1 Tuesday, 20 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everyone in the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor
7 versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Good morning. May I, first of all, call for
9 appearances as usual.
10 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
11 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic and
13 Slobodan Cvijetic for Stanisic Defence.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Igor Pantelic, Dragan
15 Krgovic, and Eric Tully for Zupljanin Defence.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
17 Before we begin, there is a matter which has become something of
18 a concern which the Chamber thinks it should address frontally at this
19 relatively early stage of the trial, and there have been a number of
20 occasions when -- and this is -- whereas we're not singling out
21 Mr. Pantelic, the -- in fact, the -- what we have identified as a problem
22 has been usually as a consequence of his taking issue with the
23 interpretation of the testimony of several of the witnesses as -- as
24 provided by the interpreters. And Ms. Korner has usually responded that
25 the way in which his interventions have been done are such as to, in
1 effect, be telling the witnesses what to say. The -- on reflection the
2 Chamber thinks it has been somewhat indulgent of counsel and consequently
3 unfair to the interpreters, and we take this opportunity to remind all
4 present, particularly counsel, that the process of interpretation is a
5 different skill and different process from that of translation. And the
6 effect of simultaneous interpretation is to provide a fair account, a
7 sense of what the witness is saying and inevitably where, in this case,
8 counsel and the witness speaks the same language, counsel or anybody else
9 who -- who -- who speaks the same language as the witness may think that
10 they would have done it differently. But we affirm our confidence in the
11 integrity and ability of the interpreters to do their work, and the --
12 remind counsel that very often, to the extent that there is a difficulty,
13 it is occasioned by the failure to allow time, an interval between
14 question and answer for the interpreters to catch up. So the -- we will
15 simply not hear counsel's interventions in the way that -- especially,
16 Mr. Pantelic, has been proceeding in the past.
17 So we trust that that is fully understood from this point on.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, thank you.
20 The -- returning, in a similar vein, returning to this still not
21 fully resolved question of these several documents on which counsel for
22 the Defence have been relying and which we have indicated that the
23 practical and sensible, in our view, method of approach is to put to the
24 witnesses such portions of the documents as counsel is seeking to rely on
25 or to challenge the witness, that, in order to facilitate the proper
1 interpretation, counsel should make available to the interpreters copies
2 of the documents in B/C/S so that they can, themselves, more easily and
3 readily interpret the documents in terms of formulating -- assisting,
4 counsel in formulating the questions that they're putting to the witness.
5 Thank you.
6 Finally, in this vein, counsel should remember that -- this goes
7 for witnesses, too, to a certain extent, but again counsel, having the
8 responsibility of leading the evidence, should remember to -- not to
9 speak too quickly because, again, that complicates matters and makes it
10 difficult for everybody concerned.
11 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, I appreciate your guide-lines
13 and instructions regarding the way of how we should proceed in certain
15 Just for the record, Your Honour, it is my duty to provide a full
16 professional legal services to my client, and I will object on every
17 occasion where I, in a situation to noticed -- to notice that important
18 portion or word said by witness is not in transcript, due to, let's say,
19 unintentional omission of our friends from interpretation.
20 Working here for a quite long time, I appreciate, and I fully
21 noted the efforts of our friends from interpretation. They are not
22 robots, they are human beings. So in this highly -- I would say, highly
23 stressful situation, where these kind of interpretation should be done,
24 of course, unintentional omissions could be made. The advantage of
25 number of lawyers for the Defence who are bilingual is that we can locate
1 and catch these particular moments which is mostly not part of ability of
2 the Prosecution or Trial Chamber.
3 So this a criminal trial, and, of course, I will -- I'm -- it is
4 not my intention to put in the mouth of witness particular portion of his
5 testimony or to suggest him to testify along these lines. It is simply
6 clarification of certain words or portions, which is necessary for us to
7 have a clear and accurate transcript. As I said, this is a criminal
8 trial, and our client's fate is in our hands. And sometimes when we, in
9 general terms, realised that the quality of interpretation is not in
10 accordance with the high standards of the interpretation within this
11 Tribunal, personally I will react. I will react for the record. And I'm
12 ready, Your Honours, to -- if something will arise to challenge, through
13 audio tapes and comparing with the records to find -- to find the right
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, I apologise for interrupting you.
16 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Presiding Judge, and, indeed, the Bench does
18 not disencourage counsel from drawing the Court's attention to possible
19 mistakes. That was not what the Presiding Judge just said. What the
20 Presiding Judge did say was that, to the extent in which errors made by
21 the interpretation are due to the fact that counsel speak too fast or
22 overlap with witnesses, then it is an invitation to counsel, once again,
23 to speak slowly and not overlap, because, thereby, we may reduce the
24 number of errors that the interpretation sometimes makes. That's all.
25 But we do not, in any way, disencourage counsel on both sides to draw the
1 attention to the Court if there are errors in interpretation.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I
4 announced that the Stanisic Defence has submission five minutes as a
5 preliminary matter which we would like to share with the Trial Chamber.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I will speak in Serbian. Thank you very much.
8 [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Stanisic's Defence is very
9 concerned with the developments in this case, and we believe that it is
10 our obligation to share our concerns with you and everybody else in the
12 We held a 65 ter conference last week. However, no progress was
13 made, or virtually no progress at all. We still have a number of pending
14 requests from the Prosecution and from the Defence which might have a
15 direct impact on our preparations and the strategy of Defence in
16 cross-examination. Unfortunately, the problem is not being reduced. It
17 is becoming bigger. At the moment, we have reached a point where the
18 integrity of the proceedings and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by
19 the Statute is being put to the test in view of the Defence.
20 Let me illustrate my statement.
21 Yesterday, in the course of the trial, we had a warring situation
22 in our view which also had an impact on the fairness of the trial. The
23 facts are as follows. Our clients have been charged, amongst other
24 things, that they did not take measures to prevent acts from the
25 indictments or punish perpetrators and especially in Count 11 under age
1 by abetting and aiding the commission of crimes by not undertaking the
2 necessary measures in order to carry out investigations, the arrest of
3 the perpetrators, by which he fostered the climate of non-punishability
4 which included the investigation of such clients.
5 This is what our clients have been charged with, especially
6 Mr. Stanisic, in Counts 11(h) in the indictment in this case. In our
7 view, the Defence has a legitimate right and it also has arguments and
8 documents to present evidence which will directly and without any doubt
9 refute the allegations, and confirm that the investigations, indeed, were
10 carried out in keeping with the law and regulations, that there were was
11 no discrimination with regard to the perpetrator or victim, and that
12 there was certainly no purported investigations but, rather, procedures
13 in -- in compliance with the law of the country where the crimes took
15 It is not a mistake on the part of the Defence that the documents
16 have not been translated. The fact is that the Prosecution disclosed
17 them very late in the process. It is our position that the Defence has
18 to be allowed to talk to the witness who is -- the Prosecutor who was
19 directly involved in the criminal cases. We have to be given an
20 opportunity to analyse all the documents to the last detail. We don't
21 believe that perfunctory overviews are good enough, because here we are
22 looking at concrete crimes, at concrete data, as to when, how, and where
23 a certain crime happened, how a certain person lost their life. We are
24 not dealing with arbitrary data as does the indictment. For example, in
25 the indictment we have a number of examples where several people are
1 mentioned as victims in different periods of time and in different places
2 and as a result of different incidents and events.
3 Therefore, I suggest that the Trial Chamber should allow the
4 Zupljanin Defence, that is currently carrying out cross-examination, to
5 analyse all the documents with the witness because the witness -- the
6 documents show that the overall process was carried out in keeping with
7 the law, and that's why each and every of the documents that are on the
8 list is very important to prove our case.
9 There is one more thing, that, in our view, is even more
10 important. On the 31st of August, which means 50 days ago exactly,
11 submitted a motion for exclusion of witnesses under 94 bis. With regard
12 to the witnesses on the list, the Trial Chamber has decided Mr. Donja and
13 Mr. Nielsen, the Defence has submitted a motion to appeal but that has
14 not been decided. Mrs. Hanson should appear before this Court on the
15 side of the Prosecution within several days, and we still don't have a
16 decision about Mr. Hanson [as interpreted].
17 If the Trial Chamber were to render their ruling today and if
18 that ruling were to be submitted to the parties today, I believe that
19 that fact would have an impact on the integrity of the proceedings and
20 right to a fair trial. Since I have been preparing for Mr. Hanson's
21 cross-examination, I'm even more strongly convinced that our request for
22 the exclusion of that witness was completely justified and for that
23 reason, in case of a negative decision, we're going to request to be able
24 to appeal, and this is going bring to us to quite an unpleasant
1 First of all, we're not going to have the time for the
2 Trial Chamber to look at our certification to appeal in an adequate way
3 and we will still -- we will already have the witness in the courtroom.
4 If there's no decision on the certification to appeal, my approach to the
5 cross-examination of that witness will be interpreted by the
6 Appeals Chamber as the consent of the Defence and our giving up on our
7 certification to appeal, and in that case, the -- any decision on the
8 appeal will be unnecessary from the point of view of the Appeals Chamber.
9 I believe that this jeopardizes the fairness of the trial and the
10 integrity of the proceedings because the Defence is put in a position to
11 act contrary to the interests of its client, because we're not talking
12 about the readiness for the -- of the Defence to cross-examine the
13 witness. The Defence will be ready. We are talking about the situation
14 which goes against the fairness of the trial. I don't see any other way
15 to provide for that. We will be forced to ask for a stay of the
16 proceedings because of the decisions on those matters which will waste
17 additional time.
18 I would like to touch upon another thing which also has an impact
19 on the entire situation, which is, indeed, very worrying. A few days
20 ago, we submitted a request for the exclusion of intercepts and the
21 decision is still pending. Those intercepts are what the alleged expert
22 reports are based on, and a number of them have been tendered into
23 evidence, and that also has to be decided on before the experts enter the
24 courtroom, and a negative decision to that submission will result in the
25 Defence's certification to appeal.
1 I'm not going to deal with all the other pending issues, but I
2 believe that they should be discussed as soon as possible and resolved as
3 soon as possible.
4 Your Honours, we're really very concerned with the developments
5 in the courtroom, as I have already said. I believe that the situation
6 is being worsened by the day, the problems are mounting, and I believe
7 that they have reached a critical stage. We would like to overcome the
8 problems in keeping with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. We want to
9 avoid a situation where the urgency and the time within which the trial
10 has to be brought to an end. We should forget [as interpreted] the
11 rights of the accused that are guaranteed to them by the Statute and the
12 fairness of the trial. Thank you very much.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Just for the record, the Stanisic -- sorry,
14 Zupljanin Defence fully supports the submission of our learned friend,
15 Mr. Zecevic.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: And one other thing, page 9, 6, instead of "we
17 should forget," "we should not forget." Thank you.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
19 Oh, sorry, before I hear you, I just want clarification on one
20 point from Mr. Zecevic.
21 The -- your first point about the documents, I'm not sure that I
22 followed the essence of -- of what you are saying there. Do I understand
23 your submission on that point: That the -- well, first of all, are we
24 talking about the same basket of documents that we were dealing with
1 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct, there was three or four documents
3 JUDGE HALL: And I do understand your submission to be that the
4 method proposed by the Chamber of Defence counselling being permitted to
5 put to the witness the relevant portions on which you rely is inadequate
6 for your purposes. Is that what I understand your position to be?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honour. That is exactly.
8 JUDGE HALL: So what is your specific submission as to how those
9 documents should be dealt with?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, the proposal which Defence made
11 yesterday, I tried to explain why, in my submission just a couple of
12 minutes ago, I tried to explain why this is important for us. I hope you
13 understand that.
14 Now, the suggestion by the Defence of yesterday was that the
15 document should be commented by the witness. The document should be
16 MFI'd, waiting for translation, and after translation is -- is received,
17 then the document is offered for exhibit, together with the English
18 translation. That is, I think, the most -- the easiest way. That is how
19 we, with the minimum time, we get what we want and I think it is not --
20 it is not against the Rules of Procedure or the -- or the practice within
21 this Tribunal.
22 The second option would be that we go and read with the -- with
23 the witness relevant portions, but the problem with that, Your Honour, is
24 that if this document consists of five or six pages, each and every page
25 is a conclusion or a letter sent to somebody, all of that is relevant.
1 So each and every page is relevant. It can be done quickly by the
2 counsel, but it might -- it might take a longer time than -- than the --
3 than the first alternative that we were talking about. That is -- that
4 is what I say -- what is the essence of my submission.
5 Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you Mr. Zecevic.
7 Yes Mr. Pantelic.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I said earlier that Zupljanin Defence
9 fully supports submission of Mr. Zecevic, but it wasn't appearing in the
10 transcript. So it -- just for the record, nothing more.
11 JUDGE HALL: Does the -- does Office of the Prosecution have any
12 comment on the submissions made by Mr. Zecevic and supported by
13 Mr. Pantelic?
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in respect to the earlier outstanding
15 motions, there are matters that I have raised on a number of different
16 occasions. Let me put it this way: We have said for months now that we
17 really need some resolution on some of the matters.
18 On the intercepts one, however, we do say that was served on us
19 or lodged last week. It's very, very late, indeed, and Mr. Zecevic has
20 been, to my certain knowledge, mentioning this, indeed, on one occasion
21 in a 65 ter conference, and they have waited to the last moment on this
22 one to file a motion. So -- and we have -- 14 -- yes. The report that
23 they included with their motion is dated July the 3rd. So, on this
24 occasion, they are, in our submission, very, very late, and we are going
25 to take the full 14 days that we're entitled to, to deal with that
1 submission. So I don't know what -- what is intended to happen about
3 On the other ones, they have been outstanding a very long time.
4 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: As we understand the representations made by
7 Mr. Zecevic, there are, essentially, three points.
8 The first of which relates to the question of these documents,
9 and the Chamber is not unappreciative of the duty of counsel for the
10 Defence in putting forward the case of their respective clients initially
11 by challenging and testing the witnesses called by the Prosecution, even
12 before they would have had a chance to present their case much farther
13 along the road, which fact we would, with respect, remind counsel of
14 that - these proceedings being adversarial - that their chance to present
15 their specific Defence will come.
16 But returning to the difficult question of these documents. The
17 experience of the last part of yesterday indicated that perhaps there is
18 some merit in the Chamber re-visiting its decision as to how these
19 documents should be dealt with, and the -- for the sake of simplicity, we
20 think that -- the documents on which counsel -- which have been dealt
21 with yesterday, that we would go back to that point and have them marked
22 for identification and once the translation is in, we would see where we
23 go, and presumably at some point, having been marked for identification,
24 they would be properly exhibited through the witnesses who are able to --
25 to deal with them. That seems, to us, to be the only practical way of
1 dealing with these documents.
2 On the matter of the Witness Hanson, the Chamber expects that it
3 will be in a position to give a ruling on that at the close of today's
5 In terms of the matter of the question of the intercepts, the --
6 as counsel for the Prosecution has noted, the time-limits under the Rules
7 are such that the Prosecution has not been in a position to respond, and
8 therefore, a decision on that is premature. But, generally, in terms of
9 the outstanding matters in which the Chamber shares the concern of
10 counsel that these matters appear to be just hanging out there, in our
11 own defence, we must point out that, as with counsel on both sides, the
12 Chamber itself is understaffed, and is -- in addition to staffing
13 problems is, like everybody else, working under pressure of time to
14 conduct the trial while considering the -- these -- these several
16 The matter of -- it may very well be that, to the extent that
17 some of the out-- yet to be resolved objections, in terms of witnesses,
18 and more particularly, the documentation that those witnesses -- that the
19 witness's testimony would carry with them, would necessitate, in order
20 not to delay the progress of the trial, a reconfiguration, for want of a
21 better word, as to how -- as to the order in which witnesses are
22 presented. But that's a day-to-day, situation-by-situation decision.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, it's not, I'm afraid. Much
24 as we would like to be. We have already reorganised the witness list
25 because of the ban we had. We now have -- we gave the Court a list of
1 witnesses 'till Christmas. We have organised for witnesses to come up
2 already, flights and everything are booked for next week. Intercepts
3 certainly affect some of them. And in respect of Hanson, Mr. Zecevic has
4 very clearly announced that if the rule is in favour of allowing her to
5 testify, then his next move will to be apply for certification to appeal
6 which no doubt we can respond to on the spot on, and that one we can, but
7 it leaves the situation that Ms. Hanson, who is due to start testifying,
8 we thought, maybe tomorrow, but at the rate we're going, probably on
9 Thursday, will not be testifying.
10 So there are all these considerations.
11 Our suggestion was, sometime ago that, of course, the trial
12 should be adjourned while we sorted out all these matters. Your Honours
13 took the view that it was better the trial should start and we've
14 accepted that decision, but we are now in a situation where, to
15 reorganise the witnesses again is going to cause a lot of problems.
