who would put threats or intimidations
12 to policemen if the policemen were to have undertaken these
13 investigations and prosecutions. Who exactly were they afraid of? Was
14 it -- is it possible to identify anyone or any group who would put
15 threats to the policemen if they actually did their job? Would it be the
16 military, or would it be other policemen, or would it be mobs in the Serb
17 community? Or who -- from who did the witness conceive any threats?
18 MR. OLMSTED:
19 Q. Mr. Delic, did you understand the question that the Trial Chamber
20 has asked?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Could you provide us an answer?
23 A. Well, I don't know that. I have no knowledge of that.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we could take a look at -- again at P117.
1 [Prosecution counsel confer]
2 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry, I've just been told it's not been in the
3 system so the 65 ter number is 641. Yeah, that's the correct document.
4 Q. Now, if we look at the first paragraph we can see that it's
5 discussing a number of arrests of non-Serbs between May and July of 1992
6 and their detention at various facilities including the SJB building,
7 sports hall, and Manjaca camp. And while that -- while we take a look at
8 65 ter Exhibit 10128.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, it's 10.25, according to the clock on
10 the wall -- -- [Microphone not activated]
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
12 JUDGE HALL: Sorry.
13 It's 10.25 according to the clock on the wall. So as I indicated
14 earlier, although we had a late start we would take the break.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE HALL: Please continue, Mr. Olmsted.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. If we could have 65 ter
22 Exhibit 10128 back on the screen.
23 Q. Now, this document is dated approximately one month after the one
24 we looked at before, this one, and it's -- it discusses persons detained
25 at the SJB building again in Sanski Most as well as Manjaca camp as well
1 as a factory called Krings. Mr. Delic, were you aware of the existence
2 of these various detention facilities back in 1992?
3 A. No, I wasn't.
4 Q. What, if any, detention facilities were you aware of that existed
5 in Sanski Most back in 1992 between April and December?
6 A. I had only heard of the people's front stadium -- sorry, gym.
7 And I heard that the population of the Mahala settlement had been placed
8 there because I met a typist from the court, and I heard that she was
9 placed there for a relatively short period.
10 Q. Was that gym also known as a sports hall?
11 A. Yes, it is a sports hall, a gymnasium.
12 Q. And could you tell us what were the ethnicities of the people who
13 were held at that facility?
14 A. They were predominantly persons of Muslim ethnicity.
15 Q. Did you yourself visit that facility?
16 A. No, I didn't.
17 Q. How many criminal reports did the police file with your office
18 concerning that detention facility or any other detention facility in
19 Sanski Most during this time-period that was holding non-Serb detainees?
20 A. There were no such criminal reports.
21 Q. If you could take a look at the last paragraph of this document
22 in front you, the last sentence it says:
23 "Please inform us on which office of the prosecutor is authorised
24 to deal with this so that we can submit the criminal reports to them."
25 Mr. Delic, why would there be any uncertainty over which
1 prosecutor's office was authorised to accept criminal reports concerning
2 the people held at these various detention facilities?
3 A. Possibly the person who wrote this text was addressing the
4 military prosecution, so possibly the person had in mind acts within the
5 remit of the military prosecution or the court martial.
6 Q. Well, can we take a look at P117 again, and if we can look at the
7 end of the first paragraph of this document where it says:
8 "Persons who fled from the place where combat operations were
9 being conducted, about 500 of them who are able-bodied who are being
10 treated as civilian prisoners have been accommodated in the sports hall."
11 Mr. Delic, given that it says here that they're civilians who are
12 being detained there, what would this tell you with regard to which
13 prosecution office they should be filed with if there are any criminal
14 reports concerning these detainees?
15 A. Well, in the Mahala housing development at Sanski Most, there had
16 been an armed conflict and then the civilian population was removed from
17 that housing development and was put up at the gymnasium where they
18 stayed for a couple of days, after which I know they were taken to
19 another territory somewhere around Bihac.
20 Q. However, it was assumed that they had committed a crime were they
21 were being held prisoners and they're civilians, which prosecutor's
22 office should the police file that criminal report with, the military or
23 the civilian prosecutor's office?
24 A. Well, if it had been in the remit of the military prosecution,
25 then they would be in charge. For example, if the incriminated act had
1 been armed rebellion because that's within the remit of court martial.
2 In that gymnasium there were many children and women and elderly people
3 who hadn't committed any crime. I suppose they were placed there
4 temporarily because there was armed conflict going on in that housing
5 development where they had been living.
6 Q. If the police had filed a criminal report with your office and
7 you later determined that it actually belonged within the jurisdiction of
8 the military court, what would you have done?
9 A. I would have submitted such a report to the prosecution into
10 which jurisdiction this falls.
11 Q. Now, under the criminal procedure code that was in effect during
12 this time-period, how long could the police detain a person without
13 seeking an order from the Court to extend that person's detention?
14 A. I think up to three days.
15 Q. And could we take a look at P120 and page 58 of the English, page
16 152 of the B/C/S. I'm sorry, I stand corrected. It's page 59 of the
17 English, page 162 of the B/C/S. If you could scroll down. Let's look at
18 Article 196, paragraph number 3.
19 Mr. Delic, if you can please look at that provision, and could
20 you tell us, is this the provision that limits the police to detaining a
21 person for up to three days without a court order?
22 A. Yes. In paragraph 3 reads:
23 "Pre-trial custody ordered by law enforcement agency may not last
24 longer than three days counted from the hour of deprivation of liberty."
25 That's the provision pertaining to the duration of police
2 Q. Now, with regard to the detainees that were mentioned in these
3 two documents that we looked at just a moment ago, do you recall the
4 police filing any requests with the Court or with your office seeking to
5 extend their detention beyond three days?
6 A. I don't think that there were any such requests.
7 Q. What categories were non-Serb detainees divided into once they
8 are arrested by the police?
9 A. I don't know the answer to that question.
10 Q. Well, let's take a look at Exhibit P60.10. Now, this is a 4 June
11 1992 Sanski Most Crisis Staff conclusion, and if you can look at the
12 first conclusion, and in particular, the three categories of prisoners.
13 Number 1, the first category politicians; the second category,
14 nationalist extremists; and the third category, people unwelcome in
15 Sanski Most municipality.
16 Mr. Delic, were you aware that the police and the military were
17 dividing non-Serb prisoners into these three categories?
18 A. I didn't know that. I had no access to this document.
19 Q. Can you tell us under what criminal laws or in fact any laws of
20 the Republika Srpska that the police were authorised to arrest and detain
21 persons for being politicians or because they were unwelcome in the
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have an objection
24 if you allow. It doesn't follow from the document that the police made
25 this categorisation. The OTP is leading the witness to a wrong
1 conclusion. This is a document by the Crisis Staff.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
3 Mr. Olmsted, it seems to me that there's merit in the objection.
4 Again, you're asking a conclusion of the witness from a document which
5 the document doesn't necessarily -- doesn't necessarily support, but more
6 importantly it's a document that he didn't make. So again, can you
7 rephrase the question.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Sure, Your Honour. I would just make a note that
9 the conclusion says Mirko Vrucinic who we've established is the chief of
10 police and it says that he is tasked -- he's in charge of resolving the
11 issue of prisoners and categorisation, so that's where the Prosecution
12 had developed that question, but I'll rephrase.
13 Q. Mr. Delic, are you aware of any criminal laws or any laws within
14 the Republika Srpska that would permit anyone, be it police, military,
15 whoever, to arrest and detain persons based upon any of these categories,
16 politicians, extremists, people unwelcome in the Sanski Most area?
17 A. I'm not aware of any such law or regulation.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I was remiss. I should have asked
19 for 65 ter Exhibit 10128 to be marked for identification.
20 JUDGE HALL: I can't remember how far back that was, but I
21 suppose so, Mr. Olmsted.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, that was the one we just -- prior to this
23 document that we showed -- or two prior, I'm sorry, it was before the
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 MR. OLMSTED: Yeah, it's page 16, line 19.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P124 marked for identification, Your
4 MR. OLMSTED: And that concludes the Prosecution's examination of
5 this witness.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Since
9 I haven't had a chance to wish you a good morning this morning yet.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. My name is Slobodan Cvijetic. I'm a co-counsel in the Defence
14 team of the accused Mico Stanisic.
15 Mr. Delic, in the introductory part of your testimony, that is to
16 say during the examination-in-chief, you said that in your work you
17 basically used three types of law: The penal code of the Socialist
18 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the Law on Criminal Procedure, which was
19 also enforced at the federal level, and both laws were applied across the
20 SFRY; lastly, you relied on the republican criminal law of the Socialist
21 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that so?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Once I have put my question, please make a short break for the
24 interpreters to be able to interpret since we speak the same language. I
25 am cautioning you although I'm frequently cautioned myself.
1 I would like to take a step back to see how it came about that
2 these laws were being implemented and incorporated into the body of law
3 in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- in Republika Srpska. You will agree that with
4 disintegration of the former SFRY, new states were created in its former
5 territory. You will agree, however, that it was not sufficient to issue
6 a declaration of independence or sovereignty alone. This would not
7 automatically make a state. One of the first issues was to have an
8 entire system or body of law as a single system by implementing what may
9 have amounted to hundreds of new regulations and laws. Do you agree with
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You will agree that that kind of work could not be done in 24
13 hours. There was a looming danger of what I would term a legal void
14 until all regulations are put in place. Am I correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Specifically, in your domain that could have presented a great
17 danger because in keeping with the continental legality principle, no one
18 could be prosecuted for crimes committed unless that type of crime as
19 such is envisaged in the existing laws. Does this accurately reflect the
20 principle I outlined?
21 A. Yes, it does.
22 Q. If you as a prosecutor at that point in time, you do not have a
23 penal code at your disposal or the Law on Criminal Procedure, you have
24 nothing to work with. It's not only you but also the investigating judge
25 and the police who couldn't undertake measures to prosecute perpetrators
1 of crime. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. That is why all of the former republics, including Republika
4 Srpska, came up with a model of filling in that legal void by putting
5 into force separate regulations with immediate effect following a special
6 procedure by which it was determined that until new regulations are in
7 place the old regulations were to be applied, that is to say the
8 regulations of the former SFRY and the Socialist Republic of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you know of that procedure?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask
12 for 1D00-4266 to be shown to the witness. Let me see what this page is.
13 Could we scroll up in the B/C/S. Very good.
14 Q. Mr. Delic, on the left-hand side in the bottom right corner - and
15 I think you need to scroll up in the English as well so that the Chamber
16 may follow - it is the decision on the implementation of the
17 constitutional law -- for the implementation of the constitution of the
18 Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you recall this particular
19 regulation, the decision to implement the constitution of Republika
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Now you can see it.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, now let's go to the next
24 page, in particular Article 12 of the law. The next page, please.
25 There. Please do the same in the English. Article 12.
1 Q. Please, Mr. Delic, read out this article --
2 A. In Article 12 it says --
3 Q. You can read it for yourself. Are you familiar with this
4 particular provision?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you have occasion to read it at the time?
7 A. Yes. This was the legal basis for the implementation of the
8 former regulations of the SFRY and the Socialist Republic of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina which did not contravene the regulations put into
10 force by Republika Srpska.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Regarding the document I seek to
12 tender it as a Defence exhibit since my colleague, the Prosecutor, was
13 able to identify it.
14 JUDGE HALL: Hadn't it been decided that all laws -- I suppose
15 whichever side relied on it would be put into one basket, rather than
16 having them exhibited individually? Even if they had to be somehow
17 internally identified by somehow -- but they did have to be exhibited by
18 other documentary exhibits. Wouldn't this fall into the category?
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it will be so;
21 however, in expectation of the realisation of that agreement, time is
22 passing by, and we frequently refer to certain laws. I believe it was on
23 the Prosecution's proposal. You already admitted certain regulations.
24 It will be as you say, but I'm now dealing with a rather short law which
25 was easy to comment upon. I agree with the system you put forth, but at
1 this point in time I need to have this law commented upon by the witness
2 and made an exhibit.
