1 Wednesday, 28 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
6 IT-08-91-T the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
7 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, all, and may I have the appearances,
9 MS. KORNER: Joanna Korner, Belinda Pidwell, Crispian Smith for
10 the Prosecution.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic and
12 Slobodan Cvijetic for Stanisic Defence.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic for
14 Mr. Zupljanin.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I just say that with the consent
17 of the Defence we are going to interpose the witness who should have come
18 later this week. He has domestic problems which mean that he couldn't
19 hang on as we anticipate the witness Mr. Djeric is likely to take a very
20 long time so we hope that Your Honours won't mind we're interposing that
21 witness. He will need -- he's got protective measures, and I think it's
22 image and pseudonym, so we'll have to adjourn for 20 minutes.
23 THE REGISTRAR: We will not have to adjourn because it's just
25 MS. KORNER: Is it? Oh, right. Sorry, my fault. Thank you.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: There's no objection on protective measures from
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, while the witness is entering, I
5 tried my best to group the documents as instructed by the Trial Chamber.
6 I managed that, and I grouped them in five different groups. One is
7 instructions and rule books. The second one are the instruction
8 concerning detention and the facilities. The third group is documents
9 concerning MUP members who committed crimes, which we discussed before.
10 The fourth is information requests. The fifth is war crimes
11 instructions, and the last is instructions concerning the looting.
12 Looting, looting of the property and other crimes committed by members of
13 the MUP.
14 Now, the problem, unfortunately, Your Honours, is with the --
15 with the e-court. I was thinking about it. The point of the matter is
16 that only one document can be shown on the -- on the monitor at a certain
17 point in time, so I will anyhow need to go document by document. I will
18 try to keep it at a very fast pace, but ...
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Our proposal is that if you show us one document
23 from each group, say the most important document from each group, and if
24 you assert that the other documents in that group are the same or more or
25 less the same, and if the Prosecution doesn't object then I think we have
1 a look at one document and we have that admitted along with the two or
2 three or four other documents in that group.
3 I don't know if that is acceptable to the Prosecution.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I --
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just to suggest some way of binding the Chamber's
6 need to actually have a look at least some of the documents and the quest
7 for expediency.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand Your Honour's wish, but let me just
9 give you one example. For example, one of the instructions concerns the
10 reporting, the need for reporting which the witness talked about during
11 the direct examination. So daily reporting, monthly, three months and a
12 year reporting. There is an instruction on that. So that's one thing.
13 But also there is an instruction on the disciplinary responsibility of
14 the members of MUP which is clearly very important.
15 Now, I can -- I can show the instruction on the -- the rule-book
16 on disciplinary responsibility during the time of imminent threat of war,
17 but I don't know how is that connected with the -- with the instruction
18 on the reporting. That is the only problem that I have in that respect,
19 Your Honours. But if -- if the Trial Chamber pleases, that way we can do
20 it. And if Ms. Korner doesn't object, of course.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't mind at all. I mean, if I'm
22 given a list of the documents that have been provided to us and shown
23 what -- you know, what categories they go into, rather like the ones we
24 did for Mr. Djeric, then I don't require the witness to simply say, "Yes,
25 I recognise this," if that's all that's going to be asked. But obviously
1 if you want to ask -- if the implementation personally by the witness is
2 going to be sought, well, then obviously the document will have to be
3 looked at.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: I definitely need the implementation from the
6 MS. KORNER: I don't think we will save time, Your Honours, I'm
8 JUDGE HALL: That just occurred to me that the whole
9 administrative back and forth in terms of how to do it, we'll probably
10 spent as much time as we would have had gone through them.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE HALL: Such is life, I suppose.
13 WITNESS: ALEKSANDAR KRULJ [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
16 Q. [Interpretation] Before I begin, good morning, Mr. Krulj.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Yesterday I showed you the witness document 1D2436. The witness
19 commented on the document, but due to lack of time I omitted to tender it
20 into evidence. This is the instruction on reporting, the document I just
21 mentioned a minute ago.