16 Because we now have to look at which witnesses are affected by intercepts
17 and which are not, and we have to move Ms. Hanson back again until the
18 matter is dealt with. So it's not quite as simple and straightforward as
19 simply reorganizing the list of the witness. They are all coming from,
20 mainly, from the former Yugoslavia.
21 JUDGE HALL: We didn't intend to suggest it was simple. We
22 realise there are problems --
23 MS. KORNER: Yes.
24 JUDGE HALL: -- Ms. Korner.
25 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I do think that a resolution of
1 the Hanson problem is required, may I say, not at the end of today but
2 now, if possible. Because then we can see where we are.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: The -- when we said at the end of the day, it's
5 after the lunch break that we intend to hand down a decision on Hanson.
6 MS. KORNER: Right, Your Honour. But -- absolutely. Well, I
7 mean, can I just say this: That if the decision is in favour of the
8 Prosecution being allowed to call, Mr. Zecevic wants to put in a notice
9 to appeal, an application for leave to appeal. Well, that obviously has
10 the effect of her not being able to testify, which will leave a gap.
11 Which, may I say, may not be unuseful for everybody's point of view.
12 JUDGE HALL: Could we have the witness return to the stand. You
13 have something to add, Mr. Pantelic?
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Witness can enter. In the mean
15 time, I would like just to have a clarification from Trial Chamber.
16 My understanding regarding the admission of -- of documents, the
17 bulk of documents that we spoke yesterday, would we go now through a way
18 of marked for identification, and then at certain stage, as I well
19 understood Your Honour, Judge Hall, that we could tender it through the
20 other witness.
21 I think the proper solution would be the following, and I kindly
22 ask for your instructions. This witness is a highly capable to speak
23 about these documents because he was the creator of these documents and
24 he was a participant in these proceedings. So we have two options. To
25 go through all these documents today with this witness and then once we
1 got official translation, at the moment when we get official translation,
2 it will be admitted as the whole evidence. Whole exhibit.
3 Other solution would be to -- when we get official translation,
4 if we are not following the first avenue, then to call, again, Mr. Delic
5 and to tender through him this, because I don't see other person through
6 whom we could tender these exhibits and probably our friends from OTP
7 will not object to this suggestion. Or maybe they have something to add,
8 I don't know.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 MR. PANTELIC: And we have approval from our learned friend, from
11 Prosecution. Thank you.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Good morning, Mr. Witness. And may we apologise
14 for all these administrative matters.
15 A couple of matters were raised and we were told that they would
16 only last five minutes this morning, and now so far we have spent more
17 than an hour discussing them. But before we get to you, Judge Delic, let
18 us just clear this last matter and then we will resume the
20 Mr. Zecevic, you suggested that we should re-visit five to six
21 documents which were put to the witness yesterday, and re-visit our
22 determination as to how to deal with this document in terms of admission
23 into evidence. The documents were only in B/C/S and no translation into
24 English seemed to exist. This -- you may remain seated. This is why we
25 suggested that the fastest and easiest way of getting around this was to
1 read out the relevant parts of the documents to the witness and then have
2 him confirm because then we would have the interpretation, or the
3 translation, perhaps, in the record and we could take it from there.
4 Now, you're suggesting that we should re-visit this decision
5 because the remaining parts of those documents, that is to say those
6 parts that were not read out, they also include evidence which is crucial
7 to the Defence, if that is a correct understanding of your observation.
8 The Trial Chamber obviously has no way of discovering this,
9 because we don't read B/C/S and so we have not seen what's in there. But
10 if you insist that they be translated and introduced because you claim
11 that the remaining parts of these documents - I can't recall the number
12 but I think it was five to six documents - if you insist that they
13 include information that the Chamber has to see in order to reach a fair
14 determination of this case, then the Chamber will re-visit its decision.
15 So our ruling is that we kindly ask you to give us the
16 identification numbers of those five to six documents, and we will then
17 MFI them through this witness, and then as soon as we have the
18 translation, we'll get back to it, and we'll make a ruling as to whether
19 they can then be admitted into evidence or not. And that will depend on
20 relevance and probative value.
21 So that's far as the five to six documents go. We will re-visit
22 it and kindly ask you to give to the Registrar the relevant
23 identification numbers.
24 As for the objection raised by Counsel Pantelic, we understood
25 yesterday from the proceedings that Counsel Pantelic wanted to introduce
1 to us a batch of approximately 50 documents for the purpose of showing to
2 the Chamber that all the investigative procedures that had been initiated
3 at the time were done according to the rules, and rather than having to
4 read out the relevant parts of each and every of these documents, we
5 suggested that perhaps the witness could have a look at it overnight and
6 then confirm to us first thing this morning when he starts his -- when he
7 resumes his cross-examination, to confirm to us whether, indeed, his
8 review of those approximately 50 documents - I cannot recall the correct
9 number - had been -- would confirm whether his review of these documents
10 would confirm that the proceedings that had taken place at the time had
11 been done fully in accordance with the rules and regulations that existed
12 then. And we were careful to suggest a precise formulation of the
13 question to be put to the witness yesterday, and it received the approval
14 of both parties.
15 So that is why we thought that, as far as this batch of documents
16 is concerned, a satisfactory procedure would be the one that we
17 suggested; namely, that we ask the witness to have a look at it, and if
18 he can confirm that in all of those instances, the investigations were,
19 indeed, carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations, then
20 that brings an end to that matter. Then the Trial Chamber will accept
21 that, in these cases, the authorities had acted with due diligence and
22 without any discriminatory intent and that is what we asked the witness
23 to confirm, and he is yet to confirm that.
24 We also asked counsel then, in addition to the witness's
25 assessment of the proceedings, or the procedures that had been applied
1 then, to also provide the Chamber with some statistical support in terms
2 of how many incidents do the documents cover; was the perpetrator known;
3 was the victim known; and were there any subsequent judicial proceedings
4 that were initiated as a result of any of the investigations made by the
6 So that's where we are. And if parties have no other objections
7 and other matters to raise, I suggest we get on with it, and ask
8 Mr. Pantelic to resume his cross-examination of Judge Delic.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just mention one matter: The
10 statistical matter had -- was something that occurred to us overnight.
11 It's going to take -- because we couldn't talk to the witness or anything
12 like that, it's going to take too long, we feel, to get him to add up the
13 number of cases in the book and then do the various maths. The cases
14 that are represented by those the Defence are going to show him and the
15 ones, indeed, that we've asked him about, are a tiny proportion of what
16 existed in what's called the KT book, so we think that can be done by
17 agreement or possibly through the summary witness, can I put it that way.
18 The second matter is this: If Mr. Pantelic proposes to use with
19 this witness the exhibit that we were provided with, the name marked -- I
20 think it's 2D03-0149, then we've got two pages translated. We got them
21 yesterday. But if that assists there are two pages which are actually
23 So if he gets to that, then we can assist.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Ms. Korner for this, and I'm sure we
1 will be assisted by seeing those pages.
2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, can I proceed.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Delic, you're still on your oath.
6 WITNESS: MILENKO DELIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]
9 Q. Can you hear everything, Mr. Delic? Say "yes" into the
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, I saw you count the number of
13 documents when Judge Harhoff spoke about 50, and you seem to indicate
14 there were less. How many were there? How many are there?
15 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, you have a hawk eye. Actually, it's
16 around 15, it's much less than 50, roughly saying, and while I'm on this
17 topic, I would like to suggest the following method. We already
18 downloaded these documents in e-court and we divided them by titles, and
19 I think it would be fair for my client to follow the same proceedings
20 that Judge Harhoff just suggested, that I can go through Mr. Delic
21 through all these documents, have his comments and his confirmation, if
22 any, then to tender particular documents for MFI, and then, at a certain
23 stage, when we get official translation of these documents, we could have
24 exhibits. If it is so -- if it pleases this Trial Chamber.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks, Mr. Pantelic.
1 Listen, the Court is not going to tell the Defence how to
2 organise its case. We suggested the procedure yesterday, based
3 exclusively on your own submission that the purpose of bringing these 15
4 documents to the witness was only to confirm that the proceedings which
5 they cover had been made according to the rules. That was all. And if
6 this is still the case, our suggestion would be that we keep it there.
7 So if the witness now can confirm that everything was done
8 according to the book, fine, that's the end of the matter. If the
9 witness cannot confirm this, then we might wish to go into details and
10 then see which cases were irregular and, in that case, we will perhaps
11 have to consider admission into evidence. But if the witness confirms,
12 as you suggest he would, that everything was done according to the book,
13 as I said, then no question of admission into evidence arises.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will proceed on this
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, you had an occasion to look at the
17 documents that were submitted to you by the registry -- did it last
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you agree that this is a group of documents dealing with
21 certain criminal cases as well as the records of on-site inspections,
22 letters regarding criminal procedures and pre-criminal procedures in
23 Sanski Most during the relevant period which was the year 1992.
24 Do you agree with me?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. As you were studying and perusing the duties, were you able to
2 see that the police did everything in keeping with the law and requests
3 of the prosecutor's office that -- did they do their job in keeping with
4 the law?
5 A. I could see that there were Official Notes for each of the cases,
6 that there were interviews conducted with witnesses in particular cases,
7 and also there are cases where such notes and interview records did not
9 Q. Very well then.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Please, can I call up document 2D03-0063.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please look at the first document. I
12 believe that you will find the same number on the right-hand side at the
13 top of the document, 00482336 is the document number. You have it on the
14 screen and you can use that one as well.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. This is a report against an unknown perpetrator, with the victim
17 being Tehvida Smajlovic. And that case was filed on the 26th of
18 February, 1993. We spoke about it yesterday. The crime happened on the
19 15th of December, 1992; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In that case, you as the prosecutor, issued an order to police to
22 carry out some additional actions, and the police, in their turn, filed a
23 criminal report; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So as far as this case is concerned, everything was done by the
1 book in keeping with the law?
2 A. Just bear with me for a moment while I look at the document.
3 There's just a record of the on-site inspection --
4 Q. Hold on, sir. The time is short. We have to be pragmatic. We
5 have to follow the guide-lines issued by the Trial Chamber. The things
6 are simple. We are not asking for your judgement or your final decision.
7 Since I'm representing my client I'm just asking you - and my client
8 worked in the police not in Sanski Most but at a higher level - what I
9 would like to hear from you, what I would like to know, after the insight
10 into the documents before you, in your view did the police do everything
11 that they were supposed to do?
12 A. I can't answer whether everything was done as it should have
13 been, because I have nothing to base my conclusion on.
14 Q. Very well then. Could you please confirm that you issued an
15 order to the police to carry out some additional investigations and
16 interviews, yes or no?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did the police file a criminal report with regard to this event?
19 A. Yes. Against an unknown perpetrator.
20 Q. Was an on-site inspection carried out with regard to this case?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So what is in dispute here? I don't understand you when you say
23 that the police didn't do something that they should have done.
24 A. I simply don't know whether they took statements from
25 eye-witnesses or persons who had information about the incidents --
2 Q. Very well. In this stage, what you have -- you would say that
3 the police did everything as per your instructions.
4 A. In that stage, yes. But I don't know what happened after that.
5 Q. We cannot speculate. This is all we have.
6 Could you please look at the following document, which is
8 MR. PANTELIC: This is a 2D03-0071. Sorry. It's 00 -- sorry,
9 sorry. It's my mistake. It's a document 2D03-0071.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Delic, this document is three
11 pages long. It's a record of an on-site inspection which was compiled on
12 the 3rd of November, 1992, in the village of Kruhari after the death of
13 nine persons from the village of Skrljevita?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You were present?
16 A. Yes, I was.
17 Q. There was an also an investigating judge?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And there were also police inspectors on the site?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The bodies were found in the forest called Grahoriste?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know the ethnic origin of the people who died?
24 A. They were Croats.
25 Q. Do you know anything about these proceedings? Were you in charge
1 of the proceedings since you were on the site? Were perpetrators ever
2 found and arrested?
3 A. Yes. The perpetrators were found and they were two adults and
4 two minors. The two adults were members of the military at the time, and
5 the criminal report was referred to the military investigative organs.
6 And as far as the minors were concerned, proceedings were conducted
7 before the basic court in Sanski Most.
8 Q. Could you please go to the following page, and you will see
9 number 0048474?
10 MR. PANTELIC: It is, in our list, 2D03-0080.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Have you got the page?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The case was filed on 19 November 1992 against an unknown
14 perpetrator, and the victim was Tade Ilicic; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The incident happened on 10th of July, 1992, and the crime in
17 question was a murder; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On page 4 of this case file, under 0048477, it says that you
20 stated that a record of an on-site inspection was received and that you
21 issued certain orders to the police with regard to the incident. Did you
22 do that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was done in respect of this case; do you remember what
25 happened next?
1 A. The police filed a criminal report against an unknown
2 perpetrator, and with the report, there was also an Official Note on --
3 about an interview conducted with the spouse of the deceased. She
4 provided her statement to the police. She said what she knew about the
6 Q. As the prosecutor in charge, did you issue an indictment against
7 the unknown perpetrator?
8 A. The perpetrator was never identified. Therefore, this is where
9 the process stopped.
10 Q. So that case remained in the KTN long book?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Next document it is 00480497.
13 MR. PANTELIC: This is 2D03-0080. It is -- I'm calling
15 Q. [Interpretation] This is a file of the 25th of November, 1992,
16 against an unknown perpetrator. The victim is Jose, Galesic; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The late Mr. Galesic was a Croat, I believe?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In the case there is a criminal report submitted by the police;
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Next there is a record of an on-site investigation which you
24 attended as well; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, at a convenient point, we will take
2 the break.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Just a few seconds, Your Honour.
4 Q. [Interpretation] In this case, towards the end, there are six
5 Official Notes drafted by various police inspectors from Sanski Most;
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The police, in this case, pursuant to your order, carried out
9 everything that was necessary; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Well, I think this is a convenient time for break,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE HALL: We will break now and return in 20 minutes.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE HALL: We apologise for the delay in taking the Bench, but
19 it was as a result of certain administrative and procedural matters, to
20 facilitate the work -- today's work. One of the things that we have done
21 during the break is to issue a decision, denying the motion for
22 certification to appeal the oral decision accepting Christian Nielsen as
23 an expert and request for a stay of proceedings, so that is in the
24 process of being filed.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, I invite you to resume your
4 cross-examination, and I would point out that you have 1 hour and 26
5 minutes left.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will do my best. But
7 just for the record, I'm now -- I'm dealing with a sort of judicial batch
8 of documents which were -- which was provided to us on the October 12th.
9 It was not a part of our strategy for cross-examination before, so due to
10 this reason, I will kindly ask you to adjust, if necessary, time for
11 cross-examination, because, as I said, initially it was not a part of our
12 line, so due to the sort of late disclosure to us, we were -- you know,
13 obliged to tailor our time. So -- but I will do my best to --
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes. As always, let's proceed and we'll see where
15 we go.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you so much, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Delic --
18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court
20 Q. Mr. Delic, as you can see on the right-hand side corner, upper
21 corner, the number --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Pantelic should repeat the number.
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. This case file was open on the 23rd of June, 1993, submitted
1 against an unknown perpetrator. The victim is Muhamed Silkic?
