1 Thursday, 22 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Good morning. May I have the appearances, please.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Gramsci
10 Di Fazio. I appear for the prosecution this morning together with my
11 colleague Mr. Demirdjian and our case manager Mr. Crispian Smith. Thank
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Appearing for Stanisic
14 Defence Slobodan Zecevic and Slobodan Cvijetic. Thank you.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Igor Pantelic for
16 Zupljanin Defence alone against the Three Musketeers.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, all. There are two matters we have
18 to address, two motions the Prosecution filed. The first one is filed on
19 the 19th of October requesting that ST-161 testify via video-conference
21 In view of the time needed to organise that, the Chamber
22 considers that expedited responses are necessary. Can the Defence
23 indicate right now what their positions are? Or do we give you a
24 short --
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we would appreciate if we could
1 be given until the first break and then we can -- we can give you the
2 answer. Thank you.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: That will be fine.
4 Mr. Pantelic.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. As usual, I have enormous
6 problems to deal with those code-names, so I have to check, first of all,
7 who is ST -- well, at the top of my head, I think this witness should
8 be -- should testify here viva voce.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you --
10 MR. PANTELIC: If that's the question.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: No. The question is whether there is a problem
12 about him testifying by videolink.
13 MR. PANTELIC: My preference is to have him here.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: You have a preference for that.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Then the other motion is filed on the 20th of
17 October, and it is about Witness ST-28. Protective measures are asked
18 for, and the witness is planned to testify on the 30th of October, which
19 is before the time limit for response under the rule.
20 Has the Defence a position to take right now on that matter?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Again, Your Honour, if we would be permitted until
22 the first break and immediately afterwards we will give you --
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Mr. Pantelic.
24 MR. PANTELIC: This witness is not related to our defence, so we
25 take no position with it.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
2 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, we do have a small application
3 this morning unless there's anything else to ask. Yesterday Judge
4 Harhoff requested a clarification in relation to the prosecution's notice
5 on the mode of testimony of witnesses filed on the 14th of October.
6 Having reviewed the motion and having taken a look at paragraph 6 which
7 deals with Witness ST-4, it appears to us that indeed there is a lacuna
8 in the mode of testimony that we're requesting. We are requesting half
9 an hour, and it is indeed a 92 ter witness, and as you could see in the
10 annex, we did offer a transcript of his testimony to be tendered through
11 92 ter. So that's on the last page of the Annex 92 package for Witness
12 ST-4. I hope that answers the question sufficiently.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: It does. Thank you very much.
14 MR. PANTELIC: And in the meantime, Your Honours, if I can
15 address the Chamber in relation to Witness ST-161. If at certain stage
16 you allow me to make short submissions, I would appreciate it. With
17 regard to the mode of testifying of ST-161.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Videolink. Is it that one?
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yeah, videolink.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do we need to go into private session? Do we
21 need to go into private session for this?
22 MR. PANTELIC: Not necessarily, because he is not -- I think that
23 he doesn't ask for protective measures. Is it okay? Or maybe he asked.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: I just don't know off the top of my head. If Your
1 Honours give me a moment, I can --
2 MR. PANTELIC: We can wait until the break and then --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: It might be a better idea to wait until after the
5 MR. PANTELIC: No problem. Thank you.
6 JUDGE HALL: Is the witness on his way back into court?
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 WITNESS: CVJETKO IGNJIC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, sir. I remind you that you're still
11 on your oath.
12 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]
13 Q. Good morning, Witness. I'd like to start today by showing you
14 some photographs and asking you about some places in Brcko.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be -- I'm going to ask that the
16 witness be shown 65 ter 2151 and 2149, but perhaps if we go first to
17 2149. If we can get that up on the screen.
18 Q. Do you recognise that place?
19 A. It's Laser Brcko. It's a company that owns buses for
21 Q. And do you know what part of Brcko that particular establishment
22 was located?
23 A. In the eastern part.
24 Q. And -- thank you.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: And I seek to tender that map. Sorry, that
1 photograph. My apologies.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P147, Your Honours.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks, and if we could just have another
5 photograph now. That's 2151.
6 Q. Do you recognise that place?
7 A. That's also Laser.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I seek to tender that photograph into
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P148, Your Honours.
12 MR. DI FAZIO:
13 Q. About how far from the centre of town was that place, Laser Bus
15 A. One and a half kilometres or two. Actually, it's more -- more
16 towards two than one now.
17 Q. Thank you. And I now want to show you two other photographs.
18 The first is 65 ter 2160.
19 Do you recognise that place?
20 A. It's the Partizan gymnasium.
21 Q. Than you. Was it sometimes or occasionally shown as Partizan
22 Sports Hall?
23 A. I think so.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: I seek to tender that photograph.
1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P149, Your Honours.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks. And if we could get 2159 up on the
4 screen, please.
5 Q. You see the building with the white roof about centre of the
7 A. That's -- that's Partizan view from above. That's the local
8 house of culture and the hotel and the Partizan building. It's in the
9 centre of town.
10 Q. Is it? Right. Could you, please --
11 MR. DI FAZIO: If I could seek the assistance of the usher so the
12 photograph could be marked.
13 Q. You can touch the screen with a special pen that will be given to
14 you. Could you just draw a close circle around the building you've just
15 spoken about.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Thank you. And perhaps you could just write the letter P in the
18 centre to indicate Partizan Sports Hall?
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Thank you. And while you've got the pen there. I think you
21 mentioned in your evidence that that was the centre of town. From -- in
22 this photo, is the Posavina Hotel visible or not, and --
23 A. No. This is the Jelena Hotel to the right and Posavina would be
24 to the left, but it can't be seen in the photograph.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you for that information. And secondly, is the SJB
1 building visible in that photograph, the police station, or part of it?
2 A. No.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I seek to tender that
4 into evidence.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P150, Your Honours.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: And can the witness be shown now the map that was
8 used yesterday, P127.
9 Q. Witness, I'm going to show you a map of Brcko.
10 A. Mm-hmm.
11 Q. And that's the map of Brcko. Could -- looking at the map, could
12 you -- is it possible -- is it on the map, first of all? Is it possible
13 to locate the -- where Partizan Sports Hall is, or the Partizan Cultural
15 A. It will be difficult because this is a rough map, but I'll try.
16 Q. Yes. Perhaps if we can zoom in just a bit. I'm told that's
17 necessary before markings can occur.
18 A. Down, down. Sava
19 point at it?
20 Q. You can use the pen again. Perhaps if you -- you once again
21 write a smaller P to indicate the position of -- of Partizan Sports Hall.
22 A. What ... Posavina entrance here. Hereabouts.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. This is not a detailed map. I -- I can show the Posavina.
25 Q. No, that's okay. Thank you. Can you just put the letter P next
1 to that to indicate Partizan Hotel -- Sports Hall, rather.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. Thank you. And the Laser Bus Company, is the location of the
4 Laser Bus Company also visible on that map?
5 A. Yes. If we can raise the map. Can we go up?
6 Q. Yes. If we can just go up a bit.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm informed that I have to tender this before I
8 can proceed to get another image marked. I'm sorry about that. Can I
9 tend this, and can it be given an exhibit number, please?
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P151, Your Honours.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
13 Q. Now, the next location, if you can mark it, is the Laser Bus
15 A. The other way. More. Enough. Can I mark it or circle it?
17 Q. Thanks. And can you put a -- write the letter L next to it so
18 that we know that's the Laser Bus Company?
19 A. Just a moment. I made a mistake. I think that this is Bimeks
20 and that Laser is further down. I think this one is Laser and the other
21 one is Bimeks. This is Laser.
22 Q. And mark it with L so that we know in future that's the Laser Bus
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Thank you. The witness has marked it with two letter L's, and I
1 seek to tender that document -- that map into evidence, please.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P152, Your Honours.
4 MR. DI FAZIO:
5 Q. And finally on this issue, how far --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, would you like to have Bimeks
7 indicated as well while we're there?
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, that's a good idea. Perhaps we could have
9 another -- if you could also get a new map so we can make a new exhibit.
10 Q. And can you indicate the Bimeks -- the Bimeks factory, please.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if it can be done on the previous one, I'm
12 happy for it to be done on the previous one as well.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: That was my attempt, but it is too late.
14 MR. DI FAZIO:
15 Q. Well, perhaps if we could -- if we could ask the witness to mark
16 on this particular map the Bimeks factory.
17 A. Bimeks has several facilities. This part here is a farm, and
18 another facility is over there. There are a total of five facilities, I
19 believe, because Bimeks was not located in one place only. Here right by
20 Laser the large black mass here on the map is the place where the cattle
21 was fed. I'm not sure what they were feeding there. And toward the Sava
22 River there were the refrigerating facilities, meat processing.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours, please, in light of that
24 evidence that there are five locations around Brcko, I don't propose to
25 carry this any further. Thank you very much.