22 [In English] May I have -- yes, I'm waiting for the Trial Chamber
23 to -- I think the document has been commented, and I offer it for
25 JUDGE HALL: My apologies, Mr. Zecevic. Marked and entered --
1 entered and marked, sorry.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D51, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. The next
4 document that I would like to put to the witness, and can it please be
5 shown on the screen, is 1D5393. This is a mandatory instruction on the
6 procedure by the Ministry of the Interior when conducting searching
7 activities, and this is 1D5393.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What number is this?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. I can't help you any longer because I had to group these
11 documents, but this is the mandatory instruction by the Ministry of the
12 Interior when conducting searching activities. It will come up on the
14 Mr. Krulj, this instruction pertains to searching activities when
15 they are searching for perpetrators who at the time when the criminal
16 report was made were not available to law enforcement organs; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And this instruction sets out a certain procedure on to how this
19 needs to be done, what are the deadlines for wanted notices and so on.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is from October 1992. And while you worked as chief of
22 public security station in Ljubinje, I suppose that you applied this
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But until the instruction was issued, until it came down from the
1 MUP of Republika Srpska in October 1992, until that time you applied the
2 instruction that was in force for the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
4 A. Yes, and it's almost completely identical.
5 Q. Thank you very much. Could we have this document tendered into
6 evidence, please.
7 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D52, Your Honours.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Now can we show the witness
11 Q. This is instruction for drafting annual reports, and this
12 instruction is linked to the previous document, the previous exhibit --
13 rather, the first one we mentioned this morning, which is called
14 Instruction on urgent current occasional and statistical reporting within
15 the Ministry of the Interior.
16 MS. KORNER: Sorry. I'm so sorry to interrupt. I was distracted
17 by something else when Mr. Zecevic produced the document. I haven't got
18 a translation. I didn't see one on the screen.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. This is because
20 of the fast pace I'm going. There is one of the other documents which is
21 still pending translation. So if we can have it MFI'd, and we will offer
22 it for evidence once the translation is -- is received. I'm really
24 MS. KORNER: I have no reason to doubt it is what you say it is.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, no, it was sent to CLSS some time ago, but
1 it hasn't been as yet translated.
2 JUDGE HALL: So that the document should -- that document should
3 now be marked for identification rather than --
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] that is correct, Your
5 Honour, pending translation.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D52 will be marked for identification,
8 Your Honours.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I'm really sorry for this.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, were you able to find 1D3727, which
11 is the instruction on drafting annual reports? You have it on the
13 A. Yes, on the screen.
14 Q. Do you see this? This was sent to everybody, CSBs, to everybody,
15 to SJBs, to everybody. You received this document?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you write your annual report for 1992 on the basis of this
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we tender this document into
22 evidence, please.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D53, Your Honours.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 65 ter
1 document 242.
2 Q. This is the document that has a cover letter of the 19th of
3 September, 1992, and these are the rules on the disciplinary
4 responsibility of the workers of the Ministry of the Interior under the
5 wartime regimen once the immediate threat of war has been declared. You
6 see that document?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are you familiar with these rules?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. There are just two or three things that I wish to ask you from
11 this -- these rules. These rules shorten the procedure for establishing
12 disciplinary responsibility of the workers of the MUP; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Disciplinary proceedings are regulated by law, the Law on
15 Internal Affairs and by the rules on disciplinary proceedings in
16 peacetime. Isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Once an immediate threat of war is declared and once the wartime
19 regimen of work is introduced -- was introduced, it became necessary to
20 adopt these rules on the disciplinary responsibility in order to be more
21 efficient in ensuring the discipline among the workers of MUP. Isn't
22 that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, would you please look at Article 2. Page 3 in the Serbian.
25 It's 0324-6179 in Serbian. That's the ERN number in Serbian.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the English text as
2 well, Article 2.
3 Q. Article 2, which we can see is continued, is carried over on page
4 3, enumerates serious violations of duty by the members of the interior,
5 the additional ones that were envisioned for this wartime regimen; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. At the very beginning, I think the third bullet point -- so this
8 is Article 2, on the third page, on the following page, please. So from
9 the above, the third bullet point it says:
10 "Committing a crime for dishonourable motives."