3 JUDGE HALL: I understand what you are in the process of doing.
4 It's merely the matter of the -- there being no necessity to have it
5 marked as an exhibit. It's just put into the -- whatever mechanism is in
6 use for adding to this basket of laws would be followed in this case.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour. I accept
8 your suggestion. I would kindly ask that this agreement between the OTP
9 and us be implemented as soon as possible. We are constantly being told
10 that it will be so, but it did not see the light of day yet. In any
11 case, I agree with your proposal, and I believe we had the witness
12 sufficiently comment upon the law.
13 Q. Mr. Delic, Article 12 was the basis of introducing certain
14 criminal regulations and provisions into the body of law of Republika
15 Srpska, and you will agree with me that in the body of law in Republika
16 Srpska that was being used at the time there may have been dozens or even
17 hundreds of regulations of the former SFRY and the Socialist Republic of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Am I correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I cannot guarantee, but I think there are still individual
21 regulations in force from that period that are still used. You are now a
22 notary and you are duty-bound to implement these laws, and this
23 particular law was only removed about a year ago?
24 A. I agree with that. We had the new law on the application that
25 was put into force on the 5th of January this year.
1 Q. Therefore, we dealt with the issue of the introduction of these
2 regulations into the body of law. I would now like to dwell upon the
3 manner in which you were elected prosecutor.
4 Before that, since we have already been discussing provisions of
5 the criminal law, I would like to go over a few questions put to you by
6 the Prosecutor. Namely, the Criminal Code of the SFRY is split into two
7 parts; is that so?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It had its general part containing the legal principles and a
10 separate part in which there were types of crimes specified which were of
11 federal level. Am I correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In that separate part there were such crimes as those directed
14 against the basis of the socialist state system, then crimes against
15 humanity and international law. It was only the SFRY who figured as the
16 signatory of the various international conventions, and it was under an
17 obligation to include the laws pertaining to such conventions into its
18 domestic law, that is to say in the most general sense the crimes
19 pertaining to the situations of war or war crimes in general. Am I
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Then these offences included also crimes directed against the
23 armed forces, where I can particularly stress the crimes of espionage,
24 sabotage, and armed rebellion. Am I correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What is particularly interesting in this chapter is the fact that
2 civilians could be held criminally responsible if found to have committed
3 such crimes. Am I correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In peacetime, you will agree, there were military courts which
6 processed such cases. Are you familiar with that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. This would be it concerning the criminal code, and I would like
9 to move on to the Law on Criminal Procedure. Mr. Delic, a criminal
10 procedure begins, so to say, in the court building by the -- by virtue of
11 a decision issued by an investigating judge on the opening of an
12 investigation or by raising an indictment or a proposal for indictment
13 issued by the public prosecutor. Am I correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Therefore, an investigation is initiated, conducted, and
16 concluded by the investigating judge; am I correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I won't go into all the different provisions of the Law on
19 Criminal Procedure since we are both professionals, and I suppose you
20 will not dispute anything regarding this part. I used to be a prosecutor
21 myself some 30 years ago and I still recall these provisions.
22 The police does not conduct a criminal procedure and does not
23 carry out an investigation; am I correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You will agree with me that the police merely initiates a
1 criminal procedure which, as you said yourself, happened in some 90 per
2 cent of the cases. However, a criminal procedure can also be initiated
3 by any other entity, and in your view there was some 10 per cent of such
4 cases. Am I correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In Article 162 of that law it says that an investigating judge
7 can only entrust some investigative actions to a body of the
8 interior - we will use the term police - and then the police has to carry
9 out that order in keeping with the order of the investigating judge. Am
10 I right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Let us say an investigating judge orders a -- an apartment to be
13 searched, and he himself is not in a position to attend that search
14 himself, in that case he can order the police to carry out the search and
15 to report back to him. Am I right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Furthermore, criminal proceedings are finalised when the
18 investigation is dropped, for example, if you as a prosecutor give up on
19 further criminal procedure; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Or in passing a judgement in which the trial chamber or a judge
22 will decide on the lot of the criminal proceedings; am I right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You can also reject criminal charges and you don't have to
25 initiate criminal proceedings; am I right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In that case you will agree with me that the police does not
3 decide, they don't decide either on the start, the course, or the
4 finalisation of criminal procedure. Everything is within the purview of
5 the organs of the judiciary. Am I right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And now I'm coming to the issue of your appointment that I've
8 already announced. You have already told us about the democratic
9 procedure by way of which you were elected. It seems that you were given
10 an offer that you couldn't refuse; am I right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You still owe us an answer as to what would have been a regular
13 procedure for the election of a judge or a prosecutor. Who would have
14 been in charge of electing those people?
15 A. Previously it was the Assembly or, rather, the Assemblies.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce
17 Exhibit 65 ter -- from 65 ter list 713.
18 Q. Mr. Delic, before we see the document let me just ask you this:
19 Did you know your colleague, your fellow prosecutor from Kotor Varos?
20 A. Yes. His name was Aleksa Tepic.
21 Q. Aleksa Tepic, very well then. Could you please look at the
22 left-hand side of your screen which should display the B/C/S version of
23 the document. Could you look at paragraph 2. Look at the first bullet
24 point. I believe that the B/C/S version should be moved slightly to the
25 right. The English version is okay, but could you please move the B/C/S
1 version slightly to the right.
2 And now you can see the first bullet point under paragraph 2.
3 Could you please look at it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'm going to read it to you if you can't read - I believe you
6 can - however, let me read it for you.
7 "Momcilo and Cedo are to settle together with Goran the matter of
8 the public prosecutor ..."
9 Could you please look at the title of the document and see who
10 the issuer of the document was. This is an excerpt of the -- from the
11 minutes of the session of the Crisis Staff of Kotor Varos. And here the
12 Crisis Staff decides to settle the matter of the public prosecutor in
13 Kotor Varos. It seems that this choice or this election, rather, is even
14 more out of the ordinary than was yours. Am I right?
15 A. Yes, you are.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, the Prosecution objects to this line
17 of questioning. The Defence is asking the witness to comment on
18 occurrences in another municipality separate from his own, and I don't
19 think there's enough foundation for him to be answering these questions.
20 JUDGE HALL: The -- Mr. Olmsted, as I understand the
21 Prosecution's purpose in tendering this witness, it was -- he spoke
22 largely from the questions that were put by the Prosecution in terms of
23 systems and methods that were in place; and against that background I am
24 not sure I see where the Defence is off base. Because, again although
25 they talk about a different municipality, the question as I understand it
1 goes to the structures and systems.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, well our line of questioning regarding this
3 witness's -- the personnel changes within his municipality were based
4 upon his factual knowledge of what happened in that municipality. He
5 did -- was not giving evidence on generally the hiring and firing of
6 prosecutor witnesses -- or prosecutors or judges during this time-period.
7 And now the Defence is asking him questions about an entirely different
8 municipality, to which he -- there's no foundation that he actually had
9 contact with those people over there. So he's basically asking him to
10 give an opinion based upon procedures in a different municipality.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. PANTELIC: And if I may, Your Honour --
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I please --
14 MR. PANTELIC: And this witness just mentioned his colleague from
15 Kotor Varos, Mr. Aleksa Tepic, who was a public prosecutor in Kotor
16 Varos. That's a link, that's enough link because he just mentioned that
17 he knew prosecutor from Kotor Varos.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic. I'm not sure, myself, that
19 that's sufficient of a link.
20 But, Mr. Cvijetic, we're assuming that you had laid a foundation
21 for what you're asking, where are you headed? What do you seek to elicit
22 by this line of questioning? And I understand -- I take Mr. Olmsted's
23 point about a foundation having to be laid by you in order to ask the
24 question you're about to ask because you're dealing with -- you've moved
25 to matters outside of the personal experience of this witness, even if he
1 is talking about systems.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in commenting my
3 questions you have rightly guessed my intention when you just responded
4 to the Prosecutor. I don't intend to have that document admitted. I am
5 just talking about the context that the Prosecutor -- that the witness is
6 talking about and has already discussed with the Prosecutor. I'm talking
7 about very strange ways of electing public prosecutors. Here they're
8 elected by the Crisis Staff. I'm not going to have this document
9 admitted. He knew the fellow prosecutor, and he can also tell us that
10 his election was quite odd and so was the election of his fellow
11 prosecutor in Kotor Varos. I'm just trying to put things in to a certain
12 context. And when it comes to municipalities I'm already on the way back
13 to the municipality where the gentleman served as a prosecutor, and in
14 that sense I have already laid the foundation when I asked him how he was
15 elected. And the Prosecutor asked him the same thing, and this is my
16 foundation for the questions that I'm going to be putting to the witness.
17 MR. PANTELIC: And sorry to interrupt, just for the record,
18 Mr. Tully just informed me that this particular document was exhibit --
19 admitted as Exhibit P85. So ...
20 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Delic, let's go back to the municipality of Sanski Most.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
24 1D00-4513. That's the document.
25 Q. Mr. Delic, please look at the document. Again, the left-hand
1 side of the screen. And could you please pay attention to bullet point 2
2 or item 2. This is another document issued by the Crisis Staff, and in
3 this particular case it was the Crisis Staff of the municipality of
4 Sanski Most where you worked and resided. Crisis Staff issues orders to
5 a number of different entities. You can see which entities those were
6 and we are interested in bullet point 2 where it says:
7 "The president of the Sanski Most lower court is ordered to
8 provide a forensic judge for the burial of the dead."
9 I'm still talking about the context. Here the Crisis Staff
10 issued an order to the president of the lower court and ordered him as to
11 what and how to work. Mr. Delic, did you know anything about this way of
12 work of the Crisis Staff of the municipality of Sanski Most? Did they
13 meddle with the work of the judiciary bodies?
14 A. Well, I can speak for myself. They didn't meddle with my work,
15 and I've not seen this document before.
16 Q. Thank you very much. In any case, you have just been shown what
17 they dealt with. I'm not going to insist on the admittance of this
18 document because you are not familiar with it.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have a document from 65
20 ter list. The number is 606. We're interested in bullet point 2 again.
21 Q. Mr. Delic, could you please read bullet point 2 for yourself.
22 A. Yes, I can.
23 Q. Go on then. Will you agree with me that it says here that the
24 Crisis Staff appoints and certifies that Mirko Vrucinic shall begin to
25 work as the acting chief of the public security station of Sanski Most
1 and that he will be issued a decision to that effect? I'm not going to
2 ask you about the document. It's self-explanatory. Given the fact that
3 you were a prosecutor at the time, are you in the least familiar with the
4 structure and hierarchy in the MUP? That's my first question. In
5 principle, you don't have to be familiar with all the details.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And this kind or this procedure to elect Mr. Mirko Vrucinic, was
8 it in compliance with the way the highest officials in the Ministry of
9 the Interior should have been appointed as far as you know?
10 A. No. This was not a customary way to appoint officials in the
12 Q. How should this have been done?
13 A. In any case, there should have been a procedure in place and it
14 should have been followed for the election of the chief of a public
15 security station.
16 Q. Very well. Thank you. Mr. Delic, let's leave all the documents
17 aside for the time being. I have more of them but let's take a break
18 from the documents. I would like to talk to you about the conditions of
19 your work in Sanski Most. You've already spoken about that in answering
20 the Prosecutor's questions, but let me put some very concrete questions
21 to you in this regard. In the initial stages of your work, did you
22 suffer from a communication breakdown? Was there enough electricity or
23 were there frequent outages? And was your movement restricted; and if it
24 was, to what extent? I've asked several questions - I apologise - but I
25 believe that they're all related. Could you please answer.
1 A. Towards the end of May and in early June 1992, the entire
2 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina saw the outbreak of conflicts. In
3 Sanski Most there were also armed conflicts. To put it simply, there was
4 no electricity for over two months. During that summer all sorts of
5 communication lines, for example, telephone lines were down most of the
6 time. And it was really very difficult to establish communication with
7 Banja Luka or any other towns. In the area the movement of people was
8 restricted. You could not leave town. There were frequent controls at
9 check-points, and at those check-points there were armed members of the
10 army. You could not move without a pass. As far as the supply of staple
11 foods are concerned, there was no food to be had. Stores were empty.
12 Their shop windows were broken. The situation was very chaotic.
13 Q. Thank you very much. I believe you have painted a very good
14 picture of the situation. You will agree with me that at that time there
15 was that big operation to break through the corridor. Am I right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. After the breakthrough through the corridor, was it safe to use
18 that military road?