1 Q. One last question on these two establishments that I've been
2 asking you about. How far was the Partizan Sports Hall from the police
4 A. Two hundred metres. Maybe less. Hundred and fifty to 200.
5 Q. Thank you for that.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness now be shown 65 ter 33, please.
7 Thank you.
8 Q. Witness, if you could just have a moment to have a look at the
9 B/C/S. I'm going to ask you a few questions about this document, which
10 is a military document. Just to assist you, it's a document dated
11 29 September 1992
12 organ to the VRS Main Staff. It's an extraordinary report.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: What I see on my screen is something that appears
16 to be from the Brcko police station. Is that the same document?
17 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, my apologies. Both documents I had
18 this morning had 3s in it, and I got confused. I do -- it was my
20 Q. The document that you correctly have in front of you is a
21 document dated [sic]: "Information on the strength, deployment and other
22 activities of the police station," and the author is a gentleman named
23 Petar Djokic, and he was one of the commanders of the police station; is
24 that right? Petar Djokic.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I don't want to go through the document in any great detail. It
2 speaks for itself. It -- it indicates that as at the 8th of June, the
3 police station had various numbers of policemen carrying out various
4 numbers of different types of duties. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And it says that patrol functions were being carried out in a
7 regular way. There was regular service, a patrol service, securing the
8 facilities, rapid reaction service and duty service. Do you see that?
9 It's about the third paragraph, about the third or fourth paragraph down.
10 A. Yes, yes, I can see it.
11 Q. And Commander Djokic goes on to say that the work is -- regular
12 service is organised in nine sections with three eight-hour shifts, and
13 that the sections cover the whole territory of the town which is
14 liberated by now. Do you see that, that particular sentence?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. That would indicate the police were patrolling the entire town,
17 wouldn't it? And that the entire town had been secured. Is that
19 A. I don't know exactly how the police went about their business.
20 They were another organisational unit. How they function, especially at
21 that time, I believe I cannot tell. The criminal police is separate from
22 the regular police. They have their departments and sections, and
23 there's a process of reporting in place, and I don't have knowledge about
25 Q. Very well. I can understand that, and thank you for explaining
1 that, but in terms of control, actual simple control, is what this
2 document claims, that on the 8th of June, 1992, the whole town was being
3 covered by police patrols? Did you actually observe anything to that
5 A. I don't know. The area may have been covered, but poorly.
6 Q. Thank you. And one thing is -- to -- tell me if this is correct:
7 The commander who wrote this particular document, Petar Djokic. He would
8 be in a good position to know, wouldn't he, if the -- if the town was
9 indeed being covered by -- the entire town was being covered by police
11 A. Your Honours --
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The witness has asked to make
13 assumptions, whether or not Petar Djokic should know this or that. Can
14 the witness answer that question or such a question at all, especially
15 with regard to the fact that he belonged to another organisational unit
16 and that he knows next to nothing about the way the police went about
17 their work? So this witness was only involved in forensic activities.
18 So he can only make assumptions if asked to do so.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours --
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And he has already replied that it
21 may be assumed that the area was covered, but if so, poorly. He said
22 something like that.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: And my reply is this: He's a police officer of
24 long-standing experience. He had been in the police since -- had been in
25 the police for many years before 1992. He's able to comment on the
1 police structure, police personalities, and demarcation of areas of
2 responsibility of police. So it would seem to me that he's in as good a
3 position as anybody to comment on the ability of a police commander to
4 accurately -- police commander to have access to information that would
5 allow him to produce this sort of document.
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, I confess that I am -- I expected the
7 objection to come much sooner in terms of this line of questions, but
8 don't you come hard up against the rule against asking a witness on the
9 stand to comment on the evidence of another witness? Isn't that the --
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I think I -- my best strategy here is to simply
11 not ask the question now. I'll withdraw the question and rely on the
12 document itself and what it says on the face of the document. It's the
13 best way to go about it. So I will withdraw my question, and I will seek
14 to tender the document into evidence.
15 JUDGE HALL: At some point.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, my primary application is to seek to tender
17 it into evidence now. The witness has commented on the document. It
18 has -- it's been apparently signed by the police commander himself, and
19 in my submission it's admissible as is with that --
20 JUDGE HALL: Through this witness?
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Through this witness. If Your Honours please, the
22 Prosecution's position is that a document in this jurisdiction doesn't
23 necessarily become inadmissible because the author was not called to
24 comment upon it.
25 JUDGE HALL: I understand that. It's just that the -- I'm not
1 sure I see the nexus between this witness and the document.
2 Mr. Zecevic -- Cvijetic.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you have anticipated
4 my objections. This is exactly what I wanted to say. This witness knows
5 practically nothing about this document. We cannot check with him even
6 whether the author of this document is indeed Petar Djokic, you see, and
7 you have already anticipated what my objection will be. So I only ask
8 you to adhere to your practice so far, and the tendering of documents in
9 this way through witnesses who know nothing about them should be --
10 should not be allowed.
11 JUDGE HALL: Well, Mr. Cvijetic, I apologise for calling you
12 Mr. Zecevic. It's the second day I've made that error. Thank you.
13 Mr. Di Fazio, the -- I suppose that the -- there could be no
14 objection to the document being marked for identification, but I have
15 grave reservations as to it being tendered as an exhibit at this point.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I understand that, if Your Honours please.
17 Perhaps we can leave it in this fashion so that we can get on with the
18 evidence: My primary -- for the record, my primary application is to
19 tender it fully into evidence. If Your Honours are against me, then of
20 course it should at least be marked for identification at this stage.
21 And this issue of the means -- or the methods of admissibility of
22 documents in this type of class is a matter that we can address the Trial
23 Chamber on perhaps at a later stage. Ms. Korner may have submissions to
24 make to you about that. But for the moment, I'm content that we mark it
25 for identification and we proceed as far as we can with this witness, and
1 this issue, I think, will have to be revisited at a later stage, but for
2 my purposes --
3 JUDGE HALL: So we mark it.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P153 marked for identification,
5 Your Honours.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
7 Q. You know a place called Luka, Luka, which is in Brcko?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It's on the -- it's on the river, I believe.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you ever go there in -- after May --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber approximately when you went there
14 and for what reason?
15 A. I can't remember, but someone gave me an envelope to take to a
16 man at Luka. I gave it to that man and returned. I was at Luka for
17 20 seconds. It may have been around the 4th, 5th, 6th of May. It was
18 the beginning of May anyway.
19 Q. Were there prisoners there?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I know I've heard you that you were only there for a short period
22 of time. In that short period of time did you manage to see them or look
23 at them?
24 A. I saw people, but I didn't recognise anyone. I tried hard to
25 look away because I was ashamed, and I feared that I might see somebody I
2 Q. And the -- one last question on this visit. Do you know who gave
3 you the envelope?
4 A. I can't remember.
5 Q. Do you -- okay. Can you tell us this: Was it on -- were you on
6 official police business, or was it a personal matter you were attending
8 A. No. I worked as a crime technician, and I suppose it was one of
9 the supervisors who told me to take that envelope to Luka, and I
10 delivered it to some people at the office over there, and I didn't know
11 those people who were there.
12 Q. Fine. And finally, just to be absolutely sure, when you talk
13 about a supervisor, you're referring to someone in the SUP?
14 A. I don't understand. What do you mean?
15 Q. The supervisor who asked you to take the envelope to Luka, was
16 that person a supervisor within the SUP?
17 A. Yes, yes, from the SUP.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. I think so. He must have been from the SUP.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness now be shown 354, 65 ter 354.
22 Now, this is the document that I mistakenly referred to earlier,
23 if Your Honours please.
24 Q. Witness, again to acquaint you with it, it's dated 29 September
25 1992. It's from the Eastern Bosnia Corps Command to the VRS Main Staff,
1 an extraordinary report, and the author, who is a gentleman named -- who
2 is Captain First Class Simeun Cuturic [phoen] says that the Eastern
3 Bosnia Corps Command gathered the following information. And in the --
4 if you just have a look at the first paragraph, you don't have to read it
5 out to yourself, but just have a look at the first paragraph and read
6 through it. I just want to ask you some questions about the content.
7 Okay. Thank you. My first question is -- is this: The -- this
8 report says that after both bridges of the Sava had been destroyed in
9 Brcko, the town was flooded with individuals who claimed to be patriots
10 and devoted to Serbianism, but instead engaged in robberies, rapes, and
11 murders for no justified reason. Did you observe any of that behaviour
12 in Brcko?
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, an objection. I
14 want to have it on the record. Again a document is being shown to the
15 witness and portions be read out without asking the witness first whether
16 he knows anything at all about the document. I believe it would be only
17 fair to ask the witness, and this is what I intend to do in
18 cross-examination, to use his own words to describe the events in Brcko
19 during the critical period. Here we have a description of events drafted
20 by others. First we saw a police report. Now we have a military report.
21 He should be asked whether he knows anything about the report, about the
22 author, or whether he knows anything in terms of the contents. I cannot
23 but object, sorry.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: That's precisely what I'm doing.