2 A. Halkic.
3 Q. I apologise my copy is a bit illegible. I believe he is a
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In the file we have a criminal report signed by the police chief,
7 Mirko Vrucinic. In practical terms, it contains a description of the
8 crime, on the 29th of October, 1992, an unknown perpetrator murdered
9 Mr. Muhamed Halkic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Next in the file we have an Official Note of the 29th of
12 October by the police inspector, Mr. Mile Dobrijevic from Sanski Most;
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The next Official Note in the file is the one which,
16 unfortunately, does not have a signature. I suppose this Official Note
17 was also drafted by the police; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Then we have another Official Note which was also drafted by the
20 police. Then there is a third. Something in here seems to have caught
21 my attention.
22 Dejan Bilbija, it seems that his ID was copied. It is contained
23 in the first Official Note, just following the criminal report.
24 What about this Bilbija person, was he a potential suspect or
25 maybe the perpetrator?
1 A. I'm not familiar with that.
2 Q. In any case, now I see what it is. Please have a look at page --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Pantelic should repeat the ERN reference.
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we have page 00482354.
5 There it is.
6 Q. In my opinion in item 5 of this Official Note, it says that in
7 October of 1992 a rifle grenade was fired at the house owned by
8 Dzafe Halilovic. This was stated by a Serb, who said that together with
9 Dusan Bilbija and Darko Miljenovic fired a rifle grenade at the house
10 each. I see an ID photocopy. It says Dejan Bilbija which to me means
11 that the police indeed managed to identify at least one perpetrator, at
12 least one of the suspects.
13 A. Yes. This is the actual -- this it actually the police file, a
14 police card of the suspect.
15 Q. It means that the police made some progress and it turns out that
16 Dejan Bilbija plus an additional two people were suspected of having
17 committed this murder.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Let's go to the page number 60, which is at the end of the file.
20 There you, as the prosecutor, issued certain orders to the police, to
21 conduct interviews, as well as to undertake other forensic activities,
22 and I believe it was done by the police; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Let us next -- let us move to the next criminal file. The last
25 three digits are 378. It is 2D03-0107.
1 This file was opened on the 9th of December, 1992, against an
2 unknown perpetrator. The victim was Petar Pavicic. I suppose his
3 ethnicity was Croatian?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Next in the file we have a criminal report submitted by the chief
6 of police in Sanski Most, Mr. Mirko Grucinic [as interpreted] on the 9th
7 of December. It say there that an unknown perpetrator opened
8 automatic -- fire from an automatic weapon, killing Petar Pavicic, after
9 which the perpetrator left the scene of crime in an unknown direction.
10 In the document that we see here, we have your order issued to the police
11 in Sanski Most to undertake certain measures, such as interviews, as well
12 as forensic activities.
13 Next we have document which ends with the three-digit figure of
14 382. Branko Sobot, who was a police inspector, indeed conducted certain
15 interviews; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. It seems that in this file we have all the indications of the
18 police doing their work professionally; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The next document --
21 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, could I just put -- I have the same
22 problem as the Trial Chamber. I haven't got a translation. Does it say
23 who the perpetrator was alleged to be in this case, in this file?
24 MR. PANTELIC: In this case, actually it was unknown perpetrator.
25 MS. KORNER: No. But, yes, but is there a mention of who is
1 suspected of having committed the crime. Perhaps the witness, well --
2 MR. PANTELIC: I will try to ...
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, perhaps you can have a look. But as
4 far as I can see from the note of the interview, it cannot be concluded
5 who the perpetrator was.
6 In the letter by the chief of police, which is the document
7 ending in 409, if can you see it, it says that the police issued a
8 dispatch asking that other people be brought in from Prijedor who were
9 members of the 5th Kozara Brigade. Based on that, I conclude that this
10 was probably under the remit of the military prosecutor?
11 A. This concerns another case.
12 Q. Yes, my mistake, you're right.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if it assists what I'm asking about
14 there seems to be mention of someone called Salko in this file, and I
15 wonder if that's anything to do with it. When I say anything to do with
16 it, the alleged perpetrator.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Mm-hm.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Yes, yes. In the criminal report itself, the
19 police say that the unknown perpetrator contacted the spouse of the
20 victim and introduced himself as a Salko. Is that what it says?
21 A. Yes. We can see from that from the Official Note, following the
22 interview with Marija Pavicic who was the mother of the victim.
23 Q. In the criminal report, at page 1, you can see what Mr. Grucinic,
24 the chief of police, says. He says that the unknown perpetrator
25 introduced himself as Salko so as to let her know that the murder was
1 committed by a Muslim. We suppose that he was trying to cover up his
2 tracks by trying to pass himself off as a Muslim.
3 A. Yes, one can draw that conclusion, since the perpetrator was
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, sorry.
7 Q. [Interpretation] I think we went through this, in terms of your
8 order to the police, and this was followed through, I believe?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. We move to the next document now, which is 2D03-0112.
11 Here we see that the letter by the chief of police,
12 Mirko Grucinic was sent to your prosecutor's office, in relation to the
13 case of Safet Islamovic [phoen] and Osman Muhamodzic [phoen]. These were
14 Muslims; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Grucinic says that certain measures were taken and that the two
17 bodies were found as well as that there were indications that the
18 perpetrators were members of the army and of the 5th Kozara Brigade;
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We can also see here that the police -- well, we don't have the
22 whole file, but I suppose that there followed the legal procedure;
24 A. Yes. It is possible that the police forwarded the file to the
25 military organs.
1 Q. We have a note of the scene of crime investigation being
2 undertaken which was standard procedure; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Let's move on to the next document, which is a crime file opened
5 on the 7th of December, 1992. The last three digits are 439. It is
7 This file was open the against an unknown perpetrator who had
8 committed the crime of murder. The victim was Zajneba Alibegovic [phoen]
9 and Zarfije Sinanovic [phoen]from Kijevo. I suppose these two women were
10 Muslim; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In the file itself we have what we would usually expect to have
13 there; the murder took place on 6th November, 1992, in the village of
14 Kijevo. As standard procedure you issued an order to the police to
15 undertake certain activities in the pre-trial stage and to conduct
16 interviews. We have there also a report of an on-site investigation. I
17 suppose you were in attendance as well.
18 Next, we have a criminal report, submitted by the chief of
19 police, Mirko Grucinic, with attachments such as statements, gathered by
20 police inspector. In this case, there were at least seven or eight such
22 We can conclude, therefore, that yet again, the police fulfilled
23 all the orders that you issued to them in relation to the case; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The next case file ends in 034. It is 2D03-0132 on our list.
1 Mr. Delic, this file was opened on 16th March 1993, submitted
2 against an unknown perpetrator. The victim was Hazema Smajlovic. I
3 suppose she was a Muslim; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Next, we have standard correspondence between the prosecutor's
6 office and the police concerning the various orders and what the police
7 were supposed to do.
8 Next, we have a criminal report signed by chief of police,
9 Mirko Grucinic, in which it says that on the 12th September, 1992, there
10 was a blast, an explosion, next to the house owned by a Muslim. On that
11 occasion the owner's wife, Hazema, sustained injuries because of the
12 blast; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We have a report of an on-site investigation as well as an
15 Official Note, actually two, drafted by the police inspector Zdravko
16 Savanovic; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In your assessment would you say that everything was done by the
19 police in this case too, by the police in Sanski Most; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The next case we have has the last three digits of 042. It is
22 our internal 2D03-04 -- 0140. It was opened on the 17th of February,
23 1993, submitted against an unknown perpetrator. The victim was
24 Hazim Jakupovic from Kamengrad. I suppose he was Muslim as well?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. As part of the file we have the standard correspondence between
2 you and the police by way of orders to the police. We have a criminal
3 report submitted by the chief of police, Mirko Grucinic, in which it says
4 that on the 15th October, 1992, a traffic accident was caused resulting
5 in a fatality, the fatality was Hazim Jakupovic.
6 There's also a record of an on-site investigation which you
7 attended as well. We also have several Official Notes and statements by
8 eye-witnesses. I believe the police also carried out all of your orders;
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Very well. Let's move on to the next criminal file, the last
12 three digits are -- is 051. It is our internal number --
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I'll slow down; I apologise.
15 MS. KORNER: Sorry, that's the one we've got translations for,
16 Your Honour, of two pages, which we can put up.
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. This a criminal file which was opened on the 15th of March 1993.
19 The perpetrator is unknown, and the victim is Juse Krupic from Donji
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, if Mr. Pantelic waits one
22 second, we'll put up the actual ...
23 Sorry, more than one second.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Ms. Korner, that would be helpful.
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] All right.
1 Q. It wasn't entered in the transcript that the victim here was most
2 probably of Muslim ethnicity; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. This is a criminal report filed by the chief of police at
5 Sanski Most, and it says that on the 11th November, 1992, the body of
6 Juse Krupic was found in a garage of the mosque yard at Donji Kamengrad.
7 And, as part of the criminal report, other evidence is also submitted
8 such as the interview and medical documents, as well as the protocol of
9 the on-site investigation, as well as your correspondence with the police
10 about your orders given to the police; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So, at page 054 of this file --
13 MS. KORNER: We've got a translation of that.
14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. We see your letter to the police at Sanski Most, in which you
16 order them to conduct an interview regarding the case of the reserve
17 police officer, Zoran Miladinovic, would focus on the circumstances --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat this part of his
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, the Prosecutor [sic] didn't hear
21 your question. Could you please repeat it.
22 MS. KORNER: The interpreter, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: The interpreter, sorry.
24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. So let me repeat. In your letter dated 8 December, 1992, which
1 you sent to the police at Sanski Most, you issue an order to conduct an
2 interview about the case of the reserve police officer, a certain Zoran
3 Miladinovic, focussing on the circumstances when and why and which way he
4 took the deceased person who was the duty officer with him at the
5 check-point and all other circumstances the police needs to know about.
6 Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So, it is obvious that here, too, in a way, a police officer was
9 involved in the activities; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At any rate, this criminal file includes your orders, as well as
12 the protocol of the on-site investigation, where it is established that a
13 police officer, too, was involved in the event; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know how this case developed subsequently? Did the police
16 officer conduct an internal inquiry, or did he launch a procedure
17 following your orders?
18 A. I can't remember now whether the perpetrator was found, whether a
19 person was actually reported as a perpetrator of this criminal act.
20 Q. All right. But certainly in the criminal report that we see
21 here, we see that following your orders interviews were conducted with
22 Zoran Miladinovic, a police officer, isn't that correct, on page 1, and
23 with other persons of whom we don't know now whether they were police
24 officers or eye-witnesses. But your orders were followed, weren't they?
25 A. Yes, that's what the criminal report says.
1 Q. Thank you. The next file we want to look at now has the last
2 three digits of 526. Our internal mark is 2D03-0158.
3 This is a criminal file which was opened on the 14th of
4 September, 1992, against an unknown perpetrator. And the victim was
5 Alma Kicin, a minor from Demisevac; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I suppose that the victim was of Muslim ethnicity?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. On the following page we can see your orders to the police.
10 That's the usual correspondence. And there is also a criminal report
11 filed by the chief of police, Mirko Vrucinic, which says -- or which
12 states that during the night between the 3rd and the 4th of December,
13 1992, one perpetrator or several shot from the dark at the house owned by
14 a Muslim, and on that occasion, the victim, the minor victim Alma was
15 killed. And the protocol of the on-site investigation and the interviews
16 conducted following your office are also included.
17 Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So in this case, too, we can say that the police followed the
20 procedure, in accordance with your order; isn't that so?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Now there's another document which has a number. It
23 follows from this one - the last three digits are 820 - and that's your
24 letter that you sent to the police. It is dated the 13th of August.
25 It's on the next page following this file, the file about this
1 girl Alma.
2 Sorry, no, my mistake. No. It's a separate set of documents.
3 The number is 998, yes, we do have that one. And then the --
4 followed by 999. And then 820. We don't have the criminal files here,
5 but this is the correspondence in which you give orders to the police,
6 but that is not relevant now. This is the 1st of July, 1994.
7 Although, the KTA [as interpreted] is 11392, but this event is
8 from 1992, right; and the correspondence followed later?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yes. I can see that some police activities took place, and the
11 unknown perpetrators from 1992 seem to have been located, and it was
12 established that they are members of the 6th Kozara Brigade; is that
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Your next letter also has to do with a case where the victims
16 were Muslims and where you also gave orders to the police. It is about
17 some events and an on-site investigation done on the 8th of November,
18 1992; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You give an order here and inform the police that it is required,
21 should some -- should they learn of some information that they inform
22 you; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The next file was opened on the 13th of August, 1992, where you
25 sent a letter to the police, dated the 13th of August. And you say
1 that ...
2 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, my mistake.
3 [Interpretation] 2D03-0168. This is just a single document --
4 Q. -- where you inform the police of Sanski Most that they should
5 collect the necessary information concerning the protocol of the on-site
6 investigation made on the 13th of August which we don't have here. But,
7 as far as I can tell, some incident seems to have happened and it was
8 necessary for the police to follow the regular procedure; is that
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The next document is a case which you spoke about yesterday to my
12 learned friend, Mr. Cvijetic. It is rather comprehensive. It's
13 2D03-0169 and we won't dwell on it here, but we can say that it is a
14 complete criminal file, including a criminal report which was submitted
15 against known perpetrators of Serb ethnicity who had committed the crime
16 of murder at Stari Majdan and that individual or the group, if you
17 remember, killed those two Muslims, right?
18 A. It was an individual perpetrator.
19 Q. Yes, an individual. And he was a member of the 6th Krajina
20 Brigade, and then the military prosecutor took over and it was further
21 processed; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Right. We established that yesterday. But we can also see that
24 the police did everything that was necessary and that they had the
25 authority to do following your orders; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Let us proceed with the next set of documents, the first one with
3 the last three digits being 862. Our document number is 2903-0241.
4 Then 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 52, 54, and 57. Let's not go into
5 details now, but we can establish that these are on-site investigation
6 protocols concerning various events, the first one is dated 15th of June,
7 1992. You were also present as well as -- or, rather, as a member of the
8 member of the police of Sanski Most. A dead body was found in the Sana
9 river, and the required forensic activities were conducted and procedures
10 followed; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The next one is also dated 15th of June. You were present. Also
13 an on-site investigation protocol in the Sana river -- let me just check.
14 Yes, it was on the same day but another investigation. A dead
15 body was found and the procedure was followed; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then the next one is an on-site investigation done on the 17th of
18 August, where the late Munib Masic was found, a Muslim, I suppose. I am
19 speaking about the document dated 17 August 1992.
20 It should be in this sequence. The number in the upper corner is
22 A. Yes, I found it.
23 Q. This is also part of the procedure that you conducted with the
24 police on the 17th of August, 1992, when a dead body -- the dead body of
25 a Muslim, Munib Masic, was found, and the forensic procedure was
2 Let us now pass to the following document, dated the 27th of
3 August, 1992. It is also an on-site investigation protocol. The police,
4 a medical doctor, and the prosecution were present. Four bodies were
5 found, and the regular procedure was conducted; is that correct?
6 A. Let me just explain. We received information about four dead
7 bodies from the village of Kljevci, but we didn't find the bodies at the
8 site. There was a report about the dead body of Petar Ivankovic. We
9 commented that case already with the OTP.
10 Q. Very well. The next on-site investigation protocol was compiled
11 on 13th of September, 1992, again, in the presence of both the
12 prosecutor's office and the police as well as the forensic expert --
13 MS. KORNER: I just mention that Mr. Pantelic is not actually
14 giving the exhibits any numbers at the moment. He's just going straight
15 through. I don't mind, but if he wants later for reference, the D
16 numbers are not coming out, unless you propose to do the whole as a bulk
17 exhibit at a later stage.
18 MR. PANTELIC: That was my initial idea, but let's hear --
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think the idea behind this approach was not to
20 have these documents exhibited because the purpose of this exercise was
21 only to discover, whether according to the witness, the procedures that
22 were taken and the measures that were taken to investigate those crimes
23 were taken correctly, according to the book.
24 MS. KORNER: I quite understand that --
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: So if the witness, by the end of this exercise,
1 is able to assess the quality of the measures taken for investigation
2 and -- and perhaps prosecution, then that would be the end of it.