19 A. It was not safe in the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
20 and my municipality was no exception to that.
21 Q. But let's focus on the corridor. Was it a target of constant
22 attacks, bombing, even after it was officially opened?
23 A. Yes, all sorts of incidents took place there quite often.
24 Q. And let's now talk about the organisation of the work of the
25 prosecutor. When did you learn who your republican public prosecutor
2 A. I really can't remember, but it was later on, at a later stage.
3 Maybe as late as 1995.
4 Q. So you will allow for the possibility that it was perhaps even
5 after the war in 1995 or even 1996 that you learned who your public
6 prosecutor was?
7 A. It's quite possible.
8 Q. Well, it does not seem very usual that -- can you briefly explain
9 how this occurred?
10 A. The office of the prosecutor was in Pale and Pale was far then.
11 It is still far, and it was especially far during the war given the
13 Q. So let's just say that Pale is in the eastern part of Republika
14 Srpska across from the corridor. Would I be right in putting it that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what about the higher public prosecutor, senior public
18 prosecutor, where was his office?
19 A. His office was in Banja Luka.
20 Q. When did you first meet to the public prosecutor who was superior
21 to you?
22 A. More than two months elapsed or must have elapsed when I was
23 appointed public prosecutor at Sanski Most and when I met the senior
24 public prosecutor.
25 Q. Good. At Pale there was the headquarters of the most important
1 public authorities; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you ever go to Pale during the war?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Mr. Delic, when did you find out who the minister of the interior
6 was and what his name was at that period?
7 A. Maybe after the war when newspapers started to write about that
9 Q. This case or the case of Jovica Stanisic and that's when you made
10 the link?
11 A. For a while there was -- there were many reports about Jovica
12 Stanisic. I suppose that Mico and Jovica are related based on their last
14 Q. No, actually they aren't, but they do have the same last name.
15 So we will agree that only when these proceedings started before the
16 Tribunal you found out who the minister of the interior was in 1992; am I
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Mr. Delic, and when you were replying to the questions of the
20 Prosecutor you said that it can be best seen from the log-book how there
21 was a -- how it happened that there was a surge of crime in the territory
22 of the Sanski Most municipality. You said that from the log-book for
23 1991 reaching till May 1992, it can clearly be seen that most violations
24 committed were petty offences. You even meant theft of wood in the
25 forest, et cetera. Am I right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then you said that as of May 1992 one could witness a drastic
3 difference; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At once you were faced with the most dangerous sort of crime in
6 your territory. There were murders, robberies, et cetera. Am I right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You will agree with me when I say that was a novelty which
9 burdened both law enforcement, that is the police, and you as a
10 prosecutor; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I will try to elaborate on the example of Sanski Most with you.
13 All police forces in the world have an operational register. Do you know
14 of that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In that register they internally, for their own purposes,
17 register persons who are suspected of engaging in criminal activity; is
18 that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. However, the -- that is based only on assumptions so there is not
21 enough to establish so-called founded suspicion; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So the police keeps track of them until there is founded
24 evidence; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. For Sanski Most I believe that you can't give us the exact
2 numbers but you can give us a description, what the situation was in that
3 aspect and how many persons there were in that register as potential
4 perpetrators of crimes?
5 A. I do not have available the statistics, but since Sanski Most was
6 a small place and a quiet place, where before the war crimes were rare
7 and the crimes committed were not so dangerous for the entire society. I
8 suppose that in the so-called operational register of the police there
9 were persons who engaged in such activity which was not so very dangerous
10 for the society.
11 Q. All right. But then you were aware of the enormous rise in
12 crime. Can one word, which I'm about to say, outline the reasons for
13 that event, and that word is war? Is that the word that can best explain
14 what started happening then?
15 A. When war broke out the most serious crimes started being
17 Q. So when the war started, war-time activities, in the territory of
18 Sanski Most, there was the arrival of military formations. But you will
19 agree with me parallelly to them and independently who also arrived were
20 paramilitary formations, criminals who had put on uniforms and who had
21 weapons, in other words, persons who were not to be found in the
22 operational register of the police because they had come from elsewhere
23 and they were constantly on the move. Am I right?
24 A. Well, probably but my movement was restricted so that I do not
25 have much information about the movement of these persons.
1 Q. All right.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Just a foundational objection here. I think the
3 witness established that he agreed that there was a -- some kind of
4 operational register of the police. But now the line of questioning is
5 with regard to what was in that register. And I don't think it's been
6 established whether this witness ever saw that register or ever took a
7 look at what was written in there.
8 JUDGE HALL: In any event, the witness said he couldn't answer
9 the question.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Before I move on to the next question, I will try to define the
12 times that you have depicted by quoting a famous sentence of our only
13 Nobel literature prize winner from the region, and I will ask you know
14 that sentence.
15 "There comes a time when fools speak, intelligent people are
16 quiet, and ragtag and bobtail gets rich."
17 Does that sentence describe those times?
18 A. Yes, I know that sentence. It was written by Ivo Andric, the
19 Nobel literature prize winner, and it depicts wartime very well.
20 Q. Mr. Delic, we will now speak about your KTN log-book about which
21 the OTP has already asked you. Do you know what a black spot in crime
23 A. As far as I remember, that should refer to the number of
24 undiscovered perpetrators of crimes.
25 Q. Correct. That is the ratio of the crimes committed to crimes
2 You will agree with me that that black spot, that is the number
3 of unresolved crimes, in regular, normal times when the judiciary bodies
4 and the police functioned well should be smaller; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, that's how it should be.
6 Q. But at the times you also lived through, you will agree with me,
7 also had to contribute to the fact that that black spot was greater?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. By submitting a criminal report against an unknown perpetrator,
10 or rather, that -- such a submission is based on the law; am I right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The criminal procedures act in Article 151 says that the police,
13 apart from identifying the perpetrator, urgently must secure evidence
14 about -- of the commission of the -- or the commitment of the crime. Is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry. Line -- page 42, line 5, between 5 and 8,
18 our friend from interpreter's booth did not correctly translated what
19 witness said. Witness said that police should secure crime scene, crime
20 scene. So let's clarify that, please.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, just once again thanks for your
22 intervention, but please do not try and put into the mouths of the
23 witnesses what you think they said. It's better to have it directly from
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Microphone not activated]
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 MR. PANTELIC: [Microphone not activated]
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, in any case, Mr. Pantelic, whether you
4 heard it or not is irrelevant. So the important thing is that we get it
5 directly from the witness --
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Microphone not activated]
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- and not from counsel. Thanks.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Delic, let us then clarify this part. It is the task of the
10 police, among other things, to secure and keep evidence that remains
11 after a crime has been committed. Did we speak about that?
12 A. So the evidence found on the crime scene must be found and
13 preserved. That should be the sense.
14 Q. Yes, that's how I understood you also, and that's also what the
15 law says.
16 Speaking about which, let me say that there is a saying in the
17 police that at such moments it is more important to secure evidence than
18 run after the perpetrator, because what good is it if you cannot indict
19 him later on and there is no foundation for the court to convict him. Am
20 I right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. We're done with this.
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. It has been suggested to me that we should clarify that this is
1 the very purpose of submitting a criminal report against an unknown
2 perpetrator; namely, to secure all evidence in a legal manner in order to
3 be able to use them once a perpetrator is found. Am I right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Let's say biological traces and evidence will perish, and unless
6 they are collected and secured they can never be renewed again. Is that
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. Let us not go into that any further. I believe we
10 have clarified sufficiently. I would like to go into some new
11 circumstances that changed the situation in your municipality.
12 Parallelly to the functioning of the civilian judiciary authorities and
13 bodies, court's martial, military prosecutors, and military police come
14 to the scene; am I right?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like an
17 exhibit from the 65 ter list to be put to the witness. It is marked
18 number 2001.
19 Q. Mr. Delic, on the right-hand side of this document, as you see,
20 there is a decision on the establishment seat and jurisdiction of
21 military courts and military prosecutor's offices. And -- on the
22 right-hand side, yes, right here, just this. Can you see it? And if I'm
23 not mistaken, let us take a look. So military courts and military
24 prosecutor's offices are established and by -- under this decision they
25 are linked to the corps commands. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's what follows from this decision.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat. You are going
3 too fast for the interpreters.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, the interpreters are asking that
5 you slow down the pace.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The next page, please.
7 Q. Please have a look at the part on the top. When does this
8 decision come into force? In the upper left-hand side corner. Do you
9 see the date?
10 A. The 31st of May, 1992.
11 Q. But it comes into force eight days after publication, and it was
12 published on the 31st of May; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Simultaneously with the regular courts, the military courts were
15 being established. I don't know whether you were familiar with this, but
16 I have with me a decision on the election, jurisdiction, and
17 establishment of courts of the Autonomous Region of Krajina which
18 followed the establishment of military courts. Are you familiar with
20 A. No, I'm not.
21 Q. Then I won't ask you about this, but I hope you will take my word
22 for it that first military courts were formed and then civilian courts.
23 Since we have had a look at this document, next I would kindly ask for --
24 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, it's -- before you move on to your next
2 question, it's time for the break.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: Okay, okay. [Interpretation] Very well. Thank
5 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
7 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way back to court,
8 there's a matter with which we wish to briefly deal, and that is this
9 recurring question of how legislation is dealt with. As far as the
10 Chamber is concerned, legislation doesn't have to be formally proved, and
11 it's merely a matter, as we would have said, of counsel, plural, that's
12 from both sides, deciding with the registry how best to identify them,
13 but they don't have to be formally --
14 MR. KRGOVIC: Just for the record, Your Honours -- the problem is
15 the stenographer; is that correct?
16 THE REGISTRAR: And the interpreter.
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, before you respond, perhaps for the
19 record I should repeat what I said earlier and that I'd heard you, and I
20 think counsel in the room would have all heard, so I am going to
21 summarise what I said earlier. And that is that as far as the Chamber is
22 concerned, legislation and statutes being public documents do not have to
23 be formally proved. And the Chamber is content to leave it to counsel on
24 both sides in consultation with the Registry to decide how best to deal
25 with them for reference and management purposes.
1 Yes, you had something to add, Mr. Pantelic?
2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
3 [B/C/S on English channel]
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] -- Mr. Krgovic is today with us.
5 Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Welcome, Mr. Krgovic.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, President. Good
9 morning, Your Honour.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may be heard on the subject of stipulations,
11 just a quick suggestion. I believe my friends from the Prosecution side
12 will agree because we're preparing a document with the stipulation of all
13 laws. I suggest once we reach an agreement on that document we will
14 submit it to the Registrar, and given the -- whatever P or D numbers,
15 it's -- as an exhibit and that would be the easiest way, I think. I
16 don't think that the Prosecution has anything --
17 JUDGE HALL: No, the Chamber is content to leave it to counsel.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, please continue your cross-examination.
21 Please continue your cross-examination.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Could we please have the document I asked for just before the
24 break. It is 1D00-4992. The ERN page with "General Provisions, Chapter
25 1," is 0358-3684. I think that's the fastest way to get to the page I
1 need. This is it. In the English it should read "General Provisions,
2 Chapter 1."
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't see how else to help you
5 with the English page except by telling you that we can only recognise by
6 its title: "Chapter 1: General Provisions."
7 Yes, that's it.
8 Q. Please direct your attention at item 3, Mr. Delic. Please read
9 it for yourself.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S could we move on to
11 the next page because this item spills over.
12 Q. Have you read this part of item 3 so far?
13 A. Here you can see the end of that item.
14 Q. Have you read it? I apologise. I did not specify which document
15 this is. This is the rules of service of the military police of the
16 armed forces. When the military regulations we commented upon came into
17 force, these rules were applied as well. Since we are both
18 professionals, I can share with you that here we see provisions
19 pertaining to the competence of the military police, which is linked to
20 the territory for which the unit is responsible for, or rather, the
21 military police found within that area of responsibility. Do you see
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Next let's go to item 9. It should be the next page in both
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, it seems that
2 Mr. Delic's microphone is off. I don't know whether his answer was
4 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may the Prosecution raise an
5 objection with regard to this line of questioning. This is a civilian
6 prosecutor from a municipality. There's been no foundation established
7 that he would have any knowledge over regulations that pertained to the
8 military court or the military prosecutor's office or the military
9 police. Indeed, it hasn't even been established that he's ever seen
10 these regulations that he's now being questioned about. And this is
11 probably not the appropriate witness to ask these kind of witnesses to.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps I may be of
13 assistance before you make a decision. I can perhaps put the question to
14 the witness and that will clarify.