25 JUDGE HALL: Isn't your objection a -- aren't you confusing the
1 facts or the events on which counsel is examining the witness with the
2 fact that the background happened to be in a report? I'm not sure I see
3 the basis of the objection.
4 Counsel is asking about events. The context is this report which
5 is available.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, then it's very simple
7 to ask a question of the witness the way I wanted. "Do you know this and
8 that from that period or not?" We don't need a document that he's
9 unfamiliar with. It is enough to ask him the way you put it. We agree
10 in essence. I simply object to the way that this is being sought from
11 the witness.
12 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
14 Q. The document refers to a flood of different patriotically
15 orientated individuals devoted to Serbianism, but in fact use that as an
16 excuse to carry out robberies, rapes, and murders. Did you observe any
17 such behaviour in -- after May, after the beginning of May in Brcko?
18 A. Yes. There was a lot of crime. And criminals too.
19 Q. But an influx of -- was that related to an influx of people who
20 were -- who claimed to be patriotically orientated and devoted to
21 Serbianism? If you don't know, say so. I'm not inviting you to
22 speculate, but if you do know, please tell us.
23 A. I had no dealings with them, and I don't know what it was that
24 they asserted, but I can't deny that there was crime and lots of
25 criminals about the town.
1 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you if you know any of the individuals
2 referred to here. And when I say "know," I mean, do you know them
3 personally, or had you met them, or do you know about them? And first of
4 all, Mauzer. Had you ever heard of him?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How did you come to hear about him?
7 A. There was a unit from Bijeljina commanded by Savic. I don't know
8 exactly. I never met the person. I didn't know him. I only heard about
10 Q. Savic, is that Mauzer?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thanks. And what about this other gentleman, Major Gavrilovic?
13 Had you heard of him?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And the -- the radical Chetnik Mirko Blagojevic and his associate
16 from Brcko, Mile Gatarevic. Did you know of them or meet them or have
17 information about them?
18 A. I had no dealings with them. I know, though that, this
19 Blagojevic person is a member of a Radical Party. I don't know anything
20 about their activities though.
21 Q. Thank you. And finally from that paragraph there's -- the last
22 sentence says that somebody, somebody named Zika Ivanovic, also known as
23 Crnogorac, prepared documentation on these events, and the author
24 believes that documentation -- that that documentation was at the Brcko
25 police station, and my question is first, do you know -- have you ever
1 heard of Zika Ivanovic, also known as Crnogorac?
2 A. Yes, I heard of it.
3 Q. And who is he? Was he a police officer or a military man or one
4 of these groups that came in?
5 A. There was a military force, but I don't know whose force it was.
6 Q. Okay. And just finally on Crnogorac or Mr. Ivanovic, what
7 precisely did you hear about him? What did you learn about him?
8 A. I don't understand. I had heard that there was a unit of Zika
9 Crnogorac. I didn't go to the front lines, and I don't know where they
10 fought, whether they fought, and who they fought.
11 Q. Thank you. Could you now just have a look at the next paragraph.
12 And in fact, I just want to ask you a few questions about the first part
13 of that paragraph. It says:
14 "Murders occurred not only in Luka but also in Srpska Varos ..."
15 Where is Srpska Varos?
16 A. Srpska Varos is to the east next to the Sava River
17 the centre of town.
18 Q. Okay, and just to --
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, the Registrar informs us that you
20 have two minutes left.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I'm going to have to make
22 an application for a bit more time. I can indicate to you that I have to
23 finish -- my planned examination-in-chief involves finishing off this
24 document, which I expect to do fairly shortly, and then one last topic,
25 which I don't think will take more than about five to eight minutes. So
1 that would be my application. If I need to delve into the bank, so to
2 speak, of time, then I'll need to do that, but I can indicate that I
3 won't be much longer at all.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hurry up then. Thank you.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll do my level best. Thank you.
6 Q. Just how far out of town from the centre is Srpska Varos?
7 A. It is adjacent to the centre of the town.
8 Q. Thank you. Now the document goes on to refer to the executions
9 of persons outside their houses and corpses being left to stand there
10 until the utility service found them and took them to the pits. And it
11 says that one pit is located on the right side of the road towards the
12 duty-free zone. From that description, one pit is --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that the -- the place, the grave that you worked from doing
15 your best --
16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. And I want to look at page 2 of the English, and on
18 the B/C/S it's the second page in, and it's, very briefly -- very briefly
19 my question is this --
20 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, it's about two-thirds of
21 the way down on the second page.
22 Q. The author says that he -- there were -- there were witnesses of
23 events in Luka, including somebody named Sudo, a Muslim volleyball
24 player, a national team member who managed to escape across the Sava, and
25 the very next day gave interviews to HTV, BBC, and Sky. Do you have
1 knowledge of any such event, A man named Sudo swimming across the Sava
2 and then talking to the press?
3 A. I'm not familiar with that.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, my primary application
6 again is to tender the document fully into evidence. If not -- if you're
7 not with me, then I would ask that it at least be marked for
9 JUDGE HALL: Marked for identification.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P154, marked for identification, Your
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just before we leave this document clarify
13 one question with you, because you indicated several times that you knew
14 of certain units, one apparently led by Mr. Savic or Mr. Mauzer, another
15 unit led by Mr. Blagojevic, who was a member of the radicals. Now, these
16 units, I'm just curious to know how come that you describe them as units.
17 Were they uniformed, or did they act as a military unit or as an
18 organised unit in some way under the command of -- of the person that you
19 have mentioned? Were they armed?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were in uniform. They were
21 armed. As for the way they were organised or who they were linked to,
22 that is something I don't know. I have no knowledge about the
23 functioning of an army or an army unit, for that matter.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you recall if they were wearing any insignia?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps the regular insignia worn
1 by other soldiers, but I don't recall it in particular. Perhaps they had
2 Serb insignia.
3 MR. DI FAZIO:
4 Q. Last topic. Let's go back to your time at the -- at the grave in
5 your work --
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, but there is an intervention in the
7 transcript. Page 22, line 9. I believe the witness said 'no knowledge."
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: I recall that as well. Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. DI FAZIO:
10 Q. Let's take -- go back to the -- to the grave site that you worked
11 at in May and June and early July of 1992. You were the only policeman
12 working there; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you provided with any photographic equipment to photograph
15 the scene and corpses?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did the police provide you or offer any assistance to you for the
18 identification of these bodies, for example --
19 A. No.
20 Q. Were you instructed to take notes about features of the corpses
21 that you couldn't identify, for example, the obtaining of relics such as
22 watches, or necklaces, or other paraphernalia that might later assist in
23 identifying unknown bodies?
24 A. No. We occasionally came across some identification papers but
25 that's it. I didn't pay much attention to the rest. Even if there was a
1 watch or something else on a corpse, I never paid heed to that. We only
2 took away documents, and I tried to describe it in visual terms to the
3 extent possible.
4 Q. You mean here to this Trial Chamber you've done your best to
5 describe it in visual terms. Is that what you mean?
6 A. Yes. Yes.
7 Q. I'm asking you if the police supplied this material to you. Did
8 they -- did the police supply you with assistance to take notes?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. Now, all of the things that I've just mentioned, the
11 taking of photographs, preservation of relics such as watches or personal
12 paraphernalia, notes on the appearance of bodies, where they came from,
13 obtaining information from the truck drivers who went around and
14 collected the bodies, that wouldn't have taken very long, would it? It
15 could have been done by a few men at least. A few police officers, I
16 should say.
17 I'm sorry, that's a question. Would you like me to repeat it
18 or -- or --
19 A. I received no assistance. I had no help, and I received no
20 particular instructions to do anything otherwise to what I was doing.
21 That's how things stood.
22 Q. And in your work as a crime scene examiner, when you went to
23 examine murders, that was -- amongst other things that you would have
24 done at a murder scene, all of those things that I've mentioned; the
25 taking of notes, the preservation of relics or paraphernalia related to
1 an individual, the noting of marks such as tattoos or distinguishing
2 features, and all -- the taking of photographs, all of those things would
3 normally occur, would they? That's the sort of thing that you would do
4 as a crime scene examiner normally, isn't it?
5 A. If it had not been for the war.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
7 JUDGE HALL: Cross-examination.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Ignjic, good morning.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. For the record, I'll introduce myself. I'm attorney-at-law
12 Slobodan Cvijetic, Defence team member of the accused Mico Stanisic.
13 From your testimony so far, as well as from your statement that
14 was admitted, I gather that you divide the time and events in Brcko into
15 two periods, before July 1992 and after.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I just want to caution you. You did well in this last question.
18 Since we speak the same language, you have to pause, and I myself am
19 often to blame for that as well, and being frequently cautioned by the
21 So the period before and after. You will agree with me that
22 these two periods differ significantly and that there was a breaking
23 point based on which you divide the two periods?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I noticed another thing. There's another thing that you used to
1 distinguish between the two periods, and you link that to an important
2 war crime and the crime being processed, and you frequently refer to the
3 time as the events that happened before that case and after; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I objected to some of the questions put by the Prosecutor, and I
6 would like to clarify that with you. Could you please describe to us the
7 period before -- before July in briefest possible terms, if possible, or
8 would you rather have me put you specific questions?