11 Could you tell us what would that be, a crime for dishonourable
12 motives? What would be the elements of that crime?
13 A. Well, a crime for dishonourable motives could be of -- a crime of
14 a sexual nature or gaining material gain, profit from a victim.
15 Q. Yeah, from a victim. All right. And right underneath that the
16 next bullet point:
17 "Expressing national, racial, or religious intolerance and acting
18 against the defence measures and against the security interests of the
20 Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And in addition to this there were also grave violations of work
23 duty which could be penalised by terminating somebody, which is the most
24 serious consequence that could be pronounced as a result of a
25 disciplinary proceedings. Isn't that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I apologise to the interpreters. I'm speaking quite fast, and I
3 think on page 9, line 18, I think what we discussed is the termination of
4 work. That's the term.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see last page, Article 17,
7 Q. Article 17, please look at it. Do you remember that article?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Article 17 of these rules says that the statute of limitations
10 for conducting disciplinary proceedings is extended.
11 A. Yes, for light violations three months from the day that they
12 learned about the violation, and for grave violations the deadline was
13 extended by six months.
14 Q. And then these rules extended doubly. So for light violations it
15 was extended from three months to six months, and for grave violations
16 from six months to one year. That's what it says here; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In paragraph 3, if the violation of work duty also had elements
19 of a crime, then the institution of disciplinary proceedings would run
20 out, the statute of limitations would run out one year after the day that
21 they learned about such a violation.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You will agree with me that these rules on disciplinary
24 responsibility are much stricter -- provided for much stricter rules
25 concerning the disciplinary responsibility of the members of the MUP?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In addition to making the rules much stricter, the statute of
3 limitations was also extended so that -- so as to avoid that a violation
4 that was made would be unpunished due to the fact that there was a war
5 going on and there was an immediate threat of war declared and so on;
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have this document admitted,
10 please, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D54.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] We have now completed this group of
14 documents which are rules and instructions, and now we're going to move
15 to documents that refer to rules on detention and -- and custody, and can
16 we please look at 1D00-264.
17 THE INTERPRETER: 2764, interpreter's correction.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Very well. Can you see on the monitor this is an order from the
20 MUP of the Republika Srpska of the 10th of August, 1992, and it was sent
21 to all the CSBs, and you will see at the bottom of the page it has also
22 been sent to some public security stations. Did you directly receive
23 this document, or are you familiar with it by means of the order that you
24 received from the CSB of Trebinje?
25 A. Well, the custom was that some of the documents that arrived at
1 the centre only are copied and then dispatched in the form of an order to
2 the public security stations, and public security stations usually
3 received all of these orders through the CSB.
4 Q. Thank you. You can see under item 1 that the order deals with
5 detention and holding measures that are to be applied exclusively within
6 existing regulations. Do you see that? That --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So that means that the detention and holding measures can be
9 enforced only within the bounds provided for under the law.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In the next paragraph it sayings that the CSB chiefs are
12 personally responsible for the lives of the persons during detention and
13 custody and are responsible to prevent any kind of abuse in that area.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the third, it says that they have to fulfil the basic hygiene
16 and health requirements at the premises where those persons are being
17 held; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Paragraph 2 talks about the security of collection centres, and
20 it says that the security collection centres are under the direct
21 responsibility of the Serbian Army and issues the instructions that if
22 the army didn't have enough manpower it shall therefore be necessary to
23 engage members of the reserve police pursuant to the laws that we
24 discussed yesterday. So they would become part of the army forces at
25 that time in order to carry out the security duties in these collection
1 centres; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, could you elicit from the witness
4 how he distinguishes between detention centres and collection centres?
5 Why is there this difference between the responsibility of the CSB on --
6 for the first group and for the Serbian Army for the second group?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Let me clarify. Paragraph 1 of the order refers to measures of
9 detention and holding. The detention and holding measures are measures
10 that you, under the Law on Criminal Procedure and the Law on Internal
11 Affairs, exercise as part of your regular police duties; is that correct?
12 A. Yes. They are applied to perpetrators of criminal act, and they
13 can be held for up to a period of three days.