15 Q. In the course of your duties did you cooperate with the military
17 A. Yes, but seldom.
18 Q. But you did nevertheless?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to ask this
21 witness to comment on this -- on these provisions since he's a legal
22 professional. The provisions I was about to quote to him is something
23 that he must be familiar with. In any case, he would be the best person
24 to tell us whether he's familiar with those provisions or not.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution once again raises the
1 same objection. With all due respect, this is not the best witness to
2 comment on regulations that pertain to military courts, the military
3 police, and the military prosecutor's office.
4 JUDGE HALL: But, Mr. Olmsted, the last answer which Mr. Cvijetic
5 elicited from the witness was that occasionally there was this overlap.
6 I would have thought that that would be sufficient of a basis upon which
7 he could frame the question that he is seeking to ask -- within obvious
8 limits of course.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I suppose we should wait to hear the
10 questions, but our concern is all the witness has said is there was some,
11 I think it was seldom cooperation with the military police. And so I'm
12 not sure if that's sufficient to now start a whole line of questioning
13 with regard to a -- a service regulations of the military police, which
14 again we have no evidence that this witness has ever read these.
15 JUDGE HALL: Well, as always, Mr. Olmsted, don't anticipate,
16 let's take the questions one at a time. And if the objections -- if
17 there are objections, we'll deal with them.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Microphone not activated]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
21 Q. Mr. Delic, please read item number 9 to yourself, if you can.
22 A. I have read it.
23 Q. I would like to establish a parallel with the civilian
24 prosecutors and judges. The gist of my question is that there is a
25 delimitation of jurisdictions, but there were also terms of cooperation.
1 You cooperated with certain members of the military police, and here in
2 the rules we find that they can also operate in civilian clothes. Does
3 this remind you of the work of civilian police?
4 A. In item 9 here it says that the military police can carry out
5 certain duties in civilian clothes. It says a civilian suit.
6 Q. Well, of course. But let's look at the responsibility and the
7 purview and let's look at item 3, and I'm going to give you the ERN
8 number which is 0358-3688.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: This is page 11 Serbian version of the -- in the
10 e-court, and it's page 10 in English. Thank you.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. We'll be looking at item 17, and it says in this part - could you
13 please pay attention - it says that -- I apologise. Item 17, please.
14 The following page in English, please. Page 12 in the English version.
15 There you have it. Chapter 3, bullet point 17 says, as you can see in
16 the middle of that:
17 "The detection of crimes and their perpetrators being pursued ex
18 officio within the jurisdiction of military courts ..."
19 Am I reading properly?
20 A. You are.
21 Q. In other words, the authorities are identical as the authorities
22 of the civilian police?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can you now please look at bullet
25 point 21. We already have it in the English version, and in the B/C/S we
1 have to move a little bit forward. That's that.
2 Q. Look at item 21, please. Could you please read together with me.
3 "The rights and duties of the authorised employees of the bodies
4 of internal affairs in the armed forces are exercised by the authorised
5 military police officers within the given jurisdiction."
6 This rule, therefore, establishes a parallel between the rights
7 and duties of the authorised officials within the civilian bodies of the
8 interior and the military police. Would you agree with me? In practical
9 terms their authorities are the same; am I right?
10 A. Yes, you are.
11 Q. Very well. And can we now please look at the following page. My
12 learned friend Zecevic is going to help me. In B/C/S it's page 19 -- let
13 me give you the ERN number. Perhaps it will make our life easier if I
14 did. In e-court it's page number 12 in B/C/S. Very well. And let's
15 look at bullet point n. Again my learned friend Zecevic is going to help
16 me to find the English version. We are on the right page in B/C/S and
17 now the English bullet point n. And this overlaps -- spills over to page
18 14, and that's how we will be able to follow the text.
19 Mr. Delic, did you read what the duties of the military police
21 A. Yes, under n.
22 Q. Yes, under n, n for New York, let's put it that way.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In the English version we have to
24 move to the next page for everybody to be able to follow the entire
25 provision. Yes, that's the end of that.
1 Q. It seems that -- or rather, does it seem to you, Mr. Delic, just
2 a little while ago we talked about securing trace and clues of this. It
3 was copied from the Law on Criminal Procedure. Would you agree with me?
4 A. Yes, it's similar. The rights and duties -- or rather,
5 authorities are the same.
6 Q. Very well. And now we are not far from the following page that
7 we need to use for my next question. Page 13 in B/C/S and page 15 in the
8 English version. We are interested in bullet point h, 25(h), 25(h), and
9 same thing has to be located in the English.
10 Did you read the text before you?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. It says here:
13 "Take part in providing security for prisoners of war in camps
14 for prisoners of war."
15 And I believe that I will not need this document for much longer.
16 I just need to look at one more bullet point. In B/C/S page number is
17 20, and in English the corresponding page number is 23. We're interested
18 in bullet point 7, or rather, chapter 7 or subtitle under 7, the service
19 to prevent -- service to prevent crime or crime-prevention service. I
20 don't know if you can read such small letters.
21 A. Yes, I can.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's it. Thank you.
23 Q. My question is a principal one. As we can see within the
24 military police there was also the crime-prevention service. This
25 means -- or rather, I'm not going to have any more questions about this
1 document. I'm just going to ask you to agree with me in this. As you
2 can see, the complete organisation of the military police that reflects
3 the organisation of the civilian police. Would you agree with me?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Delic, when the Law on Military Courts came into force as
6 well as the Law on Military Prosecutor's Offices and when their police or
7 enforcement agencies were established, this meant the beginning of the
8 parallel work of two types of judiciary bodies and enforcement bodies:
9 Civilian on the one hand and the military on the other. Am I right?
10 A. Yes, you are.
11 Q. And now we are coming to the point of my cross-examination in
12 this part. There is a problem of the separation of authorities or
13 delineation of authorities. Wouldn't that be correct?
14 A. Yes, it would.
15 Q. As an experienced prosecutor, tell us, please, what criteria were
16 applied to segregate crimes into categories that determined who would be
17 in charge? What was the first and foremost rule or criterion applied?
18 A. The first and foremost criterion was whether the act was a pure
19 military act committed by a military serviceman. For example, sentry
20 duty breach, this was only performed by a soldier, nobody else. A bigger
21 problem arose in situations where -- when it had to be established
22 whether the person was a civilian or a civilian serving in the army.
23 Q. Let me stop you here and ask you very concretely. Was the first
24 and foremost criterion precisely that, the status of the perpetrator
25 whether he was a civilian or a soldier?
1 A. Yes, that was a practical matter establishing the --
2 Q. I'm asking you very concretely whether that was the first and
3 foremost criterion?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In other words, the first and foremost task of enforcement
6 agencies was precisely what you were talking about right now, to
7 establish whether the perpetrator was a serviceman or a civilian; am I
9 A. Yes, you are.
10 Q. Could you please tell me your definition of a serviceman or a
11 military person?
12 A. A serviceman, a person serving in the army, or a military person
13 was a person who was a member of the army who possibly had a rank but
14 what was the problem?
15 Q. No, no, I'm asking you about the definition. We'll come to the
16 border-line cases. Don't go into that. I'm going to lead you. A member
17 of a military unit or a military, would that be the definition?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Very concrete question now. I apologise. We're waiting for the
20 interpretation. Very well.
21 A person who was mobilised from the reserve and was provided with
22 a uniform and a weapon, was that a serviceman, a military person, yes or
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Mr. Delic, would another criterion be something taken from the
1 bylaw which would be the area of responsibility or deployment of a
2 military unit?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Let's explain what that means. That means that for crimes
5 committed in the area of responsibility or deployment of a military unit,
6 the only bodies responsible were military judiciary bodies; am I right?
7 A. Yes, you are.
8 Q. Very well. And this brings me to another criterion which is the
9 type of crime. There are crimes which are exclusively processed by
10 military judiciary bodies. For example, war crimes by their nature and
11 description, they can be committed by servicemen as a rule, only by
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So this brings us to a total of three basic criteria; however,
15 this also brings us to a situation in which authorities overlap and you
16 have already started talking about that and I interrupted you. Let me
17 give you an example. For example, a crime is committed. The perpetrator
18 is unknown. Both police forces come to the scene. What would be their
19 first and foremost task? Would it be to separate their respective
20 authorities based on the applicable criteria? Am I right in assuming
21 that that would be the case?
22 A. Yes, you are.
23 Q. And now let's move to a very practical issue here. You resided
24 in Sanski Most, and I'm sure that you know that in the territory of
25 Sanski Most a large military formation appeared already in the month of
1 April. Tell me whether you know what military formation I'm talking
3 A. I believe that you're talking about the 6th Krajina Brigade.
4 Q. I assume that you know that the commander of that brigade was
5 Colonel Branko Basara?
6 A. The name rings a bell, but I didn't know the gentleman
8 Q. Could you please wait with your answer.
9 So you heard of the commander. You heard of the unit. Do you
10 know that within that brigade there was also a unit of the military
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you cooperate with the military police of that brigade?
14 A. Rarely.
15 Q. Could you give me the name of the person whom you had dealings
16 with in your line of work?
17 A. There was a military policeman, and I believe that his name was
18 Predrag Lazic.
19 Q. Very well then.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the Court
21 please produce --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, before we leave this document would
23 you please clarify a couple of questions with the witness because it
24 wasn't obvious to me whether the witness has explained to us that in
25 peacetime at least - because that's what the rule governs, the activities
1 and duties of the military police during peacetime, but I don't know if
2 it is also covering wartime - but in peacetime at least what the witness
3 told us was that there is a parallel function between the civilian and
4 the military police, that they had the same duties, and that the way in
5 which a distinction was made in the end was by the three criteria that
6 you mentioned, namely, the identity of the perpetrator and the nature of
7 the crime and the area in which it was committed. But these parallel
8 functions, did they also apply in wartime? That's the first issue that I
9 would like you just to clarify.
10 The second issue is that you asked the witness whether the
11 concept of a serviceman would also cover somebody who had been mobilised
12 and given a uniform and a weapon, mobilised from the reserve. My
13 question would then be: Well, what about a volunteer who had also been
14 given a uniform and a weapon, if one of the volunteer groups committed
15 crimes whose jurisdiction would it then come under, the civilian police
16 or the military police? Could you clarify this with Judge Delic?
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will get back to
18 the first part of your question. I asked the witness about the
19 delineation of remit at the time that we are discussing. I asked him
20 about the practice.
21 Q. Mr. Delic, did you apply these three criteria of delineation at
22 the time we are discussing now, at the time of imminent threat of war at
23 Sanski Most?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Should I elaborate with the
2 witness, Your Honours?
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, but I just didn't see the witness answer. Is
4 that a positive answer to the question raised by counsel, Judge?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Then obviously the interpreters
7 weren't able to interpret in a timely fashion -- oh, yes, and it --
8 volunteers were also mentioned.
9 Your Honours, I will ask the witness, but I don't know whether
10 he's qualified to know in military rules and regulations, but I can
11 suggest an answer.
12 Q. Do you know that there is a category of volunteers under military
13 rules and regulations?
14 A. I'm not familiar with military rules and regulations.
15 Q. That's what I had assumed. Then we would now have to embark on a
16 polemic when volunteers joined military units and then there's the issue
17 of paramilitary formations, et cetera.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] So if Your Honours allow, I will
19 continue with the next question.
20 Let us see document 2D07-0033, please.
21 [Microphone not activated]
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
24 Q. Mr. Delic, you can see what this is about. This is a criminal
25 report filed by the command of the 6th Krajina Brigade, and the next
1 subheading reads, military police company, then the military post, the
2 date, et cetera. It says -- it states the addressee, namely, the office
3 of the military prosecutor at Banja Luka. There's the reference to the
4 provision upon which this criminal report is based, and you will agree
5 with me when I said that it's the same Law on Criminal Procedure as
6 applied by civilian authorities. And there are the names and the
7 personal information of the persons who are being reported.