3 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour. At the moment, Mr. Pantelic is,
4 in fact, he's just going on different dates, but what is not altogether
5 clear is that these are actually separate files. He was giving the
6 numbers originally but he stopped, and so at the moment purely for later
7 purposes, if necessary, I -- if Mr. Pantelic -- if they're going to be
8 exhibited, is going to put them as one bulk, that's one thing. It
9 doesn't really matter. But at the moment it is very difficult to see,
10 from reading the transcript, that he is actually referring to different
11 perpetrator files.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, apparently you have been giving
14 reference numbers to the files that you have introduced so far except for
15 the last two ones, so maybe you would be good enough to continue the
16 practice, just said, so as to enable the Chamber, in the end, if we have
17 to considered admission of any of these documents, we can then identify
19 MR. PANTELIC: I will do that gladly. Your Honour, my initial
20 idea was just to cover all these separate activities of police and
21 prosecution and then to have Mr. Delic opinion but no problem; although,
22 again, the most preferable way for us would be that we could tender all
23 these documents and then have [indiscernible] I'm repeating, you know,
24 [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Overlapping speakers]
1 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... like Cato in Rome that
2 Carthage should be destroyed by Rome, don't understand me wrong.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's see about that when we get to the end of
4 this exercise, but can I just, for clarification, ask you to indicate the
5 number of files, because when Judge Delvoie asked you a while ago how
6 many documents we were talking about, you said 15 documents. But it
7 seems to me that we have far exceeded the number of 15 documents, and I
8 wonder if what you meant to say was that the batch consists of 15 files
9 and each file would then consist of a number of subdocuments so to say.
10 Is that the case?
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, actually, my information was that actually we
12 are speaking about the number of files but with many documents, but, of
13 course, I covered with -- with Mr. Delic when I speak about one case, one
14 file, we covered many, many pages.
15 So in total, we have around roughly 15, plus we have now this
16 particular on-site records, which my idea was to cover all together, but
17 will follow your instruction, Your Honour, and I think it's absolutely
18 appropriate. So to go back --
19 Q. [Interpretation] We have to say for the sake of the procedure
20 that the document you have before you displaying the last two digits 862
21 is actually 2D03-0241. We have already spoken about this document. This
22 is an on-site investigation protocol dated 15 June, dealing with the body
23 in the Sana.
24 And the next document is your number 863 and it is our number
25 2D03-0242, another on-site investigation protocol drafted on the same
1 date, and it seems to me that it was drafted maybe an hour or so later.
2 Again, dealing with the body in the river Sana.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The next on-site investigation protocol bears the last three
5 digits 880, and it is ours 2D03-0243. And this is an on-site
6 investigation protocol dated 17 August 1992.
7 A body -- the body of Munib Basic [as interpreted], a Muslim was
8 found, and the procedure was carried out and an on-site investigation
9 protocol drafted.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The next document is 2D03-0244, and your number is 882. This is
12 an on-site investigation protocol that you also attended on the 27th of
13 August, 1992, or maybe 29th of August -- no, I believe it's the 27th of
14 August, 1992. We have already spoken about that.
15 In the village of Kljevci three female and one male bodies were
16 found; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, we had information that there were four bodies. However, we
18 did not find the bodies on the site.
19 Q. The next document is 2D03-02446. This is another on-site
20 investigation protocol drafted on the 13th of September, 1992. An
21 explosion had taken place in the village of -- this is illegible.
22 A. Husimovci [phoen].
23 Q. Yes, Husimovci.
24 And the prosecutor and the police attended the on-site
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And there were also casualties, as can I see. We've already said
3 that. They were all Muslim, weren't they?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then we have the next document which is under our internal
6 number 2D03-0248, and your number is 886.
7 This is an on-site investigation protocol dated 18
8 September 1992, again, in the presence of the prosecutor, the police, and
9 the court expert, a forensic medical expert. The case was probably a
10 murder case. The information is contained in here. The protocol was
11 compiled, and the victim was a Muslim; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And, again, a certain legal procedure was applied involving the
14 prosecutor and the police; right?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. The next document we have is 2D03-0252. This is an on-site
17 investigation protocol dated 18 September --
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on a minute, Mr. Pantelic. Can we just go
19 back to the previous document and your question to the witness was, and I
20 quote from what is on my screen, page 46, line 3, your question was:
21 "Again, certain legal procedures was applied involving the
22 prosecutor and the police; right?"
23 And the witness answers: "Right."
24 Can you elicit with the witness what were the legal procedures
1 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Delic, you heard His Honour, Judge Harhoff. Could you please
3 explain the nature of the procedure that was applied and involved the
4 prosecutor, the police, and an investigating judge at the moment of the
5 on-site investigation.
6 A. The body was found and the investigating judge, the policemen,
7 the crime technician, the physician and I, myself, went to the site, and
8 the investigation was headed by the investigative judge, with the
9 participation of crime technician, forensic technician, and inspector,
10 and the investigating judge compiled the protocol describing the site and
11 what was found on the site. The forensic technician was then ordered to
12 take photos of the site of the crime, to sketch the site, to collect the
13 casings found at the site, and it was stated that the forensic technician
14 followed through.
15 Then the investigating judge issued an order to the forensic
16 medical expert to draft his opinion and findings about the wounds found
17 on the body. I can say that this was a customary procedure which was
18 applied after the crime had taken place.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Judge.
20 Can I just ask you, then, if that was the end of the
21 investigations, or were further prosecutorial steps taken?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was the beginning of the
23 investigation, the initial investigation steps, an on-site investigation
24 and the collection of evidence found on the site. I then issued an order
25 to the police to take further steps, with a view to discovering the
1 perpetrator of that crime, a whole array of operative actions were needed
2 to do that, interviewing people who might have information about the
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if you -- and were such interviews then
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have anything to that
7 effect in the file. I don't know what was done, so I'm not able to
8 answer your question.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: And you cannot recall the follow-up of that
10 particular incident?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall whether the
12 perpetrator of that crime was ever discovered or not.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I have -- in fact, I was about to
14 raise the same problem. I'm not quite clear. Is the only document in
15 this file the on-site investigation? Was it -- is that all the Defence
16 have copied? That's the only thing I'm not clear about.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, in fact, all these on-site records are a part
18 of documents which Defence received from OTP and there are a number of
19 these records, but all we have is actually these on-site records.
20 So in previous cases, we were able to produce and to -- to -- to
21 have the answer from Mr. Delic about the -- the criminal files. But now
22 what we received from OTP, probably because of war or collection of
23 documents, I don't know what the reason is, only we have these particular
24 on-site records, whereas you rightly pointed out, Judge Harhoff, you
25 asked the witness to maybe refresh his memory, what was the follow-up of
1 all these activities, but, unfortunately, he cannot recall.
2 So that's all we have. Yeah.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I understand. I just wonder whether it's
4 worthwhile, then, going through all of them. But I leave it to you to --
5 but try, wherever you can, Mr. Pantelic, to elicit from Judge Delic, if
6 he recalls, the end of the stories, so to say.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, I'll certainly do.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, we'll be talking about the next few
9 on-site investigation protocols. Our numbers 2D03-0248, the following
10 number is 52, 54, 55, and 57.
11 Let's not go through each of them separately. You see if
12 yourself that the records are almost identical, and reflect the onsite
13 inspections on different days, different months, sometimes it is August,
14 September, November, and I believe it would be best for us to draw this
15 line of questioning to an end, but let me just ask you one thing: When
16 you look at all these records - I believe that you studied them last
17 night - and now have you just said to the Judge that you don't recall.
18 Let me ask you just once again. Do you perhaps recall if any of the
19 cases were processed when you were a judge? Did anything happen after
20 the initial stages?
21 A. I really don't recall. Most of the case remained unsolved
22 because the perpetrator was never discovered. In most cases,
24 Q. I understand, especially when it comes to the few cases of the
25 bodies which were found in the body -- bodies in the river. Even if
1 peacetime that would have present a huge problem.
2 In order to end this line of questioning, I would kindly ask you
3 to tell me, we're talking about the year 1992. To the best of your
4 recollection, were there any other cases which, pursuant to your order,
5 were processed by the police, interviews conducted, evidence collected?
6 A. I suppose so. I believe that there were. You could check that
7 in the KPN [as interpreted] log-book.
8 Q. I understand. Very well.
9 Now just for the record, since the name of the log-book has not
10 been recorded properly, could you please spell the name of the log-book?
11 A. KTN.
12 Q. Now it's okay. And this is the log-book which is maintained for
13 unknown perpetrators, right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And when you analysed a log-book with the prosecutor, you
16 analysed the KTN -- the KT log-book.
17 A. Yes. This is the log-book of perpetrators who are known.
18 Q. Now this gives us a totally different picture of your activities,
19 the activities of the prosecutor, the court, and the police in
20 Sanski Most. A lot more cases were processed, and not even to mention
21 the military prosecutor's office and the military procedure?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours -- just for a moment, Mr. Pantelic --
24 Your Honours, that's absolutely right. We haven't actually got the
25 unknown perpetrators book, but we're actually in the process of getting
1 it. Unfortunately, when collected it was missed [realtime transcript
2 read in error "policed"], and one of the reasons why Mr. Olmsted is in
3 Bosnia to collect that.
4 So it's absolutely right, we don't have the unknown perpetrators
5 book here at the moment.
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. While we are on the topic, Mr. Delic, would you agree with my
8 position, which is that you, together with the investigating judge, were
9 in charge of the criminal investigation procedure and that the police, as
10 prescribed by the law, was at your disposal, in order to implement your
11 orders, in terms of certain investigative activities?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In your experience in Sanski Most, and as far as you can recall,
14 did it ever happen that, when you issued an order to the chief of police,
15 Mr. Vrucinic or one of his inspectors, as the competent prosecutor, did
16 any of them ever refuse to carry out that order?
17 A. I am not familiar with that, with them ever refusing to implement
19 Q. I'm not asking you to speculate but to speak as a professional.
20 Say, if an inspector refused an order, would you immediately contact his
21 chief, that is to say, Mr. Grucinic on the disobedience?
22 A. Yes, that is only logical.
23 Q. The chief of police, Mr. Grucinic, according to our information
24 and according to what Colonel Bosora [phoen] says, was an intelligence
25 officer of the brigade, the 6th Brigade, which was Bosora's brigade. Are
1 you familiar with that?
2 A. No, I have no knowledge of that.
3 Q. If I put to you that this was said by his commanders, then have
4 you no reason to doubt my words; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, Grucinic as chief of police of Sanski Most, did he submit a
7 criminal report to you or notified you orally about certain overstepping
8 of police authority by any of the police members under him?
9 A. I don't remember any such notifications or reports.
10 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour. The transcript - and this is
11 obviously important - is recording Mr. Grucinic all the way through. It
12 should be Vrucinic. That's a V. And can I just, while on my feet, say
13 that page 50, line 15, I said "missed" not "policed" as it's written in
14 relation to the log-books.
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, it's that time.
16 MR. PANTELIC: [Microphone not activated]
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Delic, you had an interview with the OTP on the 22nd of
24 September, 2007; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I think it took place in Banja Luka.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I will quote certain portions of the interview and perhaps you
4 can confirm to me that these are correct excerpts.
5 The Prosecutor asked you whether there were certain instances in
6 which the police did not act professionally in the performance of their
7 duties. You responded by saying: "I cannot recall such a specific
9 Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I ask, please, for page numbers of the
13 MR. PANTELIC: It's English version, 26.
14 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
15 MR. PANTELIC: There are differences due to the font size, so
16 B/C/S is 14, I think it's 26 of English.
17 Q. [Interpretation] In any case, following their question, which was
18 whether you had any objections to the way the police conducted their
19 investigations, you responded by saying:
20 "I did not. I don't recall having any."
21 Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The next portion is when you were asked whether you were
24 satisfied with the police work that was done. You said that you had
25 never had any arguments with them and that they regularly responded to
1 your requests.
2 Next you were asked --
3 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, can you give the full answer, please.
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. When you were asked whether you were happy with the way the
6 police work was done, you said that you never had any conflicts with them
7 and that they respond to your requests. Then you added: "Well, whether
8 they could have done that in a better or poorer way, that is something I
9 could not judge based on my knowledge of their procedures."
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Next, the Prosecutor asked you this: In such circumstances,
12 which made the lives of everyone hard, you responded -- you were asked
13 whether they performed their duties to the best of their professional
14 ability, and you responded by saying yes.
15 Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Very well. Now, while we're on those particular circumstances,
18 do you know, or did you know a person whose nickname was Nunja?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. This Nunja person, as far as we know, was some sort of a leader
21 of a certain armed group, which was called Sos [phoen]; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, that's what people were saying.
23 Q. What was your personal impression of that group, or to be more
24 specific, were they dangerous, armed? Did they have proneness to crime?
25 How would you describe the group?
1 A. The rumour had it that they were armed. People were also saying
2 that they committed certain crimes, such as thefts. I remember that, at
3 the beginning of the war, they stopped a truck convoy coming from Kladusa
4 and moving towards Sarajevo. There may have been five or six trucks or
5 more. They simply seized the trucks, and I don't know what happened with
6 the goods that were in them.
7 I know that Nunja was killed in an explosion. He attempted to
8 plant an explosive device --
9 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphone is off.
10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Could you please repeat the last portion because your microphone
12 was off. You were telling us about Nunja trying to plant an explosive
13 device under a car.
14 A. Yes. Nunja was killed in trying to plant an explosive device
15 under a motor vehicle, a passenger vehicle. The device detonated in his
16 hands. I am familiar with that, because I attended the scene following
17 the incident. We carried out an on-site investigation.
18 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether at a certain period of
19 time he placed himself at the disposal of the 6th Krajina Brigade. Did
20 he participate in combat?
21 A. I don't have any specific information. I was not an army member.
22 Hence, I have no such information.
23 Q. But you will agree with me that this Nunja and his group,
24 objectively speaking, represented a danger to the people of Sanski Most,
25 and they scared both Serbs, non-Serbs, as well as the authorities.
1 A. Yes, that's what people were saying.
2 Q. But -- in your answer to one of the Prosecutor's questions, you
3 said that you issued an indictment against Mrdja, Kokot [phoen] and
4 Bilbija and that the president of the Chamber, Judge Dragica Glusac,
5 issued decision of the first-instance court by which she sentenced them
6 to a term in prison of one year, and that in front of the court building
7 a large group of uniformed men gathered. You also said that these were
8 soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska which were drunk and dangerous,
9 as well as armed; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In that case, you submitted an appeal which was decided on
12 positively, and their sentences were increased; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. This was a very difficult time for both the judge and the
15 judiciary as a whole in which they had to try members of the Serb
16 community for crimes they had committed in such an atmosphere in which
17 there were several thousand armed people, where there was a threat to
18 one's life, or it posed a danger to perform one's duty duly?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. At page 22, and I think in English it is it page 34, when you say
21 about that case, that once your appeal was successful and when they
22 received higher sentences, that a certain Vosko Skoric came to your
23 office who was the president of the war veteran's association in Sanski
24 Most and that he threatened you because you had appealed. He told that
25 you although were not an army member, that he would mobilise you, take
1 you to Mount Grmic to the forest, where he would tie you to a tree and
2 leave you; is that so?
3 A. Yes, that's what he said.
4 MS. KORNER: Sorry, it's not in page -- it's the interview at
5 page 22?
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, interview page, yeah, yeah.
7 30 -- 34, maybe.
8 MS. KORNER: 22 or 32?
9 I don't want to delay Mr. Pantelic any further, but it would help
10 if he could -- actually, when he is asking questions based on the
11 interview, have the actual page numbers in English and B/C/S ready so I
12 can find it.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I will do my best.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Since we're missing it in the transcript, the
15 person who came to your office to threaten you was a certain
16 Bosko Skoric; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So there was great insecurity and a lot of pressure was put on
19 the members of the judiciary in the performance of their duties back in
20 1992; correct?
21 A. Well, at that time, it wasn't very popular to set up a trial
22 to -- to try Serbs who had committed crimes against non-Serbs.
23 Q. Therefore, I conclude that basically all of those who
24 participated in the judiciary process by -- and in their various
25 capacities, including the police, which followed your orders, that all
1 such people were put under a certain type of pressure by those armed army
2 members in Sanski Most. Could one conclude that safely?