9 A. I can briefly say that as of the 1st of May, the town was half
10 liberated, that there was fighting in the town and that it was being
11 constantly shelled, that there was round-the-clock shooting, and there
12 were many soldiers, criminals, everything, everything that usually
13 accompanies a war, and it was very difficult to establish a functioning
14 government. There was no electricity, water. There was no communication
15 possibilities. It was a rather chaotic situation.
16 As time passed by, slowly authorities were being established
17 bringing things back to normal. As of July, the work started taking
18 place basically the way it used to be before the war.
19 Q. Very well. While we're on the topic of shelling, you will agree
20 with me that Brcko, because of its important geostrategic position as it
21 is along the corridor, which was supposed to link the eastern and western
22 part of Republika Srpska, and at that place the corridor is extremely
23 narrow, that it is because of that that the town was constantly shelled.
24 Is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The shelling was done from the neighbouring Republic of Croatia
2 and from Gunja in particular for the most part; correct?
3 A. From both sides. From the Bosnian side and the Croatian side.
4 Q. Very well. When you say the Bosnian side, you have in mind the
5 territory controlled by the Bosnian Muslims?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Throughout the war was Brcko within artillery range from both
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Mr. Ignjic, was this random shelling? That is to say that the
11 entire town was frequently shelled and even targeted by multiple-rocket
13 A. My house was damaged as well by a multiple-rocket launcher that
14 fired from Croatia
15 Q. Perhaps you can explain to the Chamber briefly what that piece of
16 weaponry is.
17 A. Well, it's a multi-barrelled weapon and the acronym is VBR.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please. I don't take objection
19 to the line of questioning by my learned friend if that's what he wants
20 to ask the witness, but there must be some basis for this witness to be
21 able to answer these questions. He must -- you must be sure that he can
22 comment on issues relating to artillery and military issues before
23 matters that go beyond ordinary observation, factual observation of this
24 witness before he can give you that sort of information.
25 He may -- he may have the expertise or -- I'm not suggesting he
1 has to be an expert, but he may be acquainted, sufficiently acquainted
2 with these matters for you to be satisfied that he can answer, but if
3 he's not, then we may be delving into the realm of speculation.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned friend
5 Mr. Prosecutor objected and responded to his own objection. I'm asking
6 this of the witness as a simple citizen of Brcko, not as an expert. He
7 himself said that his house was damaged by a multiple-rocket launcher.
8 The basis for these questions is the statement that he gave to the OTP
9 that was made an exhibit.
10 In any case, I'm about to get to the point, and I'll no longer
11 ask about these matters.
12 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Cvijetic.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Ignjic, such random shelling of the town, did it result in
15 civilian casualties as well? Were there those who were killed as a
16 consequence of that shelling?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, there's something that is not very
19 clear to me. You are talking about two periods, and you said before and
20 after July. I suppose we can narrow that: Before and after the 1st of
21 July or the 30th of April, the blowing of the bridge, no? But my -- the
22 question is -- what is not clear to me is the events you're talking about
23 now, are they before or after whatever your point -- your starting point
24 of the division of the two periods is? I can't situate -- situate it in
25 time what you're asking right now. Could you clarify that to me?
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if I may add to Judge Delvoie's question,
2 what distinguished the two periods?
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you want me to state
4 my point in advance and then ask the witness about the criteria for
5 separating the two period. If I say so, that would be a suggestion to
6 him. So I would -- I will prefer asking him about it. And as far as the
7 shelling is concerned, the witness clearly said that there was shelling
8 throughout the war, and I'm now asking him about the first more intensive
9 part of war. You said the 1st of July, but I can't be as precise as
10 that, whether it was the 1st or 2nd of July or whichever date.
11 Do you allow me to get at that through asking the witness
12 questions, such as: "How long did that fierce shelling last?" That
13 would be a question.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It varied. Sometimes it went on
15 for three days and then there would be a pause, and sometimes the
16 frequency was different. There could be even seven days without one
17 shell hitting town, and on other days there would be, I don't know, a
18 hundred shells.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. All right. Then tell me, until what time did fierce military
21 actions take place at Brcko, fighting?
22 A. In the first period, the first few months, I don't know exactly.
23 Until the line moved a bit away from town. So the -- the passage was
24 widened through town. I don't know how wide the corridor was around
25 Brcko. Three or four kilometres maybe, maybe not even that. But as it
1 was moved, as it moved away from town, things became more peaceful.
2 Q. You will agree that in the first few months there was -- there
3 were intensive military actions?
4 A. Yes. There were -- for months there were -- there was fighting
5 in the outskirts of the town.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry to interrupt you again, but just in pursuit
7 of the questions put by Judge Delvoie and myself just a while ago, it was
8 you who introduced to the witness the distinction between events before
9 and after July, and my question was, really, what -- which events marked
10 the distinction? Was that the liberation of Brcko, or was is
11 something else? I mean, what was the dividing events that enabled you to
12 introduce to the witness the distinction between something that happened
13 before July and after July? What's the difference between the two
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it isn't me who
16 tries to delimit that period. It's the witness who did that. And I am
17 proceeding question by question to get at that. One of the criteria was
18 the intensity of military actions, and now my following question will be
19 about something -- about another criterion for the separation of periods,
20 but do allow me to put that question.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic -- Cvijetic, sorry, I don't want to
22 interfere with your line of questions, so I just ask: The witness is
23 telling us about the first few months. Can we situate that in time? The
24 first few months of what? When -- when is that? I don't -- I don't talk
25 about your division. I just -- if we can know now -- if you say I prefer
1 you don't know, then, okay. But I'm wondering, "the first few months,"
2 what does that mean?
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will put my question and state
4 my point.
5 Q. Mr. Ignjic, you say in your statement that the period in question
6 was a time of chaos, "we felt unable to do anything."
7 Tell us, Mr. Ignjic, that period of chaos and anarchy lasted
8 from, till? From what time till what time exactly, according to you?
9 A. Roughly from the 1st of May until early July. At the beginning
10 it was worse. Toward June it became better, and in June it was rather
12 Q. Do add the year.
13 A. 1992.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it's time
15 for a break. My colleague -- five minutes. All right.
16 Q. Mr. Ignjic, in that period you said that you saw groups of former
17 criminals moving about town in uniforms. Give us your assessment of who
18 effectively had control over the town, the police, the military, the
19 Crisis Staff, the paramilitary formations or criminals?
20 A. Mostly the criminals, unfortunately.
21 Q. Okay. In that initial period, did those paramilitary formations
22 and criminals also take the building of the SJB?
23 A. First they took the building, then we entered, and then they
24 tried once more to take it, or twice, and it went to and fro. Yes, they
25 were trying, but we always found some solution to have them leave.
1 Q. In that process of taking the building of the SJB, did they rob
2 it and take away the equipment?
3 A. Yes. The first time the entire forensic equipment was taken
4 away, personal ID cards, driving licenses, and any objects of value that
5 there were. I don't remember exactly. I know what was taken away from
6 my office. Actually, nothing was left there.
7 Q. All right. Were they able to acquire police uniforms that way?
8 A. Probably, but I don't know exactly where the uniforms were kept.
9 I only know that there was a significant quantity of uniforms of the
10 reserve police in a warehouse.
11 Q. So you will agree with me that this was possible?
12 A. Absolutely.
13 Q. Mr. Ignjic, as we're speaking about paramilitary formations and
14 individuals, did you hear about, see, or did you have the opportunity to
15 meet Ranko Cesic?
16 A. In the war, yes. I didn't know him before.
17 Q. So you are saying that they -- when he was shown to you that he
18 was wearing a military police uniform; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Were you able to meet, see, or hear anything about Goran Jelic?
21 A. I saw him during the war. I didn't know him before.
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, before you go on with this line of
23 questions, we should take the break.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, before we -- before the witness
3 enters, I need to respond to Your Honour's question about the two motions
4 on protective measures.
5 We will -- we will join the submission on Zupljanin on ST-161,
6 and I believe we have come to the -- to the agreement that we will not
7 oppose the videolink. And Mr. Pantelic will give the reasons if -- when
8 he gives -- when he has the floor.
9 However, concerning the second motion that Your Honour asked me
10 about, ST-28, the motion contains three witnesses: ST-100, ST-175,
11 and -- 180, ST-28, and ST-175.
12 Now, we don't take the issue with ST-180, but we do take the
13 issue with ST-28 and ST-175.
14 Now, if Your Honour -- if it pleases the Court, I can provide the
15 reasoning right now, but I think we might need to go into the private
16 session, or if you want me to give my reasons in writing or whatever
17 pleases the Court. It's a very short submission.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 1930-1931 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 [Trial Chamber and senior legal officer confer]
1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, if I might have a moment. I just
2 wanted to state for the record that the -- on the application for the --
3 in respect of Witness ST-161, that the application to have his evidence
4 by videolink is -- is granted, and a written decision will follow.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Ignjic, I think that we stopped when a name was mentioned,
8 and that name is Goran Jelisic. I will now ask you about him, whether he
9 was a police officer at the police station of Brcko.