8 Let us now turn to page 2, please, before I ask you whether you
9 know of this case I will say that on page 2 there is a description of the
10 criminal act. That's why I wanted to take a look at it.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please lower the B/C/S
12 version somewhat and please zoom in on the description of the criminal
13 act right here.
14 Q. Mr. Delic, from the names of the persons reported and the
15 description of the crimes, can you -- can you see which case this is?
16 And the English version, yes, a bit higher up. I think that the most
17 important paragraph is missing here, so the one above in the English
18 version -- no, no, no, no, no, the English version. So the paragraph
19 above -- yes, it's obviously split between two pages which is a problem.
20 So page 2 of the English text, the last paragraph. Yes, this is where
21 the description begins and continues on the next page.
22 Mr. Delic, do you recognise this case?
23 A. Yes, I know this case.
24 Q. Do you remember it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Please focus your attention on the final part of the document,
2 the final part of it is this page where the description begins and where
3 it says "attachments," which is on the next page in English, page 3 in
4 English. That's it.
5 Please take a look and see what was enclosed by the military
6 police as evidence. It says here under item 3 that the on-site
7 investigation was done by the staff of the SJB Sanski Most; is that
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On the following page --
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please turn to the
12 following page in both versions, and English too, please. Page 4 in the
13 English, please.
14 Q. So this criminal report is signed by Colonel Branko Basara. Let
15 us comment now. You said that you knew about -- you knew this case; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Here civilian law enforcement authorities went to the crime
19 scene, but the case was further processed by military authorities; is
20 that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. From the description of the case and the general information, did
23 you conclude why?
24 A. Probably they had the status of servicemen.
25 Q. All right. I can't refrain from asking you, talking about the
1 criminal report, because you are an experienced prosecutor, and I was too
2 a number of years ago. In this criminal -- is there anything missing
3 from this criminal report which is important for the legal quality of the
5 A. It is obvious from this criminal report that it includes all
6 formal elements that a criminal report should have. For example, one
7 that I wouldn't be likely to receive it from the SJB Sanski Most.
8 Q. So you will agree with my conclusion that the criminal
9 investigators of the military police were qualified to deal with
10 activities as outlined in this criminal report?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I will now ask you about possible border-line cases. In
13 border-line cases when it isn't clear whether the perpetrator is a
14 serviceman or a civilian, could it happen that the civilian police and
15 the military police both say that they have no authority there, and thus,
16 the perpetrator could in a way get away with it? Was -- did you keep
17 that on -- keep that in mind?
18 A. Yes, we all kept in mind our own remit and authority.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we're now getting to
20 the part which the other day was announced by my learned friend
21 Mr. Pantelic under rule 65 ter. We received a set of criminal reports or
22 criminal files which comprises 200 pages, and they are not translated
23 into English. Mr. Pantelic suggested how we can deal with that
24 situation, and he made several suggestions to that effect, and he will
25 now make a proposal. From a large criminal file of the military court in
1 Banja Luka, I extracted the relevant parts, and they are relevant because
2 this witness is mentioned in them. And I asked for English translations
3 to be made.
4 Could we please see Defence document 1D00-4907, please.
5 MR. PANTELIC: I apologise. I think this document should be
6 tendered if my learned friend Mr. Cvijetic -- previous one could be
7 tendered, this criminal charge which was filed by Colonel Basara. I
8 think -- you can tender it.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness knows
10 the case, he recognised it. And I'm convinced that this is also
11 registered with Colonel Basara when he was heard; and if not, then I
12 would tender this document into evidence. Should I repeat the document
13 number? It is 2D07-0033.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Then I tender it into evidence.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D40, Your Honours.
19 MR. PANTELIC: And if my learned friend Mr. Cvijetic will allow
20 me, I would like to make [sic] a guidance from the Trial Chamber.
21 Earlier before these proceedings I spoke with my learned friends from
22 Prosecution and principally they don't have objections to my application.
23 Actually, Your Honours, we received, as my learned friend Mr. Cvijetic
24 mentioned, we received I believe on 12th of October a bulk of documents,
25 sort of a batch of documents related to -- related to criminal charges,
1 on-site records, on-site crime records, military court Banja Luka
2 proceedings, et cetera, et cetera, against known and unknown perpetrators
3 against -- in main cases against non-Serb population in Sanski Most. So
4 point number one, these documents are in B/C/S language. We don't have
5 English translation because it was disclosed to us under Rule 66(B), I
6 believe, from the OTP, and my suggestion is the following: We could
7 tender this basket of documents for identification -- for - how do you
8 say it? - FFMI [sic] for identification. Then we shall ask our friends
9 from SLSS [sic] to translate it. And then when we got the English
10 translation we could tender it in full capacity so to say. These
11 documents are very important because they consist of many of records
12 signed by Mr. Delic. And simply, we would like to obtain certain
13 comments from him about the documents where he was present, et cetera, et
14 cetera. So I just ask for your instructions. Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, we appreciate the proposal that you
17 have made to save time by admitting your basket - to use your
18 phrase - all at once. Unfortunately, we don't know what is -- how much
19 at the end of the exercise, how many items in that basket would be of
20 assistance to the Chamber; and therefore, the method that we would ask
21 you to follow is that such items from these -- this number of pages you
22 have as would be according to your case relevant, you could put those to
23 the witness even if the particular document on which you're relying is
24 still in B/C/S and hasn't yet been translated. In the course of your
25 putting the relevant portion to the witness, that portion would then be
1 translated. So it may be a little time-consuming for you and us, but at
2 the end of the exercise the Chamber's view is that that is the preferable
3 course to avoid being faced at the end of it all with a great bundle of
4 documents that we're going to have to sift through and see what we make
5 of it.
6 Do you understand?
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. As you rightly pointed out, my
8 idea was just in --
9 JUDGE HALL: To save time --
10 MR. PANTELIC: -- in terms of -- to save time, yes. But, okay,
11 I'm perfectly comfortable, we could go through these documents with this
12 witness and then we could decide which part of these documents we shall
13 admit. Thank you so much.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Much obliged, Your Honour.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did something
17 similar in order to resolve the situation. I took this voluminous
18 military file and extracted relevant portions. Then I asked the
19 translation service to have those translated. My apology, I don't know
20 whether the fate of the previous document was decided on, the one issued
21 by Colonel Basara. Is that issue concluded? Very well.
22 Then I would kindly ask for 1D00-4907, page 20 in the B/C/S
23 version and 5 in the English. Your Honours, I have a practical proposal.
24 This set of documents is something I printed out for the witness in hard
25 copy. Perhaps it would be easier for the witness to read it that way and
1 then we can follow it on the screen as well just to make sure that we are
2 on the same page. That is, of course, if there are no objections on your
4 Q. Mr. Delic, this is another criminal report from the command of
5 the 6th Krajina Brigade, the MP company. As you can see, it was
6 submitted against Nenad Malic. We also have a description of the crime
7 at hand. Are you familiar with this case? Do you know which case this
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Excellent. Then we can discuss it further.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have the next page
12 in the B/C/S, 21, and in the English, it is page 6.
13 Q. You will agree that formally and legally speaking, this criminal
14 report is identical to the previous one, that is to say all legal
15 conditions are met for it to be a valid document, a valid criminal
16 report; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. We can see that the crime took place on the 21st of December,
19 1992; correct? What is interesting in this case, which you say you
20 recall, is that the perpetrator committed the crime while not on duty and
21 not involved in combat. He was in a settlement called Stari Majdan. He
22 took two Muslims out of a bar and killed them; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The MP company submitted a criminal report against him; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Because it was ascertained most probably that he was a
2 serviceman; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have the document
5 that can be found at page 23 in the B/C/S and page 7 in the English.
6 Q. Please have a look at the B/C/S version. You have the pages in
7 order. This is the ruling of the Banja Luka military court, by which
8 after three days of being held in custody detention was ordered by the
9 investigating judge of the competent military court; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Hence, the perpetrator was processed by the military prosecution
12 authorities; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we next have the document
15 which is at page 33 in the B/C/S and page 8 in the English version.
16 Q. As you can see, the military prosecutor's office attached to the
17 command of the 1st Krajina Corps -- 1st Krajina Brigade submitted this
18 request to conduct an investigation to the investigating judge of the
19 military court in Banja Luka; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Chronologically speaking we could move on to the next document
22 which is at page 40 in the B/C/S and page 3 in the English. We are still
23 waiting for the English version.
24 As we can see, the investigating judge accepted the proposal of
25 the military prosecutor's office and initiated an investigation against
1 the person involved; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If I'm not mistaken, the same law applies as before a civilian
4 court, that is to say the Law on Criminal Procedure; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Why did I focus on this part in particular? Because of the fact
7 that in addition to the military authorities this case was dealt by
8 civilian authorities as well.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to page 44 in
10 the B/C/S and page 1 in the English.
11 Q. Can you see it? This is the scene of crime report.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. From it I see that the investigating judge of the basic court in
14 Sanski Most on the evening at 2100 hours visited the crime scene. In
15 attendance were also civilian crime inspectors, and on the right-hand
16 side towards the top we see their names. There's also a police officer
17 who was on duty and the name of a physician who were there accompanying
18 the investigating judge. You, however, did not attend this scene of
19 crime investigation; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The investigating judge drafted this report on the 18th of
22 January, 1993, as we can see?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Obviously the on-site investigation was done without it being
25 typewritten immediately. Could that have been the case?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that it was indeed so I will show through another document
3 which is page 13 in the English and 47 in the B/C/S.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This is not the document. Page
5 40 -- sorry, page 13 in the B/C/S. I apologise, 43 in the B/C/S, 43. My
6 mistake. This should be it.
7 Q. You have it in hard copy. You can read it directly. The
8 investigating judge forwarded the official report to you; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And thereby you are officially informed of the crime; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. This was done on the 18th of January, 1993. Could we next see
13 what your reaction to it was. It is on the following document which is
14 page 39 in the B/C/S and 12 in the English version. Do you recognise
15 your signature?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. You immediately contacted the command of the 6th Krajina Brigade
18 and its MP company, asking for necessary information, that is to say
19 whether any proceedings were instituted against the perpetrator; is that
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The following document that we are about to see is yours --
23 sorry, that is the response from the brigade. Page 38 in the B/C/S and
24 11 in the English.
25 Mr. Delic, the military police responded to you by saying that
1 they had submitted a criminal report specifying the type of crime as well
2 as other information. Is this what we said previously, that you wanted
3 to be certain that the case would indeed be processed?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But just in case, you turned to the civilian police as well.
6 Next we'll go to that document which is at page 37 in the B/C/S and page
7 10 in the English version. We're waiting for the translation, and you
8 have it in hard copy.
9 [Defence counsel confer]
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You are being informed by the SJB by way of a reply to your query
12 that they forwarded some documentation to the military prosecutors;
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. As far as you are concerned, this concludes the issue because the
16 case is thereby officially transferred to the military judiciary;
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In this case the perpetrator committed the crime in a settlement,
20 in front of a bar. Was that the reason why you wanted to know whether
21 this was one of the border-line cases; am I correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Therefore, you will agree that in some other cases when the issue
24 of competence did not arise, you did not inquire in particular. Military
25 organs could have processed such cases without being duty-bound to report
1 to you as to their actions; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I will next show you two documents. First is Defence document
4 1D00-742 [as interpreted].
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, when you would have completed your
6 questions relating to these two documents we'll take the extended break.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well. I just want to go
8 through the two documents I referred to by your leave.
9 Q. Mr. Delic, do you see the document?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. This is a report on the work of the crime service between the 5th
12 of September and the 23rd of September, 1992. This is a report of the MP
13 company with which, as you said, had established co-operation otherwise I
14 would not even have asked you about this. Is that correct?
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to the next
16 page to see who signed the document and then I will have questions of
17 you. Third page, the third page, please. I believe we should also have
18 it in English. It's the same third page in English. We only need the
19 signature block. Very well.
20 Q. It says here that the report was drafted by crime inspector
21 Predrag Lazic?
22 A. Yes, that's what it says.
23 Q. Is that the person whom you said you knew?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And he signed his -- here in his capacity of crime inspector;
2 A. Yes, that's what it says.
3 Q. I have a general question about this document and then we'll
4 refer to the text itself.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to page 1 just
6 before that in both versions. This is it.