14 Q. All right. And these collection centres, this is a term that
15 does not exist in the Law on Criminal Procedure, and the police has no
16 jurisdiction either under the Law on Criminal Procedure or the Law on
17 Internal Affairs or any other law over such premises, collection centres.
18 A. Yes, that is correct. But I do not differentiate between
19 detention and collection centres. Even I don't know what that is. I
20 mean, is that the same thing?
21 Q. I did not encounter any detention centres in this document. I
22 didn't -- in paragraph 1, what is being mentioned is detention and
23 holding measures or custody, and then in paragraph 2 we have the
24 secure -- the collection centres. Is that right?
25 A. Yes. These are two separate concepts, terms.
1 Q. In your territory you did not have --
2 A. No.
3 Q. The public security station in Ljubinje did not have any
4 collection centres, did it?
5 A. No.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know how far
7 we can get with this witness on this matter. Thank you.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: That's fine.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please tender this
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D55, Your Honours.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness document
14 65 ter 217. It's from the same group of documents.
15 Q. This is a dispatch from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
16 17th of August, 1992, to the public security centres and refers once
17 again to the order to act pursuant -- to act -- or the conduct towards
18 prisoners of war, refugees, civilian population. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Are you familiar with the contents of this document?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. This document is an order that prisoners of war, the civilian
23 population, and refugees should be treated exclusively according to the
24 law within the framework of the MUP jurisdiction and according to the war
25 on international conventions which replace the subject matter.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were you familiar with the norms regulating that particular area?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 2 says:
5 "The ministry shall immediately be informed of the existence of
6 public outlaw, rogue prisons, camp and the treatment of persons of war or
7 refugees that are being held there."
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And the last paragraph says that with regard to persons who do
11 not comply with valid regulations, it says it is necessary, the last
12 sentence, to immediately start gathering information and documentation
13 and submit criminal reports to the authorised prosecutor's office.
14 Is this in accordance with the legal authorities of the MUP and
15 the regular procedures --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- to which the law obliges you to?
18 A. Obliges us to, yes.
19 Q. Thank you. Did you act -- in cases like this -- did you have
20 cases like this?
21 A. No, I didn't.
22 Q. But you are familiar with these regulations?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to
25 tender this document.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D56, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. We will look at the last document from this group, 1D00-197.
5 It's a dispatch of the 24th of August, 1992, from the MUP, dispatched to
6 the CSBs and the PJ -- and the SJBs. Do you remember that document?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. In paragraph 2 -- or, actually, we can see from the document that
9 the dispatch was a consequence of a request of the Ministry for Labour
10 and Social Affairs of Republika Srpska; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And once again it refers to these illegal, irregular collection
13 centres, camps, and the like. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The Ministry of the Internal Affairs is placing you on notice
16 that regardless of the jurisdiction you would need to furnish the data,
17 meaning that even though you were not the person of jurisdiction
18 authorised for such collection centres, you were obliged to report all
19 that you know and report of the existence of such places if you were
20 aware of that; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, but I think we need to make a comment here about
22 jurisdiction in general.
23 Q. All right. Go ahead.
24 A. You can -- actually, when I was reading this document last night,
25 it says regardless of the jurisdiction. So we did jobs that were not in
1 our jurisdiction, that is true. So I think that in this case, not only
2 in relation to this document but generally, it's important to clarify the
3 manner in which the civilian police was authorised for military
4 conscripts that had committed criminal act.
5 I think that the Prosecution and the Defence are asking questions
6 about the military prosecution organs, military courts and so on. So the
7 army worked according to the laws of the federal state. So we had no
8 jurisdiction over military matters. I am only talking about this in
9 order to protect the reputation and the work of members of the police who
10 I believe did their jobs as honourably as they were able to.
11 Q. Thank you, sir, but you spoke a little bit fast, so for purposes
12 of the transcript I would like to say the following: I think on page 17,
13 lines 3 and 4 -- or lines 2 and 3, you said something slightly different
14 than what is in the transcript. I'm going to clarify. You did not have
15 any jurisdiction over members of the military; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. So members of the military were absolutely under the jurisdiction
18 of military investigative and judicial organs; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Let us now go back to the document. This document
21 obliged you to furnish the following information: The name of the place
22 where the detention camp, prison, or collection centre was located; the
23 name of the municipality; then who ordered the institution to be
24 established; who gave the order for those people to be brought to the
25 detention camps; the number of imprisoned people or captured people and
1 their particulars; as well as the number of persons arrested and their
3 So you were given the deadline until the 30th of August of that
4 year to furnish this information. Do you recall that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you remember the document?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Since in your territory you didn't have such instances, I assume
9 that there was no reason for you to act upon this order.