10 A. I don't think he ever officially was one.
11 Q. Do you know where Goran Jelisic is from?
12 A. I do. He is from Bijeljina. He's from a street close to the
13 place where my wife was born.
14 Q. Do you have information about him ever being a police officer at
15 Bijeljina or a police officer at all?
16 A. I don't think that he ever was a police officer.
17 Q. I must ask you now whether you know what he was.
18 A. I know what I heard from my wife, but I didn't know him before.
19 Or he was -- I'm not sure how to put this in English.
20 Q. That might not be an adequate translation into English, but could
21 we call him problematic?
22 A. Yes, I think so.
23 Q. Mr. Ignjic, I will go back to what you said yesterday about the
24 identification of bodies. You went into great detail, so I'll only ask
25 you whether you will agree with my conclusion that the identification of
1 bodies at that period, as you had described it today, also can be seen as
2 an attempt to establish some sort of order in the functioning of the
3 authorities irrespective of all the problems you had. Could we see it
4 that way?
5 A. Maybe. From the very beginning, we were trying to bring about
6 some order. We knew how -- how things should have been done and what the
7 regulations were, but war is a cruel time and some things cannot be done
9 Q. All right. Let us just clarify. You used two abbreviations
10 yesterday. For those following this trial and for the sake of the
11 transcript and the Trial Chamber, you said that you were trying to
12 identify a person who you said was a member of the ZNG HVO. Tell us what
13 these two abbreviations mean.
14 A. The HVO is the Croatian Defence Council, and ZNG, I'm not sure
15 myself. I knew, but I forgot. I can't remember now.
16 Q. Does the National Guards Corps mean anything to you?
17 A. Oh, yes, that's it.
18 Q. Will you agree with me, whichever way it was, that they were
19 members of the paramilitary formations, Croatian formations, from
20 neighbouring Croatia
21 A. Maybe. I don't know much about that organisation.
22 Q. But certainly those were military forces?
23 A. Yes. He was a soldier wearing a uniform with Croatian insignia.
24 Q. But in the identification process you found out that he was from
1 A. Yes. He had an ID card on him.
2 Q. How he ever got to the Brcko theatre of war we can only
3 speculate; right?
4 A. I know nothing about that.
5 Q. All right. Mr. Ignjic, in that period when you were identifying
6 those bodies, were you able to report along official lines the
7 organisational unit that was superior to yours, say the one in Bijeljina?
8 Could you establish such communication?
9 A. I'm not sure when the telecom lines started working again. I
10 know that in the beginning we had neither electricity nor water or -- and
11 the phones didn't work. When exactly they started working again, I don't
13 Q. All right.
14 A. But even if I had reported, I would have reported my supervisor,
15 and he would have reported to someone else. That was the way to go about
16 it. So I don't know when -- whether reporting started and, if so, when.
17 Q. Scene of crime, technicians fall within the crime department or
18 crime suppression department; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And in the CSB in Bijeljina, there was such a unit?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that would have been the professional line that you would --
23 you were a part of?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. While we're on that topic, let me ask you this: Did you know who
1 the minister of the interior was at that time?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Very well. Do you know who appointed Veselic the first chief of
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. What was the role of the Crisis Staff in his appointment, if any?
7 A. I don't know exactly how that went.
8 Q. Is there a possibility that he was appointed by the Crisis Staff
9 in the first few days?
10 A. Perhaps.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, this is a clearest
12 invitation to speculation that you can imagine. The witness has said, "I
13 don't know. I don't know exactly how that went." He was asked, "Do you
14 know who appointed him?" I don't know. What was the role in the Crisis
15 Staff in this appointment? "I don't know exactly how that went." Well,
16 there's a possibility -- it's not going to advance the matter any
17 further, and he's being invited to speculate.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask
19 that your words be interpreted to me. There is no interpretation. There
20 is no interpretation. I would like to know what's going on.
21 Perhaps the interpreters should say something because I didn't
22 hear what the Judge said.
23 JUDGE HALL: No, I -- I didn't say -- I hope that my glancing in
24 your direction you were able to understand is an invitation to rephrase
25 your question. Next time I'll articulate it.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I had in mind Judge Harhoff. I
2 thought he said something. Very well. I'll reformulate the question. I
4 Q. Did you know anything about the existence of the Crisis Staff,
5 its authority, et cetera?
6 A. I had heard of it, but I didn't know what their activities were
8 Q. Very well. Mr. Ignjic, I'd like to dwell a bit on the events
9 after the 1st of July. In a Brcko neighbourhood called Kolobara, there
10 was an important crime that took place. Do you know what I am talking
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Two Serbs killed several Muslims, and if I'm not mistaken, a
14 woman was raped on that occasion as well.
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. In relation to that incident, there was an on-site investigation
17 that was carried out which you attended. Am I correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. A sketch was drawn of the scene of crime by yourself, I believe.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Photographs were taken as well. I don't know who did that
23 A. It was probably me, but I can't recall exactly.
24 Q. Forensic evidence was secured, spent cartridges were
25 photographed, and I don't know whether those cartridges were saved as
1 evidence, but I suppose so. Interviews were conducted with all those who
2 could have possibly shed any light on the incident; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. On the 1st of July, 1992, a criminal report was submitted against
5 those suspected of having committed that crime to the basic public
6 prosecutor's office in Brcko. Do you know that?
7 A. I suppose that's how it went, although I'm -- I've forgotten much
8 about that.
9 Q. In any case, we can agree that the case was processed.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know that it was handed over and put under the competence
12 of the military court in Bijeljina?
13 A. I know that there was another trial in Brcka -- Brcko that I was
14 summoned to, and I know that the man that was accused was sentenced. I
15 don't know about the transfer to the military jurisdiction. I'm not sure
16 about that, but I know that the case was concluded in Brcko.
17 Q. I'm asking you about this because you relate that incident to the
18 two periods that you delineated at the beginning of July. As of that
19 moment, you state that slowly things started being done according to the
20 law. That is to say, according to the way it should have been.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You said so yesterday when you spoke of the identifications and
23 the burial; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Mr. Ignjic, can you correlate that with the passing of a
1 regulation by virtue of which the prosecutors and judges were appointed
2 in Brcko?
3 A. I am not familiar with that, but in my view this meant the
4 re-establishment of authority, of government, although I don't know about
5 the appointment of judges.
6 Q. I am making the link because it was done during that time, and
7 this enabled for on-site investigations to be carried out as well as for
8 the different cases to be processed.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. I am trying to establish a link with something else
11 that I'd like to discuss with you. In July, in front of the CSB
12 following an order of the ministry, Mr. Dragan Andan arrived to see what
13 the situation was and propose measures to deal with the problem which had
14 arisen in the working of the police station so that it could become
15 operational again. Are you familiar with any of that and the orders from
16 the ministry as well as the events in the CSB?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you know that in front of the ministry, that is to say on
19 behalf of the ministry, in Brcko an inspection arrived with an almost
20 identical task? In turn they proposed several measures, some of which
21 were implement after Mr. Andan's visit. And they also proposed further
22 measures to become -- to have this station become operational again. Do
23 you recall that?
24 A. I don't.
25 Q. Are you familiar with an order by the assistant minister for
1 police affairs, Mr. Tomislav Kovac, by which he demanded that the army do
2 not mobilise police personnel for military purposes and so that they
3 should be returned to the station which would in turn be able to take
4 control of the town. Do you remember that order from the ministry?
5 A. I don't.
6 Q. Let's clear something up. When you were asked today about the
7 letter and the term "SUP" was used, as well as the "SJB," there is only
8 one building in Brcko which is the public security station.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you received that letter from someone from the SJB?
11 A. Yes. It used to be the SUP, then it became the SJB, but it's the
12 same thing.
13 Q. Very well. To conclude, Mr. Ignjic, I'd like to go back to
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have an exhibit
16 from yesterday, from the 65 ter list. The number is 2138, which is the
17 list of the employees of the SJB in Brcko.
18 Can you see it, Mr. Ignjic?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S could we please have page
22 Q. I'm interested in numbers 191 and 192. They should be on the
23 same page in the English.
24 Can you see it, or do we need to zoom in?
25 A. Mladen Katic, who was a senior policeman. He used to be a
1 policeman before the war.
2 Q. Zdenko Nenic?
3 A. I don't know that person.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No problem with the question, it's just that for
5 the record it should show that we're here dealing with P139. It's
6 important that the record show that rather than the 65 ter number because
7 it's now advanced to a full exhibit.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In any case, we are with that document. So you read out the
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It seems to me that these were Croats.
13 A. No, they're not. Mladen Katic is a Serb from Donji Zabar. I
14 know his parents.
15 Q. What did about Zdenko Nenic?
16 A. Well, his first name suggests that he may be a Croat, but I don't
17 know him.