7 Q. You can see the number of cases which were processed before the
8 military police company. Let me not read it for you. Look at the
9 document yourself. The Vakuf case perpetrators were perpetrated.
10 Ibrahim Cehajic; is that the case?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Do you see that they were processed by the military organs and
13 that they were dealing with the case? Is that the case? Can you see
15 A. Yes, I see that.
16 Q. You see that the cases of killed Muslims were also processed?
17 A. Yes, I can.
18 Q. You can see that the cases of killed -- involving killed Serbs
19 were processed. Can you see that? Do you agree with me?
20 A. No, I can't see that.
21 Q. Radoslav Bilbija, son of Borislav, remanded in custody, I believe
22 that the person is a Serb; am I right?
23 A. Yes, you are.
24 Q. And then on the following page -- could we please turn to the
25 following page.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've just been
2 alerted to the fact that the time has come for our lunch break. With
3 your leave, I would like to leave the witness the documents for his
4 perusal and then we will take less time to go through them after the
5 break, with your leave, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, do you have an observation?
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I have an administrative matter after
8 you resolve this issue. The administrative issue is with regard to the
9 next witness. We understand from the Defence that they're going to be
10 going with this witness throughout the rest of this session, and
11 therefore, we would ask that the next witness be released from the
12 obligation to come to court today so that he can go about his business.
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
14 Yes, the witness may have the document in the break. We will
15 resume in an hour.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.48 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 2.54 p.m.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I just explain why I've moved up
20 to the front and Mr. Olmsted's not here. It wasn't appreciated that the
21 witness was going to take so long and he's on a flight to Sarajevo this
22 afternoon which was booked and unfortunately he couldn't leave. So if
23 that's all right with you, as leading counsel I'm going to take over for
24 Mr. Olmsted.
25 JUDGE HALL: Of course, Ms. Korner.
1 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, please resume.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we have the
5 last document back on the screen, and I will repeat the number. This is
6 1D00-740 -- 42. Very well.
7 Q. Mr. Delic, I'm not going to ask you about any details from this
8 report on the work of the crime prevention service of the MP company in
9 Sanski Most. I know that you studied that document during the break.
10 I'm going to ask you this: Do you agree with me that it may be concluded
11 from this short period of time that the report refers to, and it refers
12 to only 18 days of the police work between 5 and 18 September, that the
13 company of the military police of the 6th Krajina Brigade worked very
14 intensely. Do you agree with me?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Can one conclude that judging by the range of the crimes and the
17 range of perpetrators. Do you agree with me?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And I'm also going to ask you whether you agree with me. I
20 honestly admit that at the moment I can't compare that with your
21 log-book, but in principle do you agree with me that most of the criminal
22 reports and crimes as well as perpetrators were processed by the military
23 organs. Is that correct?
24 A. It's very difficult to compare without the data, but it does
25 appear that they were dealing with a number of cases.
1 Q. I asked for a principled answer. I wanted you to confirm that a
2 lot of your jurisdiction was transferred to the jurisdiction of the
3 military prosecution organs. Do you agree with me?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You recognise in this document some of the incidents that
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. Before
9 tendering this document into evidence I forgot to tender the previous
10 documents, the criminal report that I singled out from a voluminous file
11 which we translated into English and commented upon with the witness who
12 was familiar with the witness. Could we please tender into evidence the
13 previous document which is 1D00-4907. The document was reviewed before
14 the break.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D41, Your Honours.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And now since the witness has
18 recognised the events and the context within which the reports were filed
19 by the military police - and he himself cooperated with the military
20 police - I would like to tender this document into evidence. The
21 document number is 1D00-0742.
22 JUDGE HALL: Also admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D42, Your Honours.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
25 Q. Mr. Delic, you were not able to provide a precise answer as to
1 how much of the jurisdiction was transferred from the civilian police and
2 you as the prosecutor to the military police. Let's try and do that on
3 the basis of the following document which is from 65 ter list and the
4 number of the document is 1355. While we're waiting for the document to
5 be produced, Mr. Delic, you had an opportunity to study the document in
6 detail during the break, did you not?
7 A. [No audible response]
8 Q. Your answer was not recorded. A nod is not enough. You have to
9 speak out.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is a report by the military prosecutor with the command of
12 the Krajina Corps. This is information about crime trends for 1992.
13 Could we immediately go to the first page, the first one after the title
14 page, and can we scroll up a little -- yes, it's okay. In the English as
16 Mr. Delic, in the first paragraph already you can see that the
17 military prosecutor's office of the 1st Krajina Corps received 639
18 criminal reports against 978 individuals, which had been segregated into
19 742 privates, 28 officers, 24 non-commissioned officers, and what might
20 be interesting for us 184 civilians or enemy soldiers. 124. I don't
21 know what I said, I don't know how it was interpreted, but in any case it
22 is 124 -- 184. Further on, we can move on to the next page in the
23 English version. You have to move to the following page in the English
25 Here you can see the structure of the perpetrators and further on
1 you can also see the structure on the following page. Could you please
2 turn to the following page if you don't mind. You will also see the
3 structure of the crimes as well.
4 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I just make an inquiry. Is the
5 underlining or the marking we can see, was that on the document
6 originally, or was it put on by the Defence team? The latter do I see?
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, no. I have several copies of
8 the document. That's how it was underlined in the original document and
9 that's how we received the document.
10 Q. Mr. Delic, I hope that you can find the part in the left upper
11 corner, in the first paragraph, where it says that there were five
12 criminal reports for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Can you see
13 that? Furthermore, crimes against the safety of property. Let us
14 explain. Those are the crimes such as shooting in the air, throwing
15 grenades into the courtyards of religious buildings, churches, and so on
16 and so forth. Is that the type of crime that is described here?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I just wanted to be sure that we know what we're talking about.
19 I wouldn't go into any further details of the statistics provided by this
20 report. If you have thoroughly studied the document, could you be able
21 to draw a conclusion as to what I previously asked you, that a lot of the
22 jurisdictions of the civilian bodies were transferred to the military
23 prosecution bodies, that there was a high percentage of the crimes that
24 were prosecuted by the military prosecutor's office?
25 A. A lot of individuals and a lot of crimes are mentioned here.
1 Q. Will you agree that in respect of your log-book and in respect of
2 the crimes that you had to process this is much more?
3 A. Yes, this is much more than I had to deal with.
4 Q. Mr. Delic, I will now go back to some questions that the
5 prosecutor put to you before I move on to some concrete criminal reports.
6 If a citizen carries weapons for which he doesn't have a licence or a
7 pistol or a rifle, you will charge him for unlawful possession of
8 weapons; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. However, if a higher number of individuals carry rifles in a
11 neighbourhood or are procured with such weapons in an organised manner,
12 then you will agree with me that we cannot talk about a crime that falls
13 within your jurisdiction because in such a case we will be dealing with a
14 potential preparation for an armed rebellion or an armed rebellion?
15 A. Yes, this could be the characteristics of a future crime of armed
17 Q. And when it comes to the prosecution of such perpetrators it
18 would be the military prosecution organs that would have to deal with
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Even if such persons were civilians?
22 A. Yes, for that crime the answer would be yes.
23 Q. Very well. A question was put to you by the prosecutor as to why
24 some perpetrators on the indictment were not processed. I understand
25 that you were shown a list of victims from very concrete indictments,
1 indictments for our clients?
2 A. Yes, I was given to have a look at the indictments against
3 individuals sitting in this courtroom.
4 Q. Very well. My question to you is this: Is there a possibility
5 that those acts alleged in the indictment were perpetrated who fall under
6 the three criteria that we discussed, that they were military personnel,
7 that the acts were committed in the area of responsibility or in the area
8 of deployment of military unit, and thirdly, that the crimes were of such
9 a nature that they had to be prosecuted by the military prosecutor's
10 office. I'm talking about war crimes, armed rebellion, and so on and so
11 forth. Is that a possibility?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Would that be an explanation as to why those crimes were not
14 processed by your office?
15 A. Yes, there is such a possibility.
16 Q. And now let's just take a perfunctory look through certain
17 criminal reports that you received as a prosecutor. I will not dwell
18 upon them any longer.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown --
20 I apologise, the military report that we have just discussed -- the
21 previous document that I discussed with the witness 65 ter 1355, I would
22 like to tender that for admission into evidence as a Defence exhibit.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D43, Your Honours.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 And now let us have 65 ter 1119 for the benefit of the witness.
2 Very well.
3 Q. Mr. Delic, this is a criminal case, the title page of a criminal
4 case, of the public security station in Sanski Most. The case was
5 transferred to you. Let me ask you this straight away: Can you tell
6 what the case was from the sleeve of the case? You can see the victim's
8 A. The name doesn't tell me much.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: Can we then look at the following page. Can we
10 open the sleeve of the case and look at the following page. Can we
11 scroll up the English version as well.
12 Q. Do you recognise your signature?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. You received this criminal report. You say that it was filed
15 against an unknown perpetrator, and now you're asking from the public
16 security station to proceed towards finding out who the perpetrator was.
17 Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. If I'm not mistaken, this is a customary procedure?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can we go to the following page, please. And can the criminal
22 report be shown to the witness.
23 As you can see the public security station sent you this criminal
24 report against an unknown perpetrator and this page contains the
25 description of the criminal offence, does it not?
1 A. Yes, it does.
2 Q. We've already discussed criminal reports against unknown
3 perpetrators. However, the reason why it shows this particular case can
4 be found on the following page titled "Official Note." Could you please
5 move to that page with the Official Note. Very well. This is it. The
6 B/C/S version is not very legible. Could you please start reading from
7 the beginning of the second passage starting with the words: "On
8 carrying out an investigation on the ground, or rather, an on-site
9 inspection ..."
10 Could you please go through the first four or five lines and then
11 I will have my question for you. Did you manage to read them already?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The inspector of the civilian police - and we will see his
14 signature at the bottom of the note and we will ask you whether you know
15 him - he identified the perpetrators of the crime committed against the
16 Muslim and he says that they were members of the support company and he
17 mentions -- he refers to a name, Dzevar, and I'm sure you're familiar
18 with it, and he also mentions the commander Mirko Stupar; isn't that what
19 it says here?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. However, he goes on to say that the entire unit has changed its
22 theatre of war and went to Bosanski Brod and that he cannot conduct
23 interviews with any of the members of that unit. However, he will
24 proceed carrying out other investigative work that he can still carry
25 out. He perform -- he carries out interviews with the witnesses, the
1 neighbours. Can you see that at the bottom of the page? And then
2 somewhere in the middle of that paragraph that he can now see on the
3 screen, the inspector in question establishes a link between the attempt
4 to destroy the Majdan mosque with the aforementioned unit. And what I'd
5 like to ask you with regard to this is as follows: On the last page of
6 this report --
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we go to the last page,
8 please. Skip the following two page and show us the signature page. And
9 could we do the same in the English version if necessary, please.
10 Q. Mr. Delic, do you know Zdravko Savanovic, Inspector Zdravko
11 Savanovic, who signed the report?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. My question to you is: What was then the power of this inspector
14 in a situation like that? Everything seems to have gone beyond his
15 control, even his remit; am I right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And I believe that applies to you too; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So the only option left is for the military bodies in charge to
20 take over; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I see no written evidence of that, so we can only suppose it was
23 done like that. Do you agree?
24 A. Yes, I suppose that's what happened.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right. Your Honours, I tender
1 this document as a Defence exhibit.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D44, Your Honours.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right.
5 Q. Mr. Delic, I will now ask for the following document to be shown
6 to you: 1D00-4646. Yes, this is it.
7 Here too you can see the sleeve of the file. And do you -- can
8 you tell by the names of the persons reported what this is about?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If I'm not mistaken, the victims here are Muslims or Croats.
11 Help me, please. It says Emil Cengic --
12 A. Here we would be speaking about victims of Croatian ethnicity.
13 Q. But the perpetrators were Serbs, weren't they?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Let us open the following page and take a look at the report. We
16 can see that the perpetrators were Serbs and you will agree with me when
17 I say that they were processed first by the SJB Sanski Most, and I
18 suppose that you too took part in the proceedings. By the way, can you
20 A. The criminal report was received by the prosecutor's office of
21 Sanski Most, and I suppose that charges were pressed. I don't remember
22 the details, but I suppose that's what happened.