3 A. Yes, one could.
4 Q. I wish to comment or to discuss something with you; specifically,
5 I mean Exhibit P123, MFI.
6 This is a letter of the 10th of November 1992 sent by the chief
7 of police Vrucinic to his superior in the CSB in Banja Luka, for the
8 attention of Chief Zupljanin.
9 In the letter he says, on page 1, and we already reviewed some of
10 the cases referred to in this letter, in which he says that between the
11 23rd of October 1992 until the 8th of November, 1992, there was several
12 incidents. You confirmed to us that many of them were initially
13 processed, such as the incident in which nine Croats in the village of
14 Skrljevita were killed, pre-trial measures were taken.
15 Next we had several other villages, such as Majdan, Miljovan
16 [phoen], so on and so forth; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And as for the first two incidents, this involved certain combat,
19 and as you told my learned friend, Mr. Cvijetic, this probably fell under
20 the competence of the military prosecutor's office; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the second page
23 of that same document.
24 Q. Here, in the paragraph on the top, it says that the perpetrators
25 of those acts were mostly soldiers and members of paramilitary units.
1 The circumstances are explained. And the document goes on to say that:
2 "The inspectors of the Sanski Most police in all of the cases
3 carried out on-site inspection and undertook measures and steps
4 prescribed by the law?"
5 Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It does say so, but you can also confirm that this was, indeed,
8 done, because we have discussed that already today.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. It says further on, Vrucinic says -- and this is the follow-up of
11 what you had just explained, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber.
12 "Some of the perpetrators are known to the police. However, the
13 situation is such that we cannot and it would not be advisable for the
14 security of the police officers and the -- and the enforcement organs to
15 carry out arrests and criminal prosecution of the perpetrators."
16 Would that tally with your assessment that, when thousands of
17 members of that brigade were carrying arms, it was difficult, if not
18 impossible, to carry out the procedure in the same way one would in
19 peacetime; right?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. He says further on, and he states that some soldier and Serb
22 extremists, fighters from the front, that they won't allow prosecution of
23 those who work for the Serbian cause and avenge Serbian victims on
24 battlefields and other parts of the Republika Srpska.
25 Here Vrucinic again explains the circumstances and the atmosphere
1 under which the judiciary and the police officers work in Sanski Most;
3 A. Yes, you're right.
4 Q. In the conclusion of his letter Vrucinic says, and I quote:
5 "There is fear of retaliation both in the command and in the army
6 and the prosecution organs as well as in the police, as they feared what
7 might happen to them if they continued processing the crimes in
9 Would that be your assessment of the situation as well?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. However, despite what -- of what seems to be a very serious
12 statement you, members of the police, the prosecutor's office, and the
13 judiciary still continued working on discovering the perpetrators of the
14 crimes committed in 1992 in Sanski Most; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Let's go back to the previous page, please, in the same document.
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Scroll down a little, please.
18 Scroll down -- scroll up, I apologise. I would like the upper right
19 corner displayed. Thank you.
20 Q. I know it is not very easy for you to see this on the screen, but
21 maybe you can tell us what it says in the right hand writing. It's not
22 very legible, and there is a number, 02, and then it says: Inform the
23 corps commander and the MUP, and then there is a Cyrillic signature,
24 Djukic, and some initials.
25 Can you see that in the right upper corner?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If I put it to you that the person or the organ in charge in the
3 CSB of Banja Luka acted pursuant to the document and immediately, given
4 that this was about crimes perpetrated by the army, that he immediately
5 referred this document to the command of the 6th corps. Would that be a
6 fair conclusion on my part?
7 MS. KORNER: Before the witness answers, how can he answer that?
8 He has no idea what the CSB did. What happened after that. All he can
9 do is look at what's on the document. Anything else is just to ask him
10 to speculate.
11 MR. PANTELIC: It's enough at this stage, Your Honour, to have
12 answer of this witness. So I rephrase my question, with your permission.
13 Q. [Interpretation] We can then state that it says here in the upper
14 right-hand corner that the command of the corps and the Ministry
15 of Interior should be informed?
16 A. Yes, this is what it says here.
17 MR. PANTELIC: And for the sake of precision, I would kindly ask
18 our friends from OTP to provide additional translation because it's not
19 correspond to English version that we have here, just to have this
20 handwritten portion on the right top page. In due course. It's not a
21 matter for today. Quite soon. We should have the author of this
22 document, so he will be able to -- to give more details.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Okay. We have dealt with this now.
24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce -
25 just bear with me for a moment -
1 [In English] Sorry, Your Honour, I lost my -- ah, okay. Here it
2 is. Sorry.
3 I don't know if it's admitted as exhibit, but 65 ter document is
5 MS. KORNER: It's P118 [Microphone not activated].
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] P118.
7 MR. PANTELIC: P118, thank you.
8 Q. [Interpretation] You have already commented upon this document.
9 You will remember that this is about the meeting of the coordination
10 board of the Sanski Most municipality on 17th of November, 1991.
11 Under item 1 it is stated that there had been an armed attack on
12 Trnovo and [indiscernible]?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The year is 1992.
14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. What was this? Do you remember what the attack involved?
16 A. I don't know anything about that attack. I was present here
17 under item 2 of this document, but when I was present, no discussion
18 took -- took place about any attack.
19 Q. In any case, under item 2 in which you participated it was
20 concluded that the perpetrators of the gruesome crime had to be
21 discovered as soon as possible, and measures against possible
22 perpetrators of criminal offences should be taken. Do you remember?
23 A. I did not participate in the entire course of the meeting. I've
24 already explained that in my conversation with the OTP. I said that
25 certain individuals, and I don't know their names, I don't know the name
1 of the gentleman who had arrived from Zenica. But in any case, he
2 criticised my work, he was wondering why I was not prosecuting
3 perpetrators, and then I had to explain - and I did explain - that we
4 could only prosecute known perpetrators. I explained the procedure to
5 him under the Law on the Criminal Procedure and we had an argument there.
6 I left the meeting. So I really did not stay for the entire duration of
7 the meeting.
8 Q. I understand. Now let's look at page 3 in the same document,
10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] This is page 2. Can we go one
11 page further, please. [Microphone not activated] next page, please.
12 Next, please. Okay.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Delic, looks at items 10, 12, 14, and 15.
14 These items speak about orders given to the military and the civilian
15 police forces. Under 12 it says that it is hereby ordered to the
16 officers of the 6th brigade to the military and the civilian police.
17 Under item 14 it says that a conclusion was reached with regard
18 to the command of the brigade, and then that certain groups should be
19 placed under the control of the 6th brigade.
20 My conclusion as I'm analysing this document is that this
21 coordination board or whatever you wanted to call it, it was a municipal
22 body anyway, issued orders to both the military and police with regard to
23 certain activities; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. And now, Mr. Delic, you have also mentioned that
1 before this Trial Chamber and in your interview as well. You had a
2 person working in the court. She was a typist, Mrs. or Ms. Mina Munic?
3 A. She was a typist at the court, yes.
4 Q. Mrs. Mina Munic was Muslim by ethnicity, wasn't she?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Since there were armed conflicts going on in Mahala, which was a
7 neighbourhood in Sanski Most, you learned one day that she had been taken
8 to the sports hall. You've already said that to the OTP; right?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. And now, as a prosecutor and as a human being, did you take some
11 steps, did you collect information so as to learn why she had been taken
12 there? She was a friend and a colleague. Did you make any inquiries
13 about her destiny?
14 A. Yes, I talked to my acquaintances. I inquired about her. There
15 was an armed convict going on in Mahala, and I learned that a large
16 number of individuals from that part of the town had been accommodated in
17 the sports hall. I could only suppose that there was a temporary
18 measure, because of the armed conflict that was going on there, in that
19 part of the town.
20 Q. The transfer of those individuals was part of a military
21 operation to remove them from the area of combat.
22 A. Yes. I assumed that, due to the combat, that's -- the large
23 number of people were accommodated in the sports hall. People from that
24 part of the town.
25 Q. Did you know that there was some other facilities in Sanski Most
1 where the civilian population was transferred to by the military bodies?
2 A. No, I did not know that. I don't have that information.
3 Q. Did you know about the incident that took place sometime in early
4 July 1992, when a group of Muslims was transported to Manjaca on a truck,
5 and given the heat -- that they suffocated during transport?
6 A. No, I didn't know that.
7 Q. I assume that you learnt that this particular incident had -- had
8 you learned that, that you would have taken measures, as a prosecutor,
9 because when you learned something, you were under the obligation to
10 carry out certain activities.
11 A. If I had learned that, I would have asked from the police to
12 investigate the circumstances, to take measures and actions to discover
13 the possible perpetrators or culprits, and I would do anything that was
14 necessary to do, had I learned about an event of that kind.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Was the witness able to have Ms. Munic released?
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. You heard the question of the Judge. Please answer.
19 A. I didn't go there. I only received information from some
20 acquaintances that she had spent some time there and that later on they
21 were transported to Velika Kladusa, or Bihac, somewhere there, in an
22 organised fashion.
23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. You mentioned earlier the obligation to regularly submit reports.
25 When you, as a municipal prosecutor, draft your periodic reports to the
1 centre in Banja Luka. That's what you did, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And I suppose that you have information about the procedures of
4 the police. They probably also reported to their superior body on a
5 regular basis.
6 A. Yes, that's certainly what they should have done.
7 Q. And that is also the case with the army. They also have their
8 superior command and they also submit reports along the lines of command.
9 A. Yes, probably.
10 Q. And did the chief of police, Mr. Vrucinic, ever mention that
11 incident when the group of Muslims practically suffocated in that truck
12 to you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether or not, later on, after
15 1992, while there was talk about this particular incident?
16 A. I have no knowledge about that incident.
17 Q. Even when you were district prosecutor in Banja Luka, not even
19 A. No.
20 Q. Tell me, please, you lived in the centre of Sanski Most, or did
21 you live in the outskirts? Where did you live in 1992?
22 A. In the town centre. I live in my own house.
23 Q. I was at Sanski Most last summer, and I have a rough idea
24 where -- where the centre of town is. So could you tell me how far your
25 apartment was from the police station?
1 A. I can't tell exactly, but between 500 metres and a kilometre.
2 Q. In the direction of the bridge?
3 A. Well, from my house to the square, the distance is about 500
4 metres, roughly.
5 Q. And during your stay at Sanski Most in 1992, you personally never
6 heard of any event of the -- exceeding authority and the police station,
7 such as beating up detainees, harassing them, et cetera?
8 A. No, I have no particular information about that. I mostly stayed
9 at home, and I only commuted between my house and my workplace. In the
10 evening, there was no electricity, so it was dangerous to move about at
11 night or in the evening. And in the day time, if I wasn't at work, I was
12 mostly at home.
13 Q. Did you have information about the demolishing of religious
14 buildings in Sanski Most or the possible perpetrators?
15 A. No, I had no information about the perpetrators. But I saw that
16 the mosque in the city was demolished.
17 Q. Were there rumours about the possible perpetrators, about a
18 particular group or --
19 A. I don't know who the perpetrator may have been, but fact is that
20 the mosque was demolished by explosive.
21 Q. In your contacts with the police, did you see that the police was
22 also equipped with explosive, or was it another formation that used
24 A. Well, the police shouldn't have explosive. The military uses it.
25 Q. In your capacity as prosecutor at Sanski Most in 1992, did you
1 have any direct knowledge of civilian population of non-Serb ethnicity
2 being by force expelled from the territory of Sanski Most or otherwise
4 A. No, I had no such information. But I was often present at
5 on-site investigations where the victims were persons of Muslim or Croat
6 ethnicity, which can be seen in numerous protocols and documents that
7 were presented here, and those people were very scared. They -- they
8 feared for their lives. And I suppose those may have been the most
9 important reasons why entire neighbourhoods requested to be collectively
10 moved out of the Sanski Most municipality.
11 Q. Under those conditions of huge uncertainty, was -- were there
12 also occasions of a Serb population leaving Sanski Most, as far as you
14 A. Not to a large extent. There may have been individuals deserting
15 from the military and taking individual refuge somewhere, but there were
16 no requests for massive removal of Serb population.
17 Q. Speaking about this, tell me whether you had knowledge whether or
18 not in the surroundings of Sanski Most, or indeed, in a significant part
19 of Sanski Most itself, in 1992, there was a constant fighting?
20 A. I know that in the summer - it may have been June or July of
21 1992 - there was armed conflict between the VRS and armed groups,
22 consisting of Muslim individuals in the area of the Prpolje [phoen] and
23 Hrstovo [phoen] villages.
24 Q. And from the report from the meeting of the committee, we see
25 that mention made of a number of military operations around those
1 villages in the surroundings of Sanski Most; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If I'm not mistaken, and do correct me if I am, in the first half
4 of 1996, you were municipal prosecutor at the municipal prosecutor's
5 office at Kotor Varos; correct?
6 A. That was in 1996, when we left as refugees.
7 Q. I will not state any percentages now, but practically all Serbs
8 fled Sanski Most once it had been taken by Muslim forces; right?
9 A. Yes. It was on the 10th of October, 1995. About 30.000 Serbs
10 collectively left the Sanski Most municipality then, because of the
11 attacks of the ABiH.
12 Q. Even today it is difficult to give any precise estimates. But
13 if -- as -- very small number of Serbs lives at Sanski Most?
14 A. Yes, a small number returned.
15 Q. When you were prosecutor at Kotor Varos, who -- sorry. What was
16 the scope of your authority? What did your work there include?
17 A. At that time, we mostly dealt with thefts.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm really sorry to interrupt but
19 what's the relevance of what happened in October 1995, let alone 1996?
20 MR. PANTELIC: Just give me a minute, you will see.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, on the face of it, having regard to
22 the dates in the indictment, the -- the -- these periods are well outside
23 of what is relevant. It's all well and good for you to say give you a
24 moment, but could you indicate for us how this is relevant?
25 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I was -- I'm about to finish my
1 cross-examination, so we'll see my point.
2 Q. [Interpretation] So you were prosecutor at Kotor Varos in the
3 first half of 1996; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. While you were at Kotor Varos, did you hear of the crime
6 committed somewhere in 1992 in front of the medical clinic at Kotor
8 A. No, I haven't heard of it.
9 Q. Did you find any evidence, any note, or perhaps a rumour about
10 what happened in front of the medical clinic at Kotor Varos?
11 A. No. I know absolutely nothing about those events.
12 MR. PANTELIC: No further question for this witness. Thank you.
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner, re-examination.
14 MS. KORNER: Yes. Yes I do.
15 Re-examination by Ms. Korner:
16 Q. Mr. Delic my apologies on behalf of Mr. Olmsted that you are
17 having questions from me and not from him, but unfortunately he had to
19 I want deal with some of the matters you've just been dealing
20 with and then go back to this question of your files.
21 First of all, can I ask you this: If you don't know the answer,
22 don't guess or speculate. Just say you don't know the answer. It's much
23 simpler that way.
24 You were shown, first of all, a document, P118, and you were
25 asked whether it was right from looking at that document as to whether
1 the municipal assembly issued orders to the police and the military, and
2 you said it appeared that way.
3 Do you know from your own knowledge whether the municipal
4 assembly was giving orders to the police or the military?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. All right. Next, you were asked about the incident when a number
7 of Muslims who had been transported from Betonirka in Sanski Most to
8 Manjaca died of suffocation in the truck. And you were asked whether
9 you'd heard about it, and if you had, whether you would have
11 Do you know where Manjaca is?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Is that in the municipality of Banja Luka?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Under whose authority would an investigation into deaths in
16 Banja Luka come?
17 A. Under the authority of the basic public prosecutor in Banja Luka.
18 Q. Would you have had any authority to take part in an investigation
19 in the Banja Luka municipality?
20 A. No.
21 Q. All right. Now, next, you were asked about your -- the secretary
22 who had worked for you in the court, a Muslim lady, who you had heard had
23 been taken to the sports hall. And you made inquiries and discovered
24 that she may have gone there because the civilian population from Mahala
25 was being moved out; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you ever see her again?