18 Q. What about Zeljko, Miroslav?
19 A. Yes, there are Zeljkos there as well as Miroslavs, but I don't
20 know most of them. I know some from the upper part of the page, those
21 who worked with me. As for the new staff 95 per cent of them are people
22 I don't know.
23 Q. So you allow for a possibility that the names Jadranko, Zeljko,
24 and others, the people having those names could be Croats?
25 A. That is possible.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
3 questions of this witness.
4 Thank you, Mr. Ignjic.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, do you wish to call [Microphone not
7 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour. I don't have question for this
8 witness. Thank you.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, re-examination?
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, Your Honours, and I just want to get a page
11 number up on the screen, if I may.
12 Re-examination by Mr. Di Fazio:
13 Q. Earlier you were asked questions, and you were asked about the
14 paramilitary formations taking the building of the SJB, and you said:
15 "First they took the building and then we entered, and then they
16 tried once more to take it and it went to and fro, but we always found
17 some solution to have them leave."
18 What was involved in these paramilitary groups or formations
19 taking over the SJB building on one or two occasions? Was force
21 A. The first time around is when I was not present.
22 Q. So you don't know what happened on -- on that occasion?
23 A. I don't.
24 Q. What about any other occasion when you were present?
25 A. The second time around I was not present either. I was visiting
1 a workmate who had been wounded, and I went to the hospital.
2 Q. So you don't know what actually happened on that occasion.
3 A. I don't.
4 Q. You were asked questions about your process of identifying
5 bodies, and you pointed out that war is a cruel thing and that sometimes
6 things can't be done easily and that you said that you -- "We were trying
7 to bring about order."
8 You were able to carry out your duties of identifying the bodies
9 at the grave in May and June and early July without interference from the
10 war in any practical sense, and to be clear about this, what I mean is
11 this: You could go there, you could have the trucks deliver the bodies,
12 you could stand at the site and have the bodies examined and extract
13 identification, and you could go back there on repeated occasions
14 throughout May, June, and early July. How did the war affect that?
15 A. We had no equipment to take photographs with, for example. We
16 had no protective equipment to search the bodies. You know that
17 pathologists carry out external examinations of bodies.
18 I'm not a doctor. I can't ascertain that someone had died, and
19 there were no doctors around, and there was simply none of that at the
20 time around that -- around there.
21 Q. Do you have any recollection of taking up precisely these issues
22 with your superiors, with Dragan -- with Veselic, or maybe Dragisa Tesic?
23 A. I can't remember now what was discussed at the time.
24 Q. Would you like -- in the light of your inability to recall, would
25 you like to refresh your memory from the statement that you provided to
1 an investigator from the Office of the Prosecutor on the 29th of October,
2 2002, where you touch upon this topic? I can refresh it -- your memory
3 for you. I've got the statements here. Would you like to do that? I
4 can show them to you on the screen as well.
5 A. There's nothing.
6 Q. I take it from that that you'd like to but you're looking at the
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Could the witness please be shown the statement
9 which is not an exhibit in fact but is 65 ter 10025, please, and I would
10 like the witness to be shown the English on page 5 and the B/C/S on
11 the -- five pages in.
12 If Your Honours please, the paragraph I'm interested in, you'll
13 see, is the second paragraph on page 5, and in the B/C/S it's the third
14 paragraph down. Third -- third in the B/C/S, starting with the word
16 That says, and you're talking about -- just wait for my question,
17 please. You're talking about normal procedures and then in the paragraph
18 that I'm interested in you say this:
19 "None of this was completed in respect of the bodies buried at
20 the mass grave I have described to you. I was told by Tesic that
21 Veselic, the chief of police, had ordered that the normal procedure was
22 not required, just the identification, if possible."
23 Now, having seen that, does that reflect -- does that refresh
24 your memory, and is it correct?
25 A. Often we were unable to do anything else given the circumstances.
1 Q. Yes, I understand that. I understand that war didn't make life
2 easy, but what I'm asking you is this: You were told by Tesic, and
3 according to your statement given to the investigator that you signed,
4 you were told by Tesic that Veselic had ordered that normal procedures
5 weren't required, just identifications, if possible.
6 Is that -- having seen that now, does that refresh your memory,
7 and is that actually correct?
8 A. Possibly. I don't know. I don't remember. It was a long time
9 ago. But someone must have told me to work this way or another, because
10 there are many people higher up from me in the hierarchy. I'm at the
11 very bottom, and I can only obey orders.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I have no further re-exam.
13 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir. Your testimony is completed, and we
14 thank you for travelling to assist the Tribunal. You're now released,
15 and we wish you a safe passage back to your home.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE HALL: Is the Prosecution ready with its next witness?
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours may recall -- I'm sorry, in court as
20 you may have noticed. We don't have another witness. It would have been
21 Ms. Hanson, if it hadn't been for everything that happened.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, may I -- may I -- I did mention
24 to your legal officer that because I anticipated this might happen, that
25 it might be an opportunity to deal with the matter of the admission of
1 documents which has been causing some problems, obviously, throughout the
2 trial so far. It's a matter of, Your Honours, whether you're prepared to
3 hear me on this day. I've alerted both my friends for the Defence.
4 JUDGE HALL: Are you ready to proceed now?
5 MS. KORNER: Yes. Absolutely.
6 JUDGE HALL: Please.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, what seems to be happening at the
8 moment is that Your Honours are, first of all, saying what is the
9 relevance of the documents. We understand that, and I think we've
10 discussed how we deal with that. That's one thing. But we seem to be
11 moving further to a rather strict policy that applies to whether the
12 document comes in through a witness. Namely, either the witness must be
13 able to recognise the signature or in some way give a great deal of
14 corroborative evidence about the contents of the document or in some
15 other way be able to prove the authenticity of the document.
16 Now, Your Honours' guideline on this, if I can just find it
17 again, which was guideline 4:
18 "There is no rule which prohibits the admission into evidence of
19 documents merely because their alleged source was not called to testify.
20 Likewise, the fact that a document has neither a signature nor a stamp is
21 not in its reason -- in itself a reason to find that the document is not
23 Your Honours, what has been happening for the last few days in
24 particular is that we've asked -- let's take this last document, the list
25 of policemen from Brcko. The witness yesterday was asked about that
1 document and was able to identify the people that he said were involved
2 in this ill-treatment from that list. It is clearly a vital document of
3 relevance because who is or who is not a police officer is one of the
4 major issues in this case and has been all along. So if there's a list
5 that shows that these men are the police officers who were working at
6 Brcko at the relevant period, then we would submit that it should be
7 admitted as an exhibit, because the witness is able to say, "Though I
8 didn't draw up the document, these names are the names I recognise." We
9 have the same -- with the same document this morning, it's still not been
10 admitted as an exhibit.
11 Now, Your Honour, the problem is this: We didn't cater for a
12 strict rule of admissibility, in other words, that there must be ability
13 to recognise the signature or the contents, we'll talk about the contents
14 of the documents. If we have to do that, then we will obviously be
15 increasing -- we will have to increase the number of witnesses which we
16 tried to reduce.
17 Our submission is -- and I'm surprised that the Defence are
18 taking these what I would suggest are technical objections, because they
19 may find that it's what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,
20 but when they try to present documents we object if those strict rules
21 aren't there.
22 We would suggest that the policies that are set out by 89(C),
23 once we've established it's relevant, then the document should be
24 admitted -- I'll just turn up 89. (C) -- well, first of all, "A Chamber
25 shall apply -- 89 (A), a Chamber shall apply the rules of evidence set
1 forth in this section and shall not be bound by national rules of
2 evidence," which Judge Harhoff has already pointed out to us. "A Chamber
3 may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value."
4 Your Honours, there are a number of decisions, I've brought them
5 with me, and I can cite them. Perhaps -- there's only one Appeals
6 Chamber decision on it and that was in the case of Galic, which was a
7 long time ago, 7th of June, 2002 that were in effect they just say -- it
8 deals mainly with hearsay evidence. Trial Chambers have a broad
9 discretion under Rule 89(C) to admit relevant hearsay evidence. So it's
10 really hearsay evidence, but all the rules say the test is relevance and
11 probative value.
12 And we would submit, for example, that while there was a document
13 the other day which was a letter addressed to the minister of the
14 interior, that is relevant in this case because what the defendant Mico
15 Stanisic was informed about or his ministry was informed about is
16 relevant, it may not be signed or sealed, and that, we would submit,
17 merely attaches to the weight that Your Honours give to it rather and
18 than its admissibility as a document.
19 So effectively, what's happening at the moment is we ask for it
20 to be admitted, the Defence object, perhaps the best result we get is
21 marked for identification, which is actually just stacking up a huge
22 number of documents. And if we simply put in all the documents through a
23 bar-table motion, then Your Honours won't have any witness evidence on
24 it, and we will simply set out why we say it's relevant and it will all,
25 depending on Your Honours' decision, of course, because it's your
1 discretion, come in without witnesses being asked about it.