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Do you remember whether you informed the ministry that there were
12 no such centres in the Municipality of Ljubinje
13 A. Yes. We were obliged also to reply in the negative. This was
14 part of our duties.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to
17 tender this document, please.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D57.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please look at
21 65 ter 125.
22 Q. This is a dispatch of the Banja Luka CSB of May 15th, 1992, which
23 is conveying to its public security stations under its jurisdiction the
24 text of the order received from the MUP, and this is why I am using this.
25 I am sure that you did not see the dispatch in this form, but the text
1 was conveyed from the ministry order. So I assume that you also found
2 out about it through your CSB centre.
3 Do you remember a dispatch with these contents?
4 A. No. We didn't get this. This is Banja Luka. I cannot remember
5 it right now. Perhaps we did receive it.
6 Q. This again deals with the information about inadequate,
7 unprincipled conduct of some members of the reserve forces, and the
8 document takes the position that such persons cannot be members of the
9 MUP, which is something that we discussed yesterday.
10 A. Yes. The centre probably did have this dispatch, but this matter
11 is covered by a number of documents, so I really cannot remember in
12 detail this particular one. I think all the stations in the area of
13 Republika Srpska received a dispatch like this.
14 Q. Well, the idea of showing you this document actually is something
15 that was done constantly. This is the earliest one that I managed to
16 find of May 15th, but documents and orders of this content were re-issued
17 periodically throughout the entire 1992; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not sure if I
21 should tender this or not because the witness was unable to recognise the
22 document. I'm not going to tender that particular document then.
23 Next document, please, 65 ter 185.
24 Q. This document comes from the Ministry of the Interior of
25 Republika Srpska, dated 23rd of July, 1992. You have it on your monitor.
1 This is an order that came as a result of the conclusions of that first
2 collegium of the MUP of Republika Srpska which you attended on the 11th
3 of July in Belgrade
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. This document is from the same group of documents. This order
6 pertains to procedure that needs to be applied in relation to MUP members
7 who committed crimes either earlier or during the conflict.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You can see here that the ministry is ordering you that in
10 relation to such members who have committed criminal acts before or since
11 the beginning of the war, in other words, since the formation of the MUP
12 of Republika Srpska, that you need to take legal measures with respect of
13 such members -- against such members.
14 When they say legal measures, or measures provided under the law,
15 do you mean -- do you read this to mean both criminal measures and
16 disciplinary measures?
17 A. Yes, I understand it as both of those measures.
18 Q. And then in item 2 they say the chiefs of CSBs are responsible
19 for implementing the order?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And then in item 3, the ministry required that information be
22 delivered to them by a certain date.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you remember this order?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
2 document into evidence, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D58.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Another document on the following day. This is 65 ter 188.
7 Could we have that on our screens? This is the document of the ministry
8 dated the 24th of July, which is to say on the following day after the
9 order that we just saw, which was dated 23rd of July, and this here is
10 dated 24th of July. On behalf of the minister somebody else signed the
11 document, and it pertains to an identical situation, namely that members
12 of the ministry against whom criminal proceedings were underway before
13 responsible courts need to be relieved of duty and placed immediately at
14 the disposal of the Army of Republika Srpska. Do you remember this
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So this is yet another document from the series of documents
18 which all kept reiterating the same matter throughout 1992, from the very
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have this document
22 tendered into evidence as well too.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, just for clarification, these
25 orders, do they imply that -- that persons who were under prosecution for
1 having committed crimes were being released from the prisons and put
2 under the army's command?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. I believe that
4 we have clarified this yesterday --
5 MS. KORNER: Shouldn't the witness answer rather than
6 Mr. Zecevic?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Naturally. Naturally. I
9 Q. Mr. Krulj, please.
10 A. Members of the Ministry of the Interior who were criminally
11 prosecuted and against whom criminal proceedings are being instituted
12 before the competent courts of Republika Srpska should be relieved of
13 duty and placed at the disposal of the army.