3 A. I saw her after the war.
4 Q. All right. But after she'd been taken to the sports hall and
5 after the war -- and when you saw her again after the war, did you see
7 A. Yes, in the court-house at Sanski Most.
8 Q. Sorry. She went to the sports hall. Then she came back to the
9 court-house, did she?
10 A. Yes, after the war. The woman still works at the court in
11 Sanski Most.
12 Q. Yes. Sorry, going back to 1992, she goes to the sports hall, you
13 make inquiries. Do you see her between then and -- and until she
14 returned to the court-house after the war?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Was there any reason that you could see why she shouldn't return
17 to work at the court-house, in 1992?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you make any attempts to see her while she was in the sports
20 hall, to find out what was going on?
21 A. No, I didn't.
22 Q. And why was that?
23 A. Well, I never went to that part of town at the time.
24 Q. When you saw her after the war, did you ask her whether she'd
25 gone voluntarily to the sports hall?
1 A. We didn't speak about those events.
2 Q. So she never explained to you what had -- what had happened to
4 A. No.
5 Q. And you never asked?
6 A. No.
7 Q. All right. Now, let's go back, if we may, to some of the matters
8 that you were asked about by Mr. Cvijetic.
9 Now, first of all, yesterday were asked about the conditions in
10 Sanski Most in the period of the summer.
11 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour, I'm just trying to find the page
12 of the transcript. It's page 36 of yesterday's transcript.
13 Q. And you were asked - in fact, 35 - you were asked about
14 communication break downs and the like, whether there was enough
15 electricity, and you said: "Towards the end of May and early June, the
16 entire republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina saw the outbreak of conflicts,
17 including Sanski Most."
18 And then you said you couldn't leave the town, there were
19 frequent controls or check-points.
20 Who was manning the controls and check-points?
21 A. Members of the army of Republika Srpska in Sanski Most.
22 Q. Yes. So we're not talking about Muslim or Croat check-points
24 A. No.
25 Q. And if you'd wanted to get a pass, as the prosecutor in
1 Sanski Most, would you have been able to get one?
2 A. I probably would have. I probably would have been issued one, if
3 there had been any reason for me to travel to, say, Banja Luka.
4 Q. All right. And if there'd been a report of a killing or some
5 crime actually outside the town of Sanski Most, would you have been able
6 to attend an on-site investigation, if you had needed to?
7 A. If it was necessary to carry out an on-site investigation, then I
8 usually went in a police vehicle. The police would take me and the
9 investigating judge concerned to the scene of crime, to undertake that
11 Q. Right. Now, you were asked also about statistics for the solving
12 of crimes, which was page 91 of yesterday's transcript -- page 90 to 91,
13 about the percentage of crimes discovered and detection about 50 per cent
14 in 2007 and 2008.
15 And you were asked:
16 "Did you compare that with European averages?"
17 And you said:
18 "I don't have those statistics?"
19 You were asked for a ballpark figure, would it differ a lot from
20 the percentage that we have.
21 And you said:
22 "I believe the situation is more or less the same."
23 Do you have the faintest idea, Mr. Delic, what European
24 statistics, if they exist, say about what percentage of crimes are
1 A. I don't have any information on European statistics.
2 Q. All right. As I say, if you can just be good enough not to guess
3 or speculate.
4 Now, next, I want to deal with the military versus the civilian
5 court jurisdiction that you were asked about. Under the old Socialist
6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Criminal Code, did civilian courts have
7 jurisdiction over matters such as crimes against humanity and other
8 crimes related to war?
9 A. I don't think there were any such proceedings in the former
11 Q. No, I'm not asking whether they actually took place, because I
12 agree, it's unlikely given there wasn't a conflict.
13 I'm just asking about the -- the Criminal Code. If you don't
14 know the answer, Mr. Delic, then say so.
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. All right. Well, do you know the answer to this: Whether a
17 military or a civilian court had jurisdiction over a crime, was that
18 something that would be decided prior to the trial, by whichever court
19 was seized of the complaint?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So if a complaint was made to a civilian prosecutor, and after
22 the full investigation had been carried out it turned out that it came
23 within military jurisdiction, would the authority still remain with the
24 civilian prosecutor until such time as the court had ruled that it came
25 under military jurisdiction?
1 A. In such a case, the prosecutor would hand over the case to the
2 military prosecutor's office, if he believed they were the competent
4 Q. So would that be before -- would that after the investigating
5 judge had come on -- on the scene, or before?
6 A. That could take place at any stage of the procedure in -- during
7 which there may be a question of jurisdiction or competence. The organ
8 that believed itself not to be competent to process the case was under an
9 obligation to forward the case to the competent body for which it
10 believed was supposed to be in charge.
11 Q. And in order for -- for example, if a complaint was -- came to
12 your office, for you to decide this came within the competence of the
13 military prosecutor, what information would you need?
14 A. I would need to know whether the person reported was an army
15 member, whether that person had been mobilized to an army unit.
16 Q. So you would have to have a perpetrator, would you? You would
17 have to have an alleged perpetrator?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if the perpetrator's unknown?
20 A. Then we don't know under whose jurisdiction the case fell. In
21 any case, in such cases, I ordered the police to do their work on
22 discovering the perpetrator.
23 Q. Right. And, finally, this, on this aspect, if a case which was
24 initially reported to you turned out to come within military court
25 jurisdiction, would those complaints still be recorded in the KT book?
1 A. If the criminal report was submitted by the police to my
2 prosecutor's office, then, yes, it would be registered in the KT
4 Q. And if it was then transferred because, after investigation, it
5 was determined that it came within the military court jurisdiction, would
6 that be recorded in the KT book?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I want to move, as a discrete topic,
10 to the unknown perpetrator cases which will take me a bit more than five
11 minutes. I know it's a bit early, but I wonder if that would be a
12 suitable time to break.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.41 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 2.48 p.m.
16 MS. KORNER: Before the witness comes in, Your Honours said you
17 were about going to render your decision.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I was about to say that before you resume your
19 cross-examination --
20 MS. KORNER: Yes.
21 JUDGE HALL: -- we would do that.
22 And this is on the issue of whether the witness, Dorothea Hanson,
23 should be accepted by the Chamber in this trial as an expert witness.
24 And the decision of the Chamber is that she should be so accepted as an
25 expert. But the -- having been so deemed by the Chamber, it doesn't
1 necessarily follow that her report is accepted as a matter of evidence in
2 its entirety.
3 So once she would have been tendered as a witness, what of her
4 report would remain for the proper consideration of the Chamber would be
5 revealed at the end of the usual process of examination and
7 Thank you.
8 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I simply -- is that the end
9 of Your Honours ruling?
10 JUDGE HALL: It was intended to be.
11 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I'm really sorry and, it's I'm
12 sure entirely my fault, I don't understand that.
13 The idea was that her report would be put in and she would be
14 asked some supplementary questions, effectively as Dr. Donia was, to
15 highlight some of the aspects of the report.
16 Now you say that it does apply --
17 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... if I may interrupt you
18 here, Ms. Korner, perhaps I was too economical in my use of words.
19 She comes in and her report is tendered. What is made of the
20 report, because it purports to be the report of an expert and therefore
21 there are a number of - and this goes to the point that the Defence has
22 taken - such issues as they would wish to raise would be -- and this is
23 what I meant where I talk about the ordinary process of examination, and
24 I really should underline cross-examination, would indicate what the
25 Chamber would have to address its mind to as to how much of that report
1 is properly acceptable as being within the confines of her area of
3 I trust that that assists.
4 MS. KORNER: Um, Your Honour, she's either an expert or she's not
5 an expert. If Your Honours feel that some parts of her report deal with
6 areas which are beyond her area of expertise, then I think in all
7 fairness Your Honours should indicate that before we call the witness, as
8 opposed to us guessing in the dark as to what parts of the report you
9 think reflect her expertise and those that do not.
10 So, Your Honours, with the greatest of respect, I don't think we
11 can proceed on this basis. Not without wasting a great deal of time. We
12 have to know exactly in your judgement, whether it's oral or written, it
13 doesn't make any difference, you feel that the reports forth out --
14 without her expert -- area of expertise.
15 JUDGE HALL: I would have thought that it would be a more
16 efficient use much time, her report having been put in, and we don't --
17 unless we assume that the Prosecution tends to rely on her report in its
18 entirety, we expect that the -- we would be guided by the Prosecution as
19 to what of her report, how much of her report they're relying on. But
20 the -- the practical challenge of having to dissect that report, as I
21 understand what you have just said would you propose would, be a -- to my
22 mind, not the most efficient use of the Court's time or counsel's time.
23 We, the -- the reservations which the Defence have made by their
24 motion is something which would be obviously fleshed out in the course of
25 cross-examination, and, at the end of the day, whatever conclusions Ms.
1 Hanson or any other expert would have purported to make would not be
2 something that the Chamber need necessarily take on board. Its
3 conclusions at the end of the day, as with every other witness, are a
4 matter for the Chamber.
5 MS. KORNER: I certainly understand it, Your Honour. But the
6 answer to Your Honour's question is, do we rely on her whole report, yes
7 we do. And that's why we've understood from the beginning that the
8 report would go in and we would not have to, as it were, deal, lead the
9 evidence of what's in the report and how she came to those conclusions.
10 All we'd have to do, as we understood the ruling so far in respect of
11 experts, is just flesh it out.
12 Anyhow, I mean, Your Honours, as I say, it's my feeling that the
13 next question is, given Mr. Zecevic's assertion that he proposes to
14 appeal, where does that leave us for, let's say tomorrow afternoon and
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, as I read the rule, the Chamber may
17 decide whether she's an expert or not. On this question, the Chamber has
18 deliberated and ruled. She is qualified as an expert.
19 The next question is what to do then with her report. You will
20 bring it under Rule 94 bis as an expert report and it is then for the
21 Defence to challenge. If by the end of the challenge raised by the
22 Defence, the Chamber finds that there is really nothing of substantive
23 value in this report, just as an example, then, of course, the Chamber
24 has to be free to say that we will not admit the report, or at least not
25 all of it.
1 MS. KORNER: I think that's a question of a voir dire then;
2 although, it's a slightly odd way of proceeding because you're the judges
3 both of the voir dire and in the -- and as judges of fact. But the way
4 to deal with that if there was a challenge to an expert or that part of
5 an expert's report that, as to whether or not -- in effect I think
6 Your Honours are saying that she may or may not be an expert at the end
7 of cross-examination. That would be dealt with before the evidence is
8 given in the trial.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: No. Again, she is admitted as an expert, and
10 this means that she will be allowed to make inferences and to enjoy the
11 normal rights of -- of providing evidence that applies to -- to experts.
12 So you may put questions to her and so may the Defence, which
13 will allow her to make inferences and present them to the Court. But
14 that is her oral evidence. This does not necessarily and certainly not
15 according to the Rule, nor the practice in the Popovic Appeals Chamber
16 decision, does not necessarily imply that her report has to come in as --
17 as an evidence, or all of it. It remains for the Defence who have
18 already challenged the report in writing, to continue their challenge
19 during her -- during the cross-examination of Mrs. Hanson, and then we
20 will make a ruling at the end of that.
21 MS. KORNER: Well, I hear what Your Honours say on that matter.
22 I will leave it to Mr. Zecevic, if he has anything to say.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, would it help, to understand the
24 ruling, if I said that in the Trial Chamber's view we don't even have to
25 read the report before deciding whether we accept her as an expert or
2 MS. KORNER: Yes. Because you're looking at her as Mr. Hannis
3 argued, it's whether she is by nature of her studies and experience
4 qualified to be called an expert.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think that's what we decided, yes, so nothing
7 MS. KORNER: Right. Well, thank you, Your Honours.
8 So I can take it answer that Your Honours are expecting her to
9 begin her evidence tomorrow, or Thursday, whenever we get to it.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Absolutely.
11 JUDGE HALL: Can we have the witness [Microphone not activated].
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 [Prosecution counsel confer]
14 MS. KORNER: May I just ask, are we going to get a written ruling
15 on this as well, or is this -- the oral ruling is going to be the only
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, a written ruling would for the
19 purpose of the appeal, I suppose, and you could probably do that without
20 having a written order so ...
21 MS. KORNER: We're not -- I'm not seeking to appeal. I'm just
22 wondering whether there's going be a ruling with reasons.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: We have given the reasons and unless we are
24 required or asked specifically to provide a written ruling, which we
25 would do, then we would not -- we would -- we would given written ruling
1 if we are so asked or required by the parties, but if none of the parties
2 wish to see a written ruling, we would prefer not to do so.
3 MS. KORNER:
4 Q. Mr. Delic, I'm sorry, you've been kept waiting slightly.
5 There's one other matter that I should have ask you before I look
6 at the unknown perpetrator cases with you again. And that's this: You
7 told Mr. Cvijetic yesterday that - forgive me, on the page - yes. He put
8 it to you yesterday at page 73 that he was going to ask you whether you
9 agreed with him and he said:
10 "I honestly admit at the moment I can't compare that with your
11 log-book. But in principle, do you agree with me that most of the
12 criminal reports and crimes, as well as perpetrators, were processed by
13 the military organs; is that correct?"
14 And your reply was:
15 "It's very difficult to compare without the data, but it does
16 appear that they were dealing with a number of cases."
17 Now, it may be clear from that answer, but are you able to offer
18 any proper comparison with the number of cases that were dealt with by
19 your office and the numbers which were processed by the military
21 A. No, I don't have that information.
22 Q. All right. Now next, as I say, the unknown perpetrator cases,
23 which you have been shown a number of these by the Defence. And you
24 haven't had an opportunity - because we haven't got the book at the
25 moment - to look at the book that contains the records of these cases.
1 Can you just confirm - I think you have - that there is a book
2 that contains the list of the complaints, where the perpetrators were
4 A. Yes. In the basic prosecutor's office in Sanski Most, there was
5 a register with all the criminal reports against unknown perpetrators.
6 That register, as well as the other registers after the 10th of October,
7 1995 -- or, rather, before that date, they were on -- in the office of
8 the prosecutor. After that date, I have no idea as to the fate of those
10 Q. Don't worry about that. That's our responsibility.
11 All right. Looking through the case files, as you have with --
12 as you did last night and you have with Mr. Pantelic largely this
13 morning, is this right, they typically consist from what we've seen of an
14 on-site investigation report; is that right? I'm going to list the
15 documents. I just want to check that with you.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then there's a letter from you, instructing the police to conduct
18 an investigation and to file a criminal report.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And, finally, a criminal report by the police which says they
21 couldn't identify the perpetrator.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now if there was a thorough investigation carried out, what other
24 documents would be expect to find in these files?
25 A. I would expect to find Official Notes on any interviews conducted
1 with potential witnesses or people who may have any type of information
2 in relation to the incident.
3 Q. What about forensic evidence? Would you expect to find that in
4 these files, even though they were unknown perpetrators? Scientific
6 A. If there were such pre-trial measures, such as searches of
7 apartments or premises, and in case some weapons were seized for which it
8 was suspected may have been used in the commission of the crime, in that
9 case, forensic testing would be done, in order to compare the spent
10 cartridges found on the scene with additional cartridges fired from that
11 weapon. In that case, that could be used as evidence to prove that the
12 person to whom the weapon belonged is actually the perpetrator of the
13 crime, in case that those cartridges exhibited the same characteristics.
14 Q. Right. So it would include -- so you'd expect, would you, that
15 the file would contain a list of items taken from the scene, such as
16 spent cartridges?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What about photographs?
19 A. Yes, photographs as well, taken during an on-site investigation,
20 say, pictures of the corpse and the area where the incident took place.
21 That would also be used as evidence.
22 Q. And that's even in a case where the perpetrator is not known.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, is the job of the police done once they file an unknown
25 perpetrator criminal report?
1 A. Well, no. The police work is not done by that. If there is a
2 statute of limitations for that particular crime, they are duty-bound do
3 keep searching for the perpetrators of that crime until such date.
4 Q. All right. Now, if a perpetrator was discovered for something
5 that had been originally logged in the unknown perpetrators' book, would
6 it be transferred from that book to the known perpetrators' book?