23 Q. But you recognised the case?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this
1 criminal report and its enclosures as an exhibit.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D45, Your Honours.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right.
5 Could we now see the following criminal report: 1D00-3142.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let us just check
8 why this hasn't been entered, although according to my information it
9 should have been. But in the meantime let us see the following document:
10 2D03-0074. That's the one.
11 Your Honours, this is the moment when -- or rather, now we have
12 reached the documents that are not translated and which you also
14 Q. Mr. Delic, this is a criminal report against an unknown
15 perpetrator. The victim was Tado Ilicic from Kruhar, and I found in the
16 file that he was the same [as interpreted] as Dragutin. It seems that
17 this person may have been a Serb.
18 A. Well, I think that here that person is of Croatian ethnicity.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And I would now ask the -- to see
20 the rest of the criminal report, just to see whether -- or to establish
21 whether it is -- it meets all form of requirements. It reads:
22 "Criminal report against an unknown perpetrator."
23 There is a description for the crime committed and it also
24 mentions material evidence enclosed, doesn't it?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us turn to the following page,
3 Q. As you see, these are official notes, and such an official note
4 is usually enclosed with a criminal report about the hearings of
5 witnesses, et cetera, isn't it?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And next page, please.
8 Q. This is a document signed by you, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do I [as interpreted] remember it? You received the on-site
11 investigation report for -- and forwarded it to -- which was forwarded to
12 you by the police, isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And I conclude from this that you issued orders to the police; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Let us go to the next page which contains the on-site
18 investigation report. Is this an on-site investigation report? It isn't
19 very legible.
20 A. Yes, that's it.
21 Q. Mr. Delic, you will agree with me when I say that this criminal
22 report meets all legal requirements as to the quality of the process that
23 preceded it; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm being informed
1 that -- or rather, I apologise. Let me first also tender this
2 document -- oh, no, it must be MFI'd because it isn't translated. Is
3 that acceptable?
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, I was under the impression that
5 these -- this batch of documents that only exists in B/C/S at the moment,
6 that what you would do - and I think you agreed to this when we discussed
7 it this morning - was to confront the witness with the relevant parts of
8 those documents and have them read out in B/C/S to the witness. And by
9 reading them out we would get the interpretation from the interpreters so
10 that we would not be required to have them admitted into evidence and
11 they would not be required to be translated. So we would achieve several
12 purposes by doing it this way rather than having them first admitted into
13 evidence and then translated in their entirety.
14 So could you tell us whether you wish to proceed along this
15 method. And could I also, Mr. Cvijetic, now that we are speaking about
16 it, ask you to indicate where you are going with this. I'm simply not
17 sure of what the Court is supposed to extract from or to elicit from all
18 of this about -- all of this evidence about the authority of the various
19 police forces to investigate crimes. I think I've got a pretty good
20 picture of how the lines were divided between the military police and the
21 civilian police, and you have made great efforts to show this to the
22 Court. But if that is -- if there's anything else that you wish to
23 establish, then please tell us because otherwise I think you need not
24 continue to bring us more evidence about this same subject.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not dealing with
1 the delineation of remit anymore. I have finished with putting forward
2 evidence to that effect. I'm dealing with individual crimes. There's
3 one more case left. I will state the purpose shortly. The point --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic. Can I also remind you that
5 apparently you have already used up two hours and 16 minutes of your
6 time, so you -- I think you're required to start rounding up your
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am now dealing
10 with issues raised by the OTP. The Prosecutor asked the witness
11 questions about the quality of the work of the MUP services in bodies,
12 especially when it comes to unknown perpetrators. I will be done with
13 this very soon. I just have one more case left, but I can do without
14 because these files are not translated so there's not much we can do
15 about it now. If I go document by document and if I start reading them
16 out, it will not do. So let me just deal with one more case and then I
17 will come to the point of my cross-examination.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Now, we agreed about the previous document, didn't we, that with
21 regard to quality it meets all criteria?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, then I would like
24 this document to be marked for identification until it's translated.
25 JUDGE HALL: Counsel seems not to appreciate the point that the
1 Court has been -- has endeavoured to make this morning, that the question
2 of the translation of these documents as a matter of course is not going
3 to happen. The -- we understand from what had been represented this
4 morning that counsel wishes to put parts of the context of some of these
5 documents to this witness, and I suppose it may arise in respect of other
6 witnesses. And that is as far as it will go. So the question of marking
7 this for identification doesn't arise because it isn't expected that this
8 document in its totality will ever become an exhibit.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these documents are
10 very important for us and they will be translated eventually. I see no
11 reason why they -- why it shouldn't be possible for them to be tendered
12 into evidence because our clients are charged for not acting when crimes
13 were committed against non-Serbs. That's what the indictment states.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, the Court accepts that in a number
15 of cases where the perpetrator was known, these crimes were in fact
16 investigated and prosecuted. This is not challenged by the Prosecution,
17 and you have presented us with ample evidence to show your point. You
18 have also shown that in cases where the perpetrator was not known
19 investigation was undertaken in some instances. And finally, you have
20 shown to us that the police -- the civilian police and the military
21 police had overlapping jurisdiction in some instances, but that by and
22 large a division was practiced between those two units, that is to say
23 the civilian police and the military police. However, if I understood
24 the Prosecution's point correctly, they're saying that as much as crimes
25 committed by Serbs against Muslims or Croats was indeed investigated and
1 prosecuted in certain instances, then the Prosecution claims that this
2 was done far too rarely. It did not reflect the number of crimes. So in
3 their view, many more crimes should have been committed -- should have
4 been, sorry, investigated and prosecuted.
5 So the issue, as I understand it, is not whether crimes committed
6 by Serbs were investigated and prosecuted; that remains beyond doubt.
7 The issue is whether this was done in all the instances where such
8 investigation and prosecution, in the view of the Prosecution, should
9 have been investigated and prosecuted.
10 Now, you have to round up very soon, Mr. Cvijetic, because we're
11 already stepping over the time that you announced, and we still have to
12 get on with the cross-examination of Mr. Pantelic. Thank you.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I feel like -- it's very difficult to
14 see Your Honour from where I am, but I feel I ought to say that it's not
15 just that. As Your Honours will see, even if an investigation or a
16 prosecution was commenced, quite often that is as far as it went. So
17 it's slightly more than -- it's not that they didn't prosecute or
18 investigate at all.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for interpreting my interpretation.
20 But, Mr. Cvijetic, this, as I see it, is what you have to
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you have anticipated
23 my case and what I'm driving at, but I have tried to use some practical
24 examples to disprove the Prosecutor's words. The following cases that I
25 have singled out show that a Muslim was the perpetrator, and the criminal
1 report was filed against an unknown perpetrator because the perpetrator
2 wasn't identified. Non-Serb perpetrators committed a crime against
3 another non-Serb or Croat. If you don't think that this is within the
4 scope of what we should be dealing with, I'm going to bring my
5 cross-examination of this witness to an end, and I will hand it over to
6 my learned friend Mr. Pantelic who is going to deal with the rest of the
7 criminal reports. Since I don't have much time, allow me to put a
8 principled question to my learned friend Delic about what you have just
10 Q. Mr. Delic, you said that in 90 per cent of the cases, criminal
11 reports were filed by the public security station; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. In other words, in 10 per cent of the cases, and the Law on
14 Criminal Procedure stipulates that, criminal procedures indeed can be and
15 were indeed filed. Criminal reports were filed by everybody else,
16 citizens, the aggrieved persons, organisations. You can personally learn
17 about a crime. You can receive an anonymous tip of a crime that has been
18 committed. My question is this: Among the 10 per cent, did you have a
19 single case of which you learned in any other way; and if there was such
20 a case, was there also a case that the police failed to prosecute?
21 A. No.
22 Q. My next question is this: In the work of the police did you
23 observe a selective approach to dealing with the cases? In other words,
24 did the police process a case in one way if the victim was of non-Serb
25 ethnicity and in a different way when the victim was of Serb ethnicity?
1 A. No, I can't say that I know of such practices.
2 Q. My question was whether you observe a difference in their work?
3 A. No, no.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. Mr. Delic, there is a saying:
5 Everybody's smart after the event or Monday morning court are back in.
6 After so many years after the war, before this Tribunal, before the BiH
7 courts, light is trying to be shed on many cases of crimes that happened
8 during the war, many cases have still not even been detected or
9 discovered. Is that true?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The philosophical approach which says there is always room for
12 improvement is indeed correct, there is indeed always room for
13 improvement. However, I'm now asking you as a post-war prosecutor. Just
14 help me. When you stop being the district prosecutor in Banja Luka.
15 A. Yes, that's true.
16 Q. When you stopped, when did you stop working as a public
18 A. In January 2008.
19 Q. Do you have information pertaining to those years, 2005, 2006,
20 2007, or 2008 about the percentage of crimes discovered in respect of the
21 crimes committed?
22 A. As far as I can remember, the percentage of about 50 per cent of
23 perpetrators who were detected was a good percentage at the time.
24 Q. So you would be satisfied with the percentage of 50 per cent even
25 in 2008, would you not?
1 A. Yes, I would.
2 Q. Did you compare that with European averages?
3 A. I don't have those statistics.
4 Q. A ballpark figure, do you have that perhaps? Would it differ a
5 lot from the percentage that we have here?
6 A. I believe that the situation is more or less the same.
7 Q. And my last question for you, sir: From the sterile conditions,
8 as it were, it's easy to look back at the conditions under which you
9 worked. Would it be overly ambitious to expect from Mirko Vrucinic and
10 the police in 1992 and you as the public prosecutor to have achieved
11 higher results under the conditions that prevailed at the time? Would
12 this have been overly ambitious?
13 A. Yes, I think so.
14 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Delic.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this brings my
16 cross-examination to an end, and I would like to thank Mr. Delic for his
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Prosecutor Delic, I'm Igor
20 Pantelic. I represent Stojan Zupljanin in this courtroom. To follow-up
21 on the topic that was tackled by the Trial Chamber by my learned friend
22 from the Prosecution and the Defence counsel, if I tell you that the
23 jurisdiction of the police entails detection of the perpetrators of
24 crimes, amongst its other duties, and that in terms of the provisions of
25 criminal procedure the police are supposed to service the prosecutor and
1 they work on the prosecutor's orders in terms of collecting information,
2 carrying out on-site inspections, and so on and so forth, would you agree
3 with all that?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, my learned friend Ms. Korner is --
6 Q. [Interpretation] I apologise. I have to resolve an issue.
7 MR. PANTELIC: -- as I said, my learned friend Ms. Korner is
8 mixing apples and oranges. The position of the Defence is the following:
9 The duty of the police is to act in accordance and upon an instructions
10 of judiciary organs: The prosecution, the investigative judge, and in
11 some case by the judge in trial. It is not the case here whether a
12 number of criminal proceedings were finalised, meaning they came to the
13 end with final judgement; no, Your Honours. The core case and the theory
14 of Prosecution here must be summarised and focused that if allegedly my
15 client, Mr. Zupljanin, did not act in accordance with the rules of law,
16 with the professional proceedings, et cetera. The position of the
17 Defence is the following, and we are going to show, Your Honour, by this
18 evidence, by this exhibits here to this witness, that the police
19 acted - I'm speaking about Sanski Most now - acted fully in accordance
20 with the jurisdiction and the legislation in force, fully in accordance
21 with the professional standards, and fully in accordance with the
22 instructions and requests from the judicial organs like investigative
23 judge or --
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, I don't want to interrupt you.
25 You're just on the borderline between giving evidence yourself and
1 eliciting evidence from the witness. Be careful --
2 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, it's not the borderline,
3 it's well over the borderline and particularly with the witness sitting
4 here, and what's more Mr. Pantelic did this without even an invitation
5 from Your Honour. I've said this over and over again. It's not for the
6 Defence to make speeches about what their case is or what the evidence
7 may show. It is their job to cross-examine the witness or call the
8 witness in chief. But no speeches, thank you very much, Mr. Pantelic.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Following the speech of Ms. Korner, I gave certain
10 informations to the Trial Chamber, so it was just follow-up submission on
11 the basis what my learned friend Ms. Korner just said.