2 So, Your Honours, what we're suggesting is that the test should
3 be not as particularly Mr. Cvijetic has been suggesting each time whether
4 the signature can be recognised or whether it's got a seal or a stamp,
5 but simply, is this a document about which the witness can speak either
6 as to its contents or as to its relevance. And so that's -- those are
7 our submissions on the matter.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your -- Your Honours, very short submission. First
10 of all, the position of the Defence is not what -- what my learned friend
11 has just explained. The problem that we have, and I think the Trial
12 Chamber shared our view in that respect, is the nexus between the
13 particular witness and the document.
14 The point of the matter that is if the -- if -- the witness
15 today, he was shown a military document he doesn't know anything about,
16 and then this document was -- because this military document talks about
17 some events that happened, this witness was asked that this document be
18 admitted. I really couldn't find any nexus, and that is the gist of
19 our -- most of our objections.
20 The same thing goes with the witness before. He was shown -- he
21 was a victim who was kept in the -- in a detention centre, yes, and now
22 he's shown a document with the list -- with the -- so the formal
23 document, a list of whatever it is of the -- of the MUP members of Brcko
24 or somewhere in September 1992. There is completely no nexus between him
25 and that document. And that is -- that is the gist of our -- of our
1 objections in all these cases.
2 Now, I understand the problems that the -- that our friends are
3 facing, but that is -- that is precisely why there is jurisprudence in
4 this Tribunal that there are bar-table motions. So all the documents
5 where they could not find or need not find a witness who will have enough
6 nexus with the document they offer it on the bar table. They give an
7 explanation why, the authenticity and all that, we respond, and that is
8 it. And they can -- after that they can rely on that document in their
9 final submissions. I mean, that is, as far as I know, the jurisprudence
10 so far in this Tribunal.
11 So what I'm trying to say is that we are -- we don't have to
12 invent the hot water. We have the situation which is -- which is already
13 adopted in this Tribunal, and I don't see why we should modify that,
14 because I honestly think that it doesn't help either the Prosecutor or
15 the Defence or Your Honours to have -- to have a document produced during
16 the testimony of the witness where there is completely no nexus between
17 that particular document and that witness. That is -- that is our
19 Thank you very much.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. And while we are on the same
21 topic, for the record, the Zupljanin Defence is absolutely in support of
22 the submission of our colleague Mr. Zecevic.
23 The main issue from our point of view is the nexus. You as
24 well-experienced fact-finders will certainly find the basis in each
25 particular case, because we cannot have an overall approach with this
1 regard. And let me respectfully remind you about the words and
2 submission of Honourable Judge Harhoff with regard to the situation with
3 previous witness, Mr. Delic, who was a prosecutor. And when we are
4 dealing with a bundle of documents among which many of them were signed
5 by particular witness, and in terms of judicial economy, in terms of
6 avoiding overloading, sort of say, of -- of case with enormous number of
7 exhibits, I think that you will find proper and right ruling in this
8 particular situation.
9 Thank you very much.
10 MS. KORNER: Can I just in response say this: Of course we agree
11 there has to be some nexus. We can't just show any old document that has
12 no nexus to the witness. But for example, let's take the example of
13 where the -- that the witness yesterday said, here is this list of police
14 officers. I can say that the people who told me what police officers had
15 these names and here's a list. I cannot think of a closer nexus quite
16 honestly. And equally one has a military document that described an
17 event that the witness can talk about from his own personal knowledge and
18 then he says, "And this -- although, of course, I personally have never
19 seen this document, but this is a military document from," let us say,
20 "the 1st Krajina Corps --" I can see Mr. Zecevic shaking his head, but
21 can I finish and then I'll -- that he -- the document itself shouldn't
22 have that nexus with the witness because they're talking about the same
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, just very briefly. But the whole point
25 in my submission was that this witness cannot confirm that this is the
1 document of the 1st Krajina Corps. He can't. It is very -- as
2 Mr. Cvijetic said, it was very simple. He should have given his
3 recollection, like he did, his recollection of the events of -- at a
4 certain point in time in Brcko because he was there.
5 Now, my learned friend can use this document and help -- help him
6 recollect his memory by stating, "Do you remember this? Do you remember
7 this?" I mean, that would -- the result is basically the same.
8 The problem is exactly that one: There is no nexus between him
9 and that document.
10 That is my opinion. Thank you.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: If I may respond to some of the documents that
12 have been made. I would like to begin by recalling that during the
13 pre-trial stage of this trial, I as the Pre-Trial Judge made no secret of
14 pointing out that the Trial Chamber, once we got to trial, would seek to
15 be restrictive in its admission of evidence, because experience from all
16 other trials before this Tribunal is that the amount of evidence that
17 comes before the Judges is just so overwhelming and in the end, much of
18 the evidence that is brought before us has limited relevance and limited
19 probative value in relation to the charges that are raised in the
20 indictment. So I think that there is a legitimate interest on the part
21 of all the Chambers to try and really seek to limit the evidence that
22 comes in to what is strictly necessary to prove the points that are
23 raised in the indictments.
24 Having said this, obviously the test for admission is a
25 three-prong test. It has to be relevant, it has to have probative value,
1 and there has to be some sort of nexus between the witness and the
3 Now, obviously it is the nexus prong that has caused some
4 uncertainty here in the last few days. Neither of the parties today have
5 raised the difficulty that the Chamber has experienced, and that is this:
6 What do we do if a witness is confronted with a document and the document
7 says something and the witness says something completely different? So
8 if there is a clear inconsistency between the information included in the
9 document and the evidence provided by the witness. That's the difficulty
10 we had with the two documents that we MFI'd today.
11 The only thing that I can say on behalf of the Chamber is that
12 these cases will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, because it is
13 very difficult to establish a general rule to these things, to this sort
14 of problem. And obviously if the Chamber were to say that the witness
15 must not only be able to comment on the events described in the documents
16 but must also be able to confirm the truthfulness and the accuracy of the
17 information contained in the document, if we were to say that this is a
18 criterion for admission, then I think we would certainly be able to
19 achieve the goal of restricting the -- the evidence, but that might also
20 be to go too far. If, on the other hand, the Chamber were to say, well,
21 as long as the witness can just comment on the information contained in
22 the document, that is enough for admissibility, I think that would be
23 perhaps to -- to be too lenient. So the Chamber is trying on a
24 case-by-case basis to steer through somewhere in the middle of these two
25 extreme points.
1 The best thing I can suggest is that the parties, when you bring
2 evidence to the Court, that you yourself take into consideration whether
3 this document can and indeed should be admitted through this witness, or
4 maybe whether you would wish to perhaps have another go with it with
5 another witness who is more likely to confirm that what is contained in
6 the document is actually authentic and correct.
7 Now, as for the document yesterday, as I recall, Mr. Gashi was
8 put -- was confronted with a list of policemen, and it was the
9 Prosecution's submission that the next witness would be someone who could
10 actually confirm, and I think the natural thing to do in that situation
11 was to do exactly what the Chamber did, and they need to say, well, if
12 there is a witness who himself was a policeman and whose name appears on
13 the list, then it just felt more natural to have that document introduced
14 through that next witness rather than through Mr. Gashi.
15 So these are at least my personal observations. I don't know if
16 my brothers have anything to add, but I think to repeat my personal
17 suggestion to the parties is that try yourself to -- to take into
18 consideration whether all the documents that you bring before us need to
19 come into evidence, and if they do, then for what purpose, and consider
20 if they should perhaps be introduced through another witness, in
21 particular in cases where the witness clearly denies or says, "I have no
22 knowledge about what the document pertains to -- to include."
23 That's where the Chamber sees a difficulty. Now what are we
24 supposed to do with this document that is clearly contradicted by the
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, that -- can I say straightaway, I
2 fully accept that there's no point in showing a document which says, "I
3 don't know anything about it and I don't remember it happening like
4 that." That's foolish. What I was concerned about, if you like, are
5 the halfway house documents. You know, where the witness can't say that
6 he's never seen it before but can say I recognise these names and, yes,
7 they were there, and these events happened as this document reflects.
8 Now, Your Honour, of course the bar-table motion which,
9 Mr. Zecevic is very keen on, is of course a way of dealing with it and we
10 can do the whole -- every document on our list, but it seems to me that's
11 not right either.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just add to what I said a few comments
13 about the bar-table issue.
14 Since we are not operating by a system that is truly adversarial
15 nor in a system that is truly inquisitorial but somewhere in between, the
16 issue of a dossier does not arise really, but the method of admitting
17 documents through the bar table has been developed here as a means to
18 somehow compensate for the attempts made by most Chambers to try and
19 limit the evidence, and I think the bar-table option is and should remain
20 an exception where a few documents in the end that perhaps a party forgot
21 to have admitted or for some other reason was not admitted while there
22 was a chance to do so can then be admitted through the bar table. But I
23 would not like to see that we have in the end a huge load of documents
24 that all need to be introduced through the bar table. The bar table
25 should remain a very limited option.