7 A. Yes. In the log-book of unknown perpetrators, it would be stated
8 that the case was resolved; and in the log-book of known perpetrators,
9 there would be a reference provided, pointing back to the log-book of
10 unknown perpetrators. There would be a link and there would be a
11 statement showing that that particular case is closed.
12 Q. All right. Now if you can't answer this, do say so straight
14 Do you know how many of the unknown perpetrator cases of which
15 we've looked at, presumably only some in detail, were actually resolved
16 either in 1992 or later, whilst you were still at Sanski Most? In other
17 words, perpetrators were identified.
18 A. I don't know what the figure may have been.
19 Q. Well, were any?
20 A. Probably. But without being able to look at the log-books, I
21 can't say.
22 Q. All right. Now, you mentioned that conditions were bad in
23 Sanski Most between June and -- and August -- until between June and
24 August of 1992. Did conditions improve after that?
25 A. Well, somewhat, perhaps. But throughout 1992 and 1993, generally
1 speaking, the situation was bad.
2 Q. All right. Well, can I ask you this: After August of 1992, are
3 you aware of the police going back to try and solve any of these unknown
4 perpetrator cases, where the victims were either Croats or Muslims?
5 A. I don't have that data. I presume that they worked on those
7 Q. Well, don't presume. If you don't have the data, you don't have
8 the data. All right?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Now I just want to ask you a couple of questions about three of
11 the files, in fact five in all, that you were asked about in
13 The first one is the one that was marked 2D03-0094.
14 And you will -- I think you have got the file in front of you,
15 still, have you? I don't know where it is it in your file but ...
16 I don't know how we're going to get this up on the screen because
17 I don't know how it was being brought up ...
18 Was yours -- sorry? Yeah.
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MS. KORNER:
21 Q. Sir, can you find -- it's the one -- it should be the date of
22 the -- the folder, or the file, is the 23rd of February, 1993. I don't
23 know if those are in order. So if you've got a file there. I think
24 they're in date order.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] oh, I see. Index tab 5.
2 Q. Can you find that there, sir, in your file? The thing you got
4 A. I have the criminal report on the screen.
5 Q. Yes, but I need you to have the whole thing open, the whole file,
6 please, that you were given. It's one that has a photograph in it of
7 a -- an identity card belonging to somebody called Nedjeljko something or
9 All right. Just confirm: This is an unknown perpetrator, is it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Does it contain, however, some kind of a record of a confession
12 made in 1993? I'm going to have ask you to just tell us very -- by
13 having another look at it; and, if so, by whom.
14 A. Attached to the criminal report there was a -- an Official Note
15 of an interview that was done with the Simas Salkic [phoen] who was the
16 spouse of the deceased.
17 Q. No, a confession by a perpetrator. Sorry, sir, it's my fault.
18 A. As far as this Official Note with the confession is concerned, I
19 cannot remember now that it was received by my office, and here I see
20 that the signature of the authorised official is missing.
21 Q. Yes. But sorry, sir, what I want to know is has somebody
22 allegedly confessed to this crime?
23 A. I'm -- I have no knowledge of this at this moment. If I could
24 take a look at the log-books from 1993, I would be able to establish
25 whether these three persons mentioned are, indeed, entered there as
2 Q. Right, okay. I think the best thing, sir, I won't trouble you
3 and we'll arrange to get this translated. I think that's probably the
4 simplest way of dealing with it.
5 All right. Next, can I ask you to look, please, at 2D03-0107,
6 which is the next document in your file, I hope, which is a report, 9th
7 of the 12th 1992, with the number on top, 00482378.
8 Is that the next document?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Right. You were asked about this, and you said that somebody
11 called -- there was mention of someone called Salko in there, a Muslim
12 name, and Mr. Pantelic put it to you that somebody pretended to be a
13 Muslim when committing this crime. Is there anything to suggest that he
14 pretended to be a Muslim?
15 A. There is the statement given by the mother of the victim. She
16 gave a statement to the police inspector and says there that the person
17 in question purportedly stated that name to her as being his own name.
18 Q. All right. But when you say "purported," do you mean she saying
19 he clearly wasn't a Muslim?
20 A. We don't know who that person was and, therefore, cannot speak
21 about ethnicity. But the statement which is part of the file shows that
22 Marija Pavicic stated that that person had said to Pero's wife Branka
23 that Salko was the one who had killed Pero. And since that person has
24 not been found, I don't know his ethnicity.
25 Q. Right, thank you. And then could you move, please, to 112. And
1 all I want to ask you about this, is you were asked -- in this case, this
2 was several suspects and you were asked was this forwarded to the
3 military. And you said: "It's possible that the police forwarded this
4 case to the military."
5 Do you actually know one way or another?
6 A. I do not.
7 Q. All right. And, finally, 0149 to 2D03-0149 which is the -- has
8 got the date on the front of the 15th of March 1993, and it's the one
9 where we had a couple of pages translated.
10 And I just wanted to see if I understand this. Is the suspect a
11 reserve police officer in this case?
12 A. Let me just find it.
13 Q. Sorry, yes. It's --
14 A. I've found it.
15 Yes, in my letter dated 8 December 1992, sent to the SJB,
16 Sanski Most, mention is made of one Zoran Miladinovic, who was a reserve
17 police officer.
18 Q. All right. Sorry. In which case, if he's the suspect, why is it
19 an unknown perpetrator?
20 A. It isn't my impression that he was a suspect. But he was the
21 person who, on that day, had contact with the person whose body was later
22 discovered. That is why I demanded that the police interview him, in
23 order to elicit possible evidence with regard to the events of that day
24 or the movements of the victim.
25 Q. All right. And does the -- does the file reveal whether the
1 police did anything?
2 A. The criminal report, which was filed against an unknown
3 perpetrator dated 15 March 1993, shows that enclosed with it, there is
4 a -- the note of an interview conducted with Zoran Miladinovic and there
5 are five or six more persons. But I don't have the content of that note
6 or -- here, so I don't know what the persons in question said.
7 Q. And this file doesn't show any further information about this
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. All right. Now I want to ask you about -- sorry, just one other,
11 and that's at Kajtez case which you were asked about by both Mr. Pantelic
12 and in more detail by Mr. Cvijetic.
13 That was a notorious case, wasn't it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Those murders that took place at Skrljevita?
16 Were you aware of what happened in this case further on? I'm
17 going to ask you to look at document, please, for a moment, which is 65
18 ter 2063.
19 Now, because these men were in fact part of the 6th Krajina
20 Brigade it was transferred to the military court. Were you aware that
21 when they appeared on the 2nd of January 1993, they were released from
23 A. I do not know this document.
24 Q. No. But I appreciate you won't have seen the document. It's
25 just a reminder, or you may not. But I'm just asking you it because
1 of -- this was so notorious, you heard that these men had been released
2 from custody by the military court?
3 A. No, I didn't hear of that. But later I learned that before the
4 district court in Banja Luka, last year or so, these two persons, Kajtez
5 and Maksimovic stood trial. And as far as I know, they were acquitted by
6 the court. And I am surprised by that, because I had the opportunity to
7 speak to my fellow prosecutor who worked with me for the district
8 prosecutor's office in Banja Luka and who was in charge of this case.
9 She even asked me some questions. She wanted me to clarify some
10 circumstances because I was present at the on-site investigation. And in
11 speaking to her, I learned that Kajtez admitted to having committed the
12 crime several times but he was also -- but there was also an eye-witness
13 who survived by chance, but allegedly that person was unable to identify
14 Kajtez as the one who had shot at him.
15 Q. Well, that was going to be my last question in the series: Were
16 you aware - and obviously you were because you'd done the on-site
17 investigation - that these men only came to trial last year in
18 Banja Luka.
19 Can I just ask you one other thing about this whole case. Could
20 you have --
21 MS. KORNER: Could we have up, please, Exhibit 65 ter 2065.
22 Q. All right. This is a document, 21st of September, 1993,
23 addressed to the military court on behalf of Kajtez, setting out his
24 military career and then his background. Apparently in the Second World
25 War, his relatives were killed by the -- it's called the Ustasha.
1 And asking the court to take this into account when he was back
2 in custody and then released again and so on. Now, were you aware that
3 the SDS, in fact President Vrkes, had written asking for leniency for
4 this man?
5 A. No, I don't know.
6 Q. All right. And finally -- thank you, Mr. Delic, that's all I'm
7 going to ask you about the unknown perps . Just one other thing about
8 the crimes on the indictment. Just so that we quite understand it, you
9 asked by Mr. Olmstead about this, you were given a copy of the indictment
10 and asked to look at the allegations of crime that are reflected in this
11 indictment which relate to Sanski Most; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And today -- I'm sorry, yesterday, again, Mr. Cvijetic said to
15 "Is there a possibility that the acts alleged in the indictment
16 were perpetrated who fall under three criteria: That they were military
17 personnel; that the acts were committed in the area of responsibility or
18 in the area of deployment of military unit; and, thirdly, that the crimes
19 were of such a nature that they had to be prosecuted by the military
20 prosecutor's office, and I'm talking about war crimes, armed rebellion,"
21 and so on, and you said is that a possibility.
22 Well, we've already been through that -- the areas of
23 responsibility. But, can we just for one moment remind ourselves of
24 what's in the indictment, when I find my own copy.
25 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour, I had it a moment ago and, of
1 course, I've left it.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MS. KORNER:
4 Q. One of the allegations against the two defendants in the
5 indictment is that prisoners kept in the SJB building were beaten during
6 and after interrogation with rifle butts, electric cables, poles, feet,
7 and fists. In some cases the beatings were so sever as to result in
8 serious injury, permanent disfigurement, and death.
9 Have you any reason to believe that those who were in charge in
10 the SJB were military personnel as opposed to police personnel?
11 A. I have no reason to believe that they were military personnel.
12 Q. All right. In the garage attached to the Betonirka factory, it's
13 right, isn't it, that's right next door to the police station?
14 A. Yes. Beside the police station, there was a concrete factory.
15 Q. All right. Numerous detainees, forced into 3 by 5 metre cells
16 with no ventilation, no toilet, no beds, no running water, eat tainted
17 food, forced to line up, beaten, et cetera, et cetera.
18 Any reason to think that that had anything to do with the
19 military, that particular prison or place of detention?
20 A. I do not know.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours I have a complaint if
22 I may.
23 I think that it would be fair to ask the witness first whether he
24 has knowledge at all about persons being imprisoned at Betonirka and
25 whether he knows anything at all about Betonirka because like this we're
1 not sure whether he knows anything about that.
2 Apart from that, I don't think that I asked the witness questions
3 about this topic.
4 MS. KORNER: Well, first, Your Honour, to deal with the last part
5 of the objection first, I read out the actual question that was asked.
6 Is there a possibility that these acts alleged in the indictment ...
7 et cetera, so, clearly a question asked.
8 As regards the second that, of course, is the point that no --
9 none of these matters were ever the subject of complaints to his office
10 and therefore that's why I'm trying to show that the question asked bears
11 no relevance to those -- the allegations in the indictment.
12 JUDGE HALL: As I understand the first part of Mr. Cvijetic's
13 objection, it is that there was -- in my words, not his, in fairness to
14 the witness, there should have been a preliminary question before you
15 asked the question you asked, dealing specifically with this site. And
16 it seems to me there is some merit in that.
17 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
18 Q. Were you aware, Mr. Delic, that people who had been -- not sure
19 what the right word is. I won't say arrested but detained were being
20 kept not only in the SJB but in the factory garage that was next to the
22 A. No.
23 Q. You never heard that at all, from anybody?
24 A. I had no knowledge about that.
25 Q. All right.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.
2 I think that in this context this question should be asked of the
3 witness, whether he knew of any persons detained at the SJB building. So
4 questions about that building, no more than that.
5 MS. KORNER:
6 Q. Did you know that people had been detained by the police, the
7 Serb police in Sanski Most, in the SJB building?
8 A. I had no information to that effect.
9 Q. So at no stage were you at the public prosecutor ever asked to
10 process anybody that had been taken to and detained in the SJB building
11 or the factory garage?
12 A. No. I received no criminal report against these persons.
13 Q. All right. You did, however, know, didn't you, that people --
14 because you told us that people were being held in the Hasan Kikic sports
16 A. No. I was speaking about the sports hall in the Narodni Front
17 neighbourhood, and the Hasan Kikic is an elementary school.
18 Q. All right. So you've never heard of anybody being detained there
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you ever wonder what had happened to Judge Adil Draganovic?
22 A. I heard that he spent sometime at Manjaca, but I don't know how
23 he got there.
24 Q. Yeah, but after he was taken from the court-house, do you know
25 where he was taken to?
1 MR. PANTELIC: I don't believe that we mentioned Mr. Draganovic
2 in our cross-examination. Maybe with next witness.
3 MS. KORNER: No.
4 MR. PANTELIC: I don't know, in the future Adil Draganovic will
6 MS. KORNER: Yes. I'm trying to explore what he is saying about
7 knowing who had been taken to these various places, and he mentioned
8 Judge Draganovic.
9 Q. Did you know where he had gone after he'd been taken from the
11 A. I never said that he was taken away from the court-house.
12 Q. I'm sorry, it's my fault then. I thought you said earlier on
13 that somebody, Mr. Vrkes and other people arrived and that the various
14 Muslims and Croats were taken. Is that right, or is that wrong?
15 A. No, no, nobody took anybody away. But there was a meeting when
16 Vlato Vrkes announced that I had been appointed prosecutor, but nobody
17 was taken away on that occasion.
18 Q. All right. Let's look at the mosques then, shall we, that are on
19 the indictment.
20 The -- well, we know, we've been told that every mosque in Sanski
21 Most, I think, was destroyed during this period. Would you agree with
22 that? And I mean the municipality, not just in the town.
23 A. I know that the mosque in down-town Sanski Most was destroyed,
24 and I saw that in some villages exclusively populated by Muslims, to
25 which we went to conduct on-site investigation there, that maybe two or
1 three more mosques were destroyed. But I don't know exactly how many
2 mosques there were in the municipalities or how many were destroyed.
3 Q. All right. You did know about the one in Mahala, didn't you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Was any criminal -- destroying a mosque, would you -- do you
6 agree, is a criminal offence?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And is this right, the Catholic church? Was there a Catholic
9 church in Sanski Most Town?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Was that also destroyed?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you ever receive any criminal reports from the police on the
14 destruction of the mosque or the Catholic church?
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. And just so we finally understand that, there were -- is this
17 right: Only seven cases recorded in the book in the whole of 1992 where
18 the allegation was that the Serbs -- a Serb had perpetrated a crime
19 against a non-Serb?
20 A. That's not for all of 1992. That's only the period from the end
21 of May --
22 Q. [Overlapping speakers] [microphone not activated]
23 A. -- up until -- that's what we found in the log-book. That's the
24 number of persons reported in the log-book.
25 Q. Yes. Thank you.
1 MS. KORNER: That's all I ask.
2 MR. PANTELIC: And if I may, Your Honour, just for the record, I
3 would kindly ask my learned friend Ms. Korner mentioned something during
4 re-direct of this witness along the lines that court in Banja Luka only
5 last year finalized the criminal procedures against Kajtez and the
6 others. Please, in future for two simple reasons avoid your ironic
7 remarks because we are short in time here. We have to be very efficient.
8 And number two, even now it is a fact of common knowledge that even now
9 after the Second World War still we have certain proceedings, not to
10 mention this particular Tribunal, or Rwanda Tribunal, or even Federal
11 Tribunal in Bosnia, so, please, it would be fair not to -- to have this
12 kind of ironic remarks.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic. And, of course, --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic and I -- I only say that the
17 Chamber expects that all counsel would conduct themselves appropriately
18 and control their inclinations.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Delic, we thank you very much for coming to
21 assist the Tribunal, and we wish you a safe passage back to your home.
22 You are now released.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the next witness will be called by
1 Mr. Demirdjian, who I should have said joined us at the afternoon
3 We haven't finished with Sanski Most by a long chalk. But
4 because of the witness problems, we're moving to Brcko.