12 So, Your Honour, I'm now -- I'm going back to the documents that
13 I have here that I addressed this morning. These documents are crucial
14 for Defence to show that the police submitted criminal charges against
15 known and unknown perpetrators, that the police acted fully in accordance
16 with the sort of standards of actions and in accordance with the
17 instruction of public prosecutor office and investigative judge. And
18 Mr. Delic just confirmed that. What was the role of the police? It is
19 not the role of police to indict, it is not the role of police to try and
20 to deliver judgements, no. It is not the case --
21 JUDGE HALL: Could you --
22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.
23 JUDGE HALL: -- could you assist me, Mr. Pantelic --
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE HALL: -- in explaining -- having regard to what Judge
1 Harhoff has said and what Ms. Korner has said, that are you making
2 submissions as to why these documents that we have spoken to twice should
3 become exhibits or will become exhibits; and if so, it would be helpful
4 if you could confine yourself to the basis of that without, as you
5 have -- as has been pointed out to you, giving evidence.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Fully understood, Your Honour, but it brings me to
7 another issue. This bulk of documents were disclosed -- was disclosed to
8 Defence on the 12th of October, around 200 pages. So with your
9 permission and in accordance with your instruction it will bring me to
10 the certain situation that I must extend my cross-examination for
11 necessary period of time where this is of utmost importance for our
12 Defence. In all these documents we have exhibits, we have proofs that my
13 client -- actually, to be more precise, members of the police from Sanski
14 Most acted fully in accordance with the law. So I should be permitted to
15 comment -- I mean, this witness should comment certain portions of these
16 documents with your leave.
17 JUDGE HALL: But having regard to the approach which the Chamber
18 indicated this morning that you should follow in terms of getting this
19 evidence before us, I haven't heard a question that you have put to the
20 witness dealing with any particular portion of it. You have spoken
21 broadly about the effect that this -- of this bundle of documents, but
22 have you put a question, a specific question, to the witness because it
23 seems to me that that's the only way we're going to get through this. If
24 there's a particular portion of the document, identify it, put it to the
25 witness. The interpreters will render it in English and we move on to
1 the next piece. Is there a problem with proceeding in that manner?
2 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely not, Your Honour. I will follow all
3 your instructions just along these lines, but my idea was just to
4 follow-up the portions of cross-examination of my learned friend
5 Mr. Cvijetic with this particular regard where His Honour Judge Harhoff
6 reacted that it was maybe not related to the case. But our position is
7 it is related. So I will proceed.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, in the interest of time ask your first question
9 and then your next and go on.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you so much, Your Honour. I will do that.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Delic --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have document which is uploaded to the
14 court 2D03-0063.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, let's just be sure of one thing here.
16 The first page bears the number 0048-2336. I have to read all this
17 because we don't have the translation, so this all has to be recorded
18 officially. Will you agree with me that this is a criminal report
19 bearing the date 22nd [as interpreted] of February, 1993, and the
20 criminal case involves an unknown perpetrator for a crime pursuant to
21 Article 172, paragraph 1, of the penal code of the social -- of the
22 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the aggrieved party is Tehvid
23 Smajlovic. As a matter of fact, Tehvid Smajlovic is the victim.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Could we have the next page of this document, the
25 last two digits are 37 -- [Interpretation] I apologise.
1 Q. So are we sure that this is correct?
2 A. Yes, we are.
3 Q. Here we have the text of this criminal report which was submitted
4 by the Sanski Most police; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Next page, please, 28. Yes, my learned friend
7 Mr. Zecevic just gave me instruction. Please, can we go to the previous
8 page, 37. Sorry, my mistake.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Where you see the description of the crime it
11 "On the 15th of December, 1992, an unknown perpetrator fired a
12 Zolja into the house which was occupied by several persons at the time
13 and Tehvid Smajlovic was killed on that occasion."
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. A Zolja is a hand-held rocket-launcher; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Smajlovic's ethnicity is Muslim?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Mirko Vrucinic, the chief of police of Sanski Most, is the
20 signatory of that report; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Next page, please.
23 Q. [Interpretation] This is a document signed by you; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You are informing the police station at Sanski Most that you
1 received the on-site investigation report dated 16th December 1992 about
2 that event; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And in the final part of this document there is the text of a
5 cable sent by the police at Sanski Most signed by Mirko Vrucinic, and it
6 speaks about the event in question; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Next page, please.
9 Q. [Interpretation] This is a letter written by the investigating
10 magistrate. I believe it is Milena Zoric; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It is also part of this file; correct?
13 A. Other persons are mentioned here, Smajlovic, Mujaga and Dzevad --
14 Q. No, no, I'll assist you.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm just wondering whether this is
16 going with the documents again out on the public screen because all of
17 this is mentioning victims and potential perpetrators. I think it's been
18 going on -- regrettably, I think it's been going on for some time now. I
19 hadn't really taken it on board. I think it's too late rather than
20 trying to redact everything so we'll just have to leave it. Perhaps if
21 Mr. Pantelic could be a little careful just about mentioning names. I
22 mean, we can see -- I know, because we can't understand it.
23 MR. PANTELIC: No, I cannot do -- I mean ...
24 Q. [Interpretation] Here in this document - and you probably can't
25 see it because of the stamp - what it says is that Tehvid Smajlovic was
1 killed and Mujaga as well as Dzevad were seriously injured; is that
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, would it be an idea and would the
5 Prosecution perhaps consider an alternative approach to this, rather than
6 having you waste your time and the clients' time and the Court's time and
7 the Prosecution's time and the interpreters' time, if we were to provide
8 the whole batch of the documents to the witness and have him review the
9 witness and tell us if all of those instances - and you can give the
10 statistics to us, you can tell us how many there are - and then let him
11 confirm once and for all that the procedures here were performed in
12 accordance with the rules. Because I think if that's your point then
13 let's get to it rather than having to go through this.
14 MR. PANTELIC: I perfectly agree with you, Your Honour. My
15 suggestion is the following: I will now take another line of questions,
16 and I kindly ask our friends from Prosecution because they provided us
17 with this bulk of document, that in the meantime during tomorrow's
18 session they can provide a copy because all of these documents are in
19 B/C/S language to Mr. Delic. He can review it until tomorrow and then we
20 could go easily, and we shall not go in particular documents, but we
21 shall say okay in general terms, as you said, Judge Harhoff, that would
22 be a practical way, I think.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: I need Mrs. Korner's --
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- acceptance of this because otherwise we can't
1 do it.
2 MS. KORNER: Yes, we have no objection. The only question is it
3 will take a little time to print them out to give to the witness. Is it
4 intended the witness should look at them overnight for tomorrow morning?
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I guess that would be the most practical thing to
8 do rather than having him doing it now. And since the witness is going
9 to come back tomorrow anyway, we might as well ask him - if you agree,
10 Mr. Delic - to have a look at this overnight if you can.
11 MS. KORNER: The only question -- how are we to get them to him?
12 Obviously we can't talk to him. We can give it maybe to the witness
13 and --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: It can be done through the services of the
16 MS. KORNER: Right. We'll do that then.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: And in order to just clarify to Judge Delic - and
19 we thank you for your cooperation, certainly, I hope you had nothing
20 better on for tonight. The question that we want to ask you is whether
21 the proceedings that were instituted in those cases, whether they were
22 done in accordance with the rules and regulations that were in force at
23 the time. Is that a question that both parties can agree on?
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
25 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course in addition -- and probably like
3 Mr. Delic did it this afternoon -- in the morning -- actually, a few
4 questions might arise regarding the ethnicity of perpetrators and the
5 victims of course.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would like to ask then in addition some sort of
7 a statistical review of the material. Would it be possible to have an
8 indication of how many cases are we talking about in that batch of
9 documents, what are the cases about, who were the perpetrators if known
10 and how many, in how many of the cases was the perpetrator known, and in
11 how many cases were the victims known, and in how many cases were there
12 further judicial proceedings initiated on the basis of those criminal
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Of course.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
16 MR. PANTELIC: We'll do our best.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. Delic, we have these procedural
18 issues to deal with but you understand it. You're a professional.
19 You're a prosecutor too, so this is a rare occasion indeed to have a
20 prosecutor sitting in as a witness, but let's continue. Prosecutor
21 Delic, you graduated from the faculty of law in 1983; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. After graduating you worked at a bank in Prijedor; is that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. After that employment, you became judge at the municipal court of
2 Sanski Most?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In which year was that?
5 A. 1988. In November I came to the court --
6 Q. All right. All right. You were appointed municipal public
7 prosecutor in 1992, weren't you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Which month was that?
10 A. It was probably in late May.
11 Q. Will you agree with me if I say that at the time when the SFRJ
12 existed, including the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for
13 someone to be either judge or public prosecutor in 99.9 per cent of the
14 cases he or she would have to have been a member of the League of
15 Communists of Yugoslavia?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The role of a judge and a prosecutor in any system is to protect
18 the constitutional and legal order. Let's take the example of the United
19 States, where the prosecutor acts on behalf of the state or the people.
20 In monarchies he or she acts on behalf of the king or queen. And in our
21 country the prosecutor always acted on behalf of the state. Is that
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And it is not contested that the Republika Srpska was established
25 on the 30th of January, 1992, was it --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, the interpreter apologizes. I didn't
2 catch the date.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 9th of January, 1992. The
4 answer was affirmative.
5 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. And the constitution of the Republika Srpska was adopted?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the Law on the Government of the Republika Srpska was
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as my learned friend Mr. Cvijetic spoke with you about a
12 series of laws and regulations including criminal law was adopted from
13 the previous system and became part of the legal system of the Republika
14 Srpska; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it was fully legitimate for criminal proceedings to be
17 conducted against individuals or criminal groups who engaged in armed
18 rebellion against the authorities of the Republika Srpska. I'm speaking
19 about all illegal arming or armed rebellion or getting together to form
20 armed rebellious groups. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. This may have been my omission. I'm not sure how you were
23 appointed in May 1992. Whose initiative was that?
24 A. I explained that a meeting was held in the court building and
25 Vlado Vrkes said that a decision was adopted under which, among other
1 things, I was appointed as the public prosecutor of Sanski Most.
2 Q. In May 1992, were you a member of the SDS?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Before May 1992, were you a member of the SDS?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Since May 1992, have you ever been a member of the SDS?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you a member of the League of Communists before that?
9 A. Before the war, yes, I was.
10 Q. Were you a member of any other party?
11 A. No.
12 Q. I'm speaking about the year 1992.
13 A. No, I wasn't.
14 Q. So you were appointed by the Serbian municipal leadership as an
15 individual outside any party; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. For purposes of accuracy, you were appointed as a professional?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. But at the time you had next to no experience in criminal
20 matters; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And bearing in mind the very quick development of events in May
23 1992, you were facing great difficulties in going about your work in a
24 professional manner, both with regard to professional background and
25 the -- and all the events that went on at the time. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Colonel Basara, the commander of the 6th Krajina Brigade in
3 Sanski Most testified here. You said that you know him by name but
4 not -- but that you never met him in person. My question to you is: He
5 confirmed, and there is other information to that effect that the 6th
6 Krajina Brigade consisted of over 4.000 soldiers. Is that information
8 A. That is possible that the figure you stated is correct.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, you seem to be moving into another
10 area now, and it is 4.15.
11 MR. PANTELIC: And just for the record, Your Honour, I spoke with
12 my learned friend Mr. Zecevic during the break, it is not complaint but
13 it's rather a friendly I would say advice or pray -- I don't know how to
14 say. Today we were facing significant problems with the English
15 interpretation which was made by certain Mr. - I don't know his
16 name - from interpreters' booth. This is a criminal proceedings and
17 every word and every formulation is of certain importance. So I would
18 just like to bring that for the record that we were not satisfied with
19 the English translation from Serbian to English of gentleman who was in
20 charge today. Thank you so much.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Delic, I would remind you, as I did on Thursday,
22 that --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
24 JUDGE HALL: Sorry.
25 Mr. Delic, I would remind you, as I did on Thursday, that
1 overnight you, being still a witness under oath, cannot communicate with
2 counsel from either side nor can you discuss your testimony with anybody
3 outside the courtroom. The -- you may have gathered from what passed
4 between the Bench and counsel that there are certain documents that are
5 going to be supplied to you by the Registry for you to review overnight.
6 So we take the adjournment until tomorrow in this courtroom at 9.00.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.17 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of
9 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.