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, can I just say, there's one
2 problem, and that's a problem -- a matter I've been discussing is the
3 witness particularly who is coming on Tuesday, in theory can deal with a
4 massive number of documents, all signed by him or part of government
5 programmes. Now -- but if he has to deal with them all, the three hours
6 that I'm going to be asking for for him is going to be doubled, and so I
7 was hoping to deal with the most important ones, because in his testimony
8 before the Krajisnik Chamber, which I think Your Honour will be familiar
9 with, it was pretty short and only a few documents were dealt with,
10 whereas obviously -- and all these documents are on our 65 ter list.
11 There are many documents that he can deal with, if he so chooses, which
12 is another matter.
13 So if Your Honours are of the view that if a witness can deal
14 with a document it should be put to him, then I think it's going to take
15 a little bit longer. Whereas we were hoping to put some, for example,
16 Assembly minutes simply in as bar table.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. It depends on the nature of the documents
18 a bit. Again, I stress the case-by-case approach that the Chamber is
19 taking. If you're speaking about a whole batch of documents that are
20 virtually of the same nature, same kind, my suggestion would be to deal
21 with a few of the most important of those and seek to have them admitted,
22 and then the question arises whether it would really be necessary to have
23 all the others admitted into evidence as well.
24 I mean -- what can I think of? If the issue, for instance, just
25 as an example, is that you wish to show how reports were made from a SJB
1 to the CSB and then you wish to show your point by presenting a hundred
2 such reports, then I think -- I don't know if the Defence wishes to take
3 issue with it, but the issue would then be that -- that either the
4 Chamber will accept through the admission of a few of those documents
5 that this was a routinely done thing and the witness that you bring can
6 then confirm that "This is how we did it," and then if the Defence is
7 ready to accept that this was the procedure, then I don't see the need to
8 have all the hundred reports admitted into evidence. Then we will take
9 the witness's word for it, and so --
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm trying to be helpful.
12 MS. KORNER: No, I understand that. Your Honour will recall that
13 in fact we raised that very matter and we produced a chart which Your
14 Honour has some difficulty in grasping not surprisingly but the second
15 matter is, for example, can I take Assembly minutes, the Bosnian Serb
16 Assembly minutes. I was proposing to ask Tuesday's witness about a
17 couple of them but each and every one of them contains matters which are
18 relevant in particular to joint criminal enterprise, so we were hoping to
19 deal with this witness, possibly one other, somewhere he spoke himself,
20 but then put them all in under the bar-table motion as a bulk exhibit. I
21 don't think it is possible to say there is one single Bosnian Serb
22 Assembly minute which is not relevant in some way or another.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may be heard on a couple of
25 The first thing I will -- I will -- I will go back to page 58, 2
1 to 7, where my learned friend was talking about the halfway house
2 documents. Your Honours, that is precisely the point. The document
3 shown to the witness, perhaps in its first paragraph, talks about the
4 certain event that the witness can remember, and he says, "Yes, that --"
5 but the rest of the document he doesn't know anything about. There
6 might -- this document might contain some issues which are very
7 important, some other issues which are very important.
8 Now, in case you would admit that document, then we would need to
9 cross-examine the witness through that particular -- then we would need
10 to cross-examine the witness and ask him paragraph by paragraph, do you
11 remember this, do you know this, do you know this, do you know this, do
12 you know this, do you know this, in order to find out at the very end
13 that except this, this little piece of the document, he knows nothing
14 else about. That is the problem that we are having. When the document
15 is introduced only by -- let's say there is a letterhead, it says
16 ministry of what, and you show it to the witness, do you know that the
17 ministry existed, he says, yes, can we have the document admitted. That
18 is what I'm talking about. That is my concern.
19 The second thing, with all due respect, Your Honours, the issue
20 of the communications is the issue that we intend to challenge. The
21 number means nothing. Let me explain you. The normal -- in a normal
22 situation, the ministry, from this -- in a case where it has six CSBs and
23 a number of SJBs, let's say 50, the ministry should receive at least a
24 thousand -- thousand communications per day. That is the -- the average
25 what each and every minister of interior in all the countries of the
1 world receives.
2 Now, if the -- if the Prosecutor shows there is a hundred over
3 four or six months, then of course it is not -- there is a problem in
4 there. There has to be some problem, and there has to be some
5 explanation. Now that is the issue, and that is why each and every of
6 these documents have to be explained or this issue needs to be addressed
7 by the parties. That is -- that is the number two.
8 Number three: Your Honours, I have a problem with the -- with
9 the minutes of the -- of the -- of the Assembly. Your Honours, the
10 Assembly is a democratic thing. You have people who are the
11 representatives of the -- of the -- of their particular community. They
12 come in. They say their mind. This has nothing -- I mean, in my honest
13 opinion, this has nothing to do -- this cannot be a basis for joint
14 criminal enterprise. Not at all. This is -- we have the forum where
15 people can say whatever they mean. They might have -- they might
16 challenge this or challenge that, vote for that, not -- vote no for the
17 other thing.
18 I don't really see the relevance of that. I would -- I would
19 understand that the certain portions of these transcripts are like an
20 illustration presented to -- to the Trial Chamber and out of that the
21 Prosecution builds their case, but that is exactly what they are doing
22 through -- through the -- through the alleged experts that they want
23 to -- that we are taking issue with.
24 Now, that is why I think it is -- it is in fact doubling, because
25 all this -- all what is important is what the experts are going to talk
1 about, and now we want to introduce the whole documentation, and it's --
2 it's minutes of the -- of the forum, of the most democratic forum that
3 the civilisation knows.
4 That's my opinion.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsels, I'm sure you can recall that during the
6 pre-trial phrase when we had the 65 ter meetings a great number of times
7 the Pre-Trial Judge invited the parties, the Defence and Prosecution, to
8 identify the issues that were contested and that needed to be proven at
9 trial, and most often the Pre-Trial Judge was told off because he was
10 told, "Ah, we're not going to discuss this at this stage. That will be
11 evident at trial."
12 Now we are at trial, and -- and so now is the time when the
13 parties have to show their hand. So if there is an issue about -- I'm
14 just mentioning as an example if there is an issue about how the
15 communication lines went from the SJB to the CSB to the MUP, then those
16 issues have to be clarified, and the Prosecution will bring evidence to
17 show how it worked, and the Defence may bring evidence to challenge the
18 point that the Prosecution is trying to make and say that it doesn't --
19 it didn't function the way the Prosecution tells us it did, but it
20 functioned in some other way, or it didn't function at all. And -- and
21 so my comment is to return to the invitation that was made to the parties
22 during the pre-trial phase to actually try and identify the issues that
23 are -- that are contested.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't know why the parties --
25 MR. PANTELIC: It's my turn --
1 MS. KORNER: Yes, you can --
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before --
3 MS. KORNER: No, no. We said over and over again that the
4 Defence pre-trial briefs were utterly defective, we were not being told
5 what the issues were, and Your Honour tried to make them declare what the
6 issues were as you say got told off, but not us, we have said over and
7 over again these issues should be clarified.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just point to the time --
9 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... is defective.
10 That's -- please do not misinterpret our position. One minute, Your
11 Honour. One minute, please. Thanks God we are in the hand of
12 professional Judges. With all due respect. I have great respect for all
13 Judges within this Tribunal, but some of them being a diplomat or
14 professors or academic might not be focused for the core of the case, and
15 I will tell you simply what is the position of Zupljanin Defence.
16 Point number one, Your Honours, we are wasting enormous amount of
17 time here with history, politics, I don't know which kind of assumptions,
18 due to the broad and groundless theory of joint criminal enterprise
19 pushed by this Prosecution without any particular basis in illegal
20 system. That's why we have to -- that's why we have to waste time with
21 Assembly meetings and stuff like that. If you can direct Prosecution to
22 drop charges for -- for this extremely broad third category of JCE, which
23 means nothing, then we could have more efficient trial. Otherwise,
24 Defence is obliged to response to enormous ocean, space of various
25 documents and then we are wasting time here, Your Honour.
1 Case is very simple. If they have proofs that my client ordered,
2 instigated, or committed certain crimes, okay. Give me the evidence.
3 What does it mean Assembly or Crisis Staff or history of here and there?
4 Thank you so much for your attention.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm afraid that once again we have abused the
6 services of the interpreters. We are far over the time where we should
7 have had a break, and I suggest we take the break now, at least, and if
8 there is a need to continue this discussion, then we can meet after 20
9 minutes, but if not, then I suggest we adjourn.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. I have all time of my
11 life. I can -- I can discuss this matter, you know, days and days if
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't know there's much point. I
14 think we've raised the real issue, and I see Mr. Zecevic nodding, who
15 doesn't perhaps quite take the extreme views expressed by Mr. Pantelic,
16 but we actually were going to use the time today to try and finally
17 decide on the laws so that we could put the package in.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: So we adjourn now?
19 MS. KORNER: So we adjourn now, yeah.
20 JUDGE HALL: We are in Courtroom II on when we resume on Monday
21 morning at 9.00. Thank you. I trust everyone has a safe weekend.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And thank you to the interpreters.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.19 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day
25 of October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.