5 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. The next witness
6 is Witness ST-34, Mr. Isak Gasi, from the municipality of Brcko. He has
7 no protective measures and I expect to be one hour with him.
8 In relation to his evidence, I could quickly introduce the fact
9 that he will be dealing with killings in Schedule B of the indictment,
10 killings at the Luka camp at the SJB building, unlawful detention,
11 torture, cruel treatment, and inhumane acts, as Schedule C and D. Again
12 at the SJB building at Luka camp. And, finally, Schedule F, attacks on
13 non-Serb parts of the town of Brcko; and Schedule G, takeover of power in
14 the municipality of Brcko. That would be the introduction, and we may
15 introduce the witness.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: Go ahead.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE HALL: Please make the solemn declaration.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 JUDGE HALL: Good afternoon to you, sir. What is your name,
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Isak Gasi.
1 JUDGE HALL: And what is your profession?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Bosnia before the war, I used to
3 be to an electrician.
4 JUDGE HALL: And in what town do you reside?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before the war it was Brcko;
6 whereas now, I reside in the United States.
7 JUDGE HALL: Your date of birth is when, sir?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 5th of April, 1957.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The 5th of May,
11 JUDGE HALL: Where were you born?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Brcko, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 JUDGE HALL: And what is your ethnicity?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Bosnian Muslim.
15 JUDGE HALL: Have you given evidence in these proceedings on a
16 previous occasion?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have. Three times.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so you would be well aware of the procedure,
19 whereby the side calling you, in this case, the Prosecution, would have
20 questions for you, followed by the lawyers representing the -- each of
21 the two accused, and after re-examination by the Prosecution, the Chamber
22 itself may have some questions of you. Thank you.
23 Thank you for coming to testify.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, counsel.
1 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 WITNESS: ISAK GASI
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Demirdjian:
5 Q. Mr. Gasi, is it correct to say that you testified in the past in
6 the Tadic case, the Milosevic case, and the Krajisnik case?
7 A. Yes. In all three cases.
8 Q. The last time you testified in the Krajisnik case, that was on
9 the 4th and 5th of February 2004.
10 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: And, Your Honours, that is the testimony we're
11 going to be relying upon for the purposes of this 92 ter witness.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Gasi, when you arrived here a few days ago were you
13 provided with your testimony, the one that you gave in the Krajisnik
15 A. Yes. You gave it to me to prepare myself. I went through the
16 whole of it.
17 Q. And when you provided your evidence back in 2004, did you answer
18 the questions as honestly and as accurately as could?
19 A. Yes, I did. To the extent of my knowledge and about things that
20 I was certain of.
21 Q. And if you were asked the same questions about the same topics,
22 would you provide the same answers before this Trial Chamber?
23 A. I probably would.
24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, I'd ask that 65 ter 1021 and 1022
25 be admitted in evidence, and these are the transcripts of his testimony
1 on the 4th and 5th of February 2004 in the Krajisnik case.
2 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P125 and P126, Your Honours.
4 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Q. Mr. Gasi, I will ask you a number of questions dealing with the
6 events in 1991 and 1992, starting with the municipality of Brcko itself.
7 Just for the purposes of the Court, it is correct to say that Brcko is a
8 municipality in the north-east part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, bordering with
9 Croatia; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, it is correct.
11 Q. Now, in your testimony in Krajisnik - and for Your Honours at
12 pages 407 - you explained that during the early months of 1992 tensions
13 were rising and that you attended a session of the Brcko Municipal
14 Assembly during which you heard discussions about the division of the
15 town of Brcko.
16 Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes, I do. It may have been April 1992.
18 Q. And do you recall roughly which part of April this was?
19 A. It is possible that it was the second week of April. Although I
20 may be mistaken as well. I think it was around that time.
21 Q. Can you tell us who attended this session of the Municipal
23 A. In attendance were those people reflecting the results of the
24 first multi-party elections in Brcko; that is to say, the representatives
25 of the three ethnic community and their parties, the HDZ, SDS, and SDA.
1 There were also certain representatives from the SDP, which was the
2 Former League of Communists party. Among other things, there was
3 discussion on any future events in Brcko and how to calm down the
4 situation. It was mentioned that a lot of people in Brcko listened to
5 different types of rumours, semi-truths, and people were basically trying
6 to gain more information during such sessions.
7 I was not an elective deputy, though, I was only there with a
8 friend of mine who was a journalist. There was speeches made by
9 delegates of different political parties. I was rather impressed seeing
10 people from the SDS jumping up, taking up of the floor. There was a
11 friend of mine who was a member of the executive board in the local SDS
12 took the floor. I think his name was Listanic [as interpreted], and it
13 was he who asked for a tripartite division of the Brcko territory on
14 behalf of his party. He wanted a part for the Muslims, another part for
15 the Croats, and a third part for the Serbs.
16 Q. I apologise for interrupting you. In the transcript at line 22,
17 page 102, it reads "Listanic." Was that the last name you meant to say?
18 A. Ristanic, Djordje Ristanic.
19 Q. And it is correct that he said, and this is in the transcripts at
20 page 407 in your Krajisnik testimony, he said the words:
21 "We will divide it or we will have problems."
22 A. Yes. He said that unless we reach an agreement on the division
23 of the Brcko municipality into three parts there would be problems which
24 will probably come about after the 4th of May. This was almost an
25 ultimatum, a threat.
1 As far as I could gather at the time, the other parties disagreed
2 with it. That is to say, the Muslim party, and the Croatian party, as
3 well as the former Communists. They simply rejected any discussion of
4 the division of the Brcko municipality.
5 Q. Now, did they explain during this meeting which parts of the town
6 the SDS wanted to be part of the Serbian Brcko?
7 A. As far as I could tell, based on the maps of the town of Brcko,
8 what they wanted to have was most of the industrial area bordering on
9 most of the Serb villages which had almost 100 percent ethnically pure
10 composition next to the town of Brcko.
11 So the divide would be along the line of the industrial zone
12 towards the centre of town, an ending at river Brka. Another line was
13 supposed to go along Potocari and the local commune of Grtica [phoen],
14 partially encompassing a part of new Brcko, and going along the middle of
15 the main road towards the post building as well as the police station
16 building, ending at Brka river.
17 So it was the whole industrial zone and almost 80 per cent of the
18 town itself. That was their proposal, and the other parties did not wish
19 to discuss that. That's why he issued the ultimatum.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Page 103, lines 16 to 19, I think the witness said
21 something different, so if my learned friend can readdress this with the
22 witness so we can have the exact words of the witness in the transcript.
23 Thank you.
24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN:
25 Q. Now, the question was did they explain during this meeting which
1 parts of the town the SDS wanted to be part of the Serbian Brcko, and the
2 answer is that based on the maps of the town of Brcko what they wanted to
3 have was most of the industrial area.
4 I will deal with this immediately. Witness, if we were to
5 provide you a map, would you be able to indicated this area?
6 A. I think I would.
7 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Could we call up 65 ter 3161. And perhaps with
8 the assistance of the usher, the witness could be provided with the magic
9 pen to mark this area on the screen.
10 The map is on the screen, I believe.
11 Q. Can you see it, Mr. Gasi?
12 A. Yes, I can.
13 Q. Now the usher will provide you a pen. And if you could mark the
14 area that the SDS was proposing to be part of the Serbian municipality of
16 A. It was supposed to start somewhere here, following through here.
17 This would be it. [In English] It would start here.
18 Q. And?
19 A. All the way.
20 Q. Could you mark that area with a number 1, the area that was
21 supposed to be part of the SDS plans. Just so we can differentiate the
22 zones. Just mark a 1 and put a circle around it.
23 A. [Marks].
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Now, Your Honours, if we could capture that
1 image. I'd like to ask that the two maps be tendered separately, the one
2 that has the marking and the one that does not have the marking as we
3 will be using the map further on.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I'd like the witness to be -- sorry.
6 THE REGISTRAR: My apologies, the clean map will become
7 Exhibit P127, and the map with markings will be Exhibit P128.
8 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you.
9 Could the witness be shown 65 ter 267.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Gasi, I'm going to show you a newspaper article from the
11 daily newspaper Oslobodjenje.
12 Do you see it on your screen?
13 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it.
14 Q. When was the first time you saw this article?
15 A. Two days ago. I was shown this article by you in your office.
16 Q. And did you have a chance to read the article?
17 A. Yes, I read it, all of it.
18 Q. Now, if we look at the third paragraph under the section called:
19 SDS Demands Division, do you see the section that talks about the
20 rightful division. It's a paragraph that begins with "Observers from the
21 European Community appealed on the reason ..."
22 Do you see that paragraph?
23 A. Yes, I was just looking at it.
24 Q. Okay. Now, do you see that section that says according to that
25 rightful division, Serbs would get all economy in Brcko, as well as
1 educational facilities, culture, traffic, PTT, hotel, barracks,
2 et cetera?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, does that fit with your recollection of the demands of the
5 SDS in 1992?
6 A. Precisely, yes, you're correct. That's it.
7 It seems that the journalist was well-informed.
8 Q. May I take you to the second column in B/C/S. And in English,
9 that is the top of the second page.
10 Now when I say second column in B/C/S, it's actually the third
11 column on that page, but it's the second column of the article. Yeah,
12 right there. Maybe a little bit lower as well.
13 Does it deal with the ethnic breakdown in the down and the
14 municipality of Brcko?
15 A. Yes. Muslims, 40 per cent; Serbs, 18.9; Croats, 25; and then
16 there are Yugoslavs and others.
17 Q. And does that reflect the ethnic break down prior to the war in
19 A. I think so, yes.
20 Q. Finally, the last item I'd like to deal with in this article is
21 at the bottom of the second column in B/C/S, and the middle of the second
22 page in English, the issue of the blowing up of the bridge on the 30th of
23 April. And I'd like to you read that section and tell us if it fits with
24 your recollection of the events in 1992.
25 A. Yes. Everything in the article is as if the person writing it
1 was on the spot. It happened exactly as described.
2 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours I'm mindful of the time that we
3 must break for the day. So before I move to another topic, if I can ask
4 this article to be admitted and we can resume tomorrow morning.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, concerning the
6 proposal to have this admitted, we already have this witness's -- or
7 another witness's statement that was admitted. He discussed the events.
8 This witness did not identify neither the article nor the author, because
9 he saw it only two days ago for the first time.
10 I believe it to be second or third-hand evidence, and, at the
11 same time, we have another witness, witness's statement on the same
12 circumstances. Therefore, I don't think the preconditions are met to
13 have this article admitted. The witness cannot identify it and has no
14 knowledge of it. It was only shown to him two days ago.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Actually, I was about to ask counsel on
16 what basis is this admissible.
17 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, this is a publically available
18 newspaper article that corroborates what this witness said in the
19 Krajisnik case. It corroborates the elements of his evidence that he
20 actually witnessed in 1992, and once again it is a publicly available
21 document that assists him in -- basically corroborating his evidence.
22 JUDGE HALL: But it's -- so far as we know, it's a -- from an
23 unknown source, an anonymous article which is the -- to use your word,
24 is -- adds nothing to what this witness is saying. It merely says the
25 same thing by some unknown, unidentified person. What is the connection?
1 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I apologise, Your Honours, for interrupting.
2 This article comes from a well-known and reputable and newspaper
3 in the region, Oslobodjenje. It has a date and is also authored by the
4 journalist, Mr. Bosanac. Now that, I believe, is sufficient to have --
5 for the question of admissibility of the document. Now, as to what
6 weight is given later on is another issue, but at this stage we have the
7 title, we have the source, we know which newspaper it comes from, and we
8 an author. And clearly from what the witness says, the author seems to
9 be well-informed or was there during those events.
10 I'm also reminded that newspaper articles are admissible under
11 the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.
12 JUDGE HALL: I think [Microphone not activated]. Yes, sorry --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour --
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, you have something to add?
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, as a matter of principle I object too. If we
16 open this avenue, then we should be covered with the newspaper articles,
17 various sources, et cetera. We have to keep in accordance with your
18 guidance, really, I would say exact standard which particular potential
19 exhibit must fulfil to be exhibited.
20 As we -- we witnessed -- as we are all witness, this afternoon
21 and this morning, very serious materials related to previous witness
22 where he was the author and go in the core of our case were in accordance
23 with the suggestions of Trial Chamber, I would say assessed in the other
25 So I strongly believe that this practice should stop with -- with
1 newspaper articles, et cetera. We know what is in newspapers and we can
2 rebut as many -- as much as possible, if it necessary.
3 Thank you so much.
4 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, there doesn't seem to be any
5 challenge to the admissibility of the document. It just seems that there
6 is a general rejection of newspaper articles, and Mr. Pantelic is saying
7 that these document have to go to the core of this case. This case --
8 this newspaper deals with takeover of the municipality of Brcko and deals
9 with the core issues in this case. I don't see what the basis is for --
10 MR. PANTELIC: You can get it from this witness, just simply ask
11 him what was his personal knowledge, and then he can give you his -- I
12 don't have any problem with that. Then he will, as eye-witness, give you
13 a testimony. If you are going along this ways we should be completely
14 blocked with a millions of -- tons of newspapers, articles, and we know
15 all what was the role of media in war, in propaganda, et cetera.
16 So what's the basis for that?
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL: Accepting the -- as you have kindly alerted me, the
19 jurisprudence of this Tribunal is that the general admissibility of
20 articles of this nature, nevertheless, in terms of the -- what this
21 article says in the context of the witness' testimony, we are of the view
22 that it adds nothing and therefore we aren't going to admit it.
23 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Much obliged --
24 JUDGE HALL: The witness has had the opportunity to read it and
25 comment on it, and his comments are a part of the record.
1 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL: And it is five minutes -- six minutes past the time
3 of adjournment. So we resume at --
4 MS. KORNER: I do have a further question, and that's this.
5 We're obviously delayed. Mr. Delic took a lot longer than anticipated.
6 Can I ask what Your Honours would intend to happen if Ms. Hanson
7 does not complete her evidence on Thursday, lunch-time, because we've got
8 two witnesses who are the subject of witness summonses fixed for next
9 week, Tuesday, the 27th, and Thursday, the 29th.
10 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, we try to, as we often council counsel,
11 not to anticipate. Today is Tuesday afternoon. It's your witness. You
12 will you assess what the situation is at some point on Thursday.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, do I understand your question to be
15 whether, as it appears, it may be necessary to use the -- that reserved
16 extended sitting on Thursday. Is that what are you asking? Or are you
17 talking about beyond Thursday?
18 MS. KORNER: No, I'm talking about beyond Thursday. Mr. Zecevic
19 estimates his cross-examination will take six to seven hours, and I think
20 Mr. Pantelic is about a couple of hours.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, we're in your hands.
22 MS. KORNER: Not exactly Your Honours, no, because we can say
23 well, we're go doing interrupt Ms. Hanson and you may take the view that
24 you don't want her interrupted. So to that extent, what we're simply
25 asking: At the moment we have a witness due to fly in for Monday. We
1 have two unmovable witnesses for Tuesday and Thursday, who are big
2 witnesses on the face of it.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Why don't --
4 MS. KORNER: In the event, which we anticipate is likely, that
5 Ms. Hanson will not finish testifying, even if you were to sit extended
6 on Thursday but would go into Monday, whether you would object, because
7 you are the -- the Judges who are moving this case on, if we have a then
8 a gap until the Tuesday witness.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: We would certainly avoid having gaps, and we are
10 not going to tell you in which order you must bring your witnesses. If
11 you advise the Chamber that we can avoid gaps by interrupting Mrs. Hanson
12 and then taking the two other witnesses in between and then call her
13 back, or if you want to use Mrs. Hanson to fill out any further gaps that
14 may arise later on, then I think it's basically for the Defence to
15 indicate their position about this, whether they would accept having
16 interrupted testimonies from Mrs. Hanson. The Chamber, as such, does not
17 oppose that. We are only interested in moving ahead and avoiding gaps.
18 So in the end I think if the Defence can live with it, then that's fine
19 with us.
20 I don't know if have you a position.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, not at the moment, Your Honour. We have to
22 think about it because it opens up quite a few questions. Thank you very
24 But I will inform Ms. Korner immediately.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.25 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day of
2 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.