14 This has nothing to do with criminal responsibility. That is to
15 say, a policeman who made a violation earlier and criminal proceedings
16 were instituted against him or he just committed a violation or a crime
17 against him, criminal report would be submitted to the relevant
18 prosecutor's office. And in addition to that, in addition to criminal or
19 disciplinary responsibility, in addition to that, he needed to be
20 relieved of duty. He needed to be suspended from his regular police
21 duties and placed at the disposal of the army. I think I explained that
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: But would he be released from custody and
24 transferred to combat activities, for instance?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. If he was in detention, then
1 no. If he committed a crime, a criminal report is filed against him,
2 just like any other citizen. A report is filed with the relevant
3 prosecutor's office. And simultaneously, he is suspended from his police
4 duties. So these are additional measures. And proceedings are
5 instituted against him regardless of where he is, be it in the army
6 or ...
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. I think my problem is that I'm not sure I
8 fully understand the link between being under investigation or
9 prosecution and then the transfer to the army.
10 Suppose a policeman had committed a crime and was being
11 prosecuted for that, and he was not held in detention in relation to the
12 crime that he committed. That the order apparently says that this
13 policeman would then be relieved of his duty, so he would no longer be
14 able to work as a policeman, and then he would be put to the army, I
15 suppose to be enrolled in the army as a soldier, and that's the link that
16 I'm not sure I understand.
17 Can you explain why was it that some policemen who had committed
18 crimes and were under prosecution were then not only relieved of their
19 police duties but also forced into the army?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we look at the rules on
21 disciplinary responsibility of the members of the MUP, then you will see
22 that there are light violations and grave violations. A grave violation
23 would be a commission of a crime. A disciplinary proceeding is
24 independent of any criminal proceeding, and in those cases these people
25 were mostly disciplined by terminating them at work for the crime they
1 had committed regardless of what was the outcome of the criminal trial
2 for that crime, and that person was terminated at work as a result of
3 disciplinary proceedings. That person would automatically be called up
4 by a military organ to enlist him in the army.
5 I hope that this is entirely clear, but if necessary, I will
6 clarify more.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. So if I may add on to this in order to assist further. So a
10 military duty to participate in the defence of the country is the highest
11 duty according to the law and the constitution, and it is a duty of every
12 individual within a certain age range. Isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And in that sense everybody has a duty and an obligation to
15 defend their country.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When a person is a member of the MUP, then that person carries
18 out that duty to defend via performing their duties within the Ministry
19 of the Interior as their work obligation.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Since in May a general mobilisation was declared -- do you
22 remember that? It was declared in Republika Srpska.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Then the person whose work duty within the organs of MUP ceased
25 to exist as a result of the gravest punishment, as a result of being
1 terminated at work, then that person automatically is converted into a
2 conscript and sent to the front.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So this is a legislative, automatic process. It is not just a
5 result of this order by the Ministry of the Interior. Isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I hope this is clear, but if the
8 Court wishes me, I can provide further clarification. Thank you.
9 Q. Just one more matter. If a criminal report, a criminal complaint
10 was filed against that person who committed a crime, a criminal report to
11 the authorised prosecutor, the outcome of that criminal report will be
12 decided by the prosecutor and not by the chief of that organ of the
13 interior. Isn't that right?
14 A. Yes, naturally.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now show to the witness
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, the registry reminds me the last
19 document hasn't yet been admitted. So you're tendering that as an
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, by all means, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D59, Your Honours.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown
25 1D00-4597, please.
1 Q. Mr. Krulj, this document was issued by the Ministry of the
2 Interior in Bijeljina, dated 16 November 1992. It was sent to chiefs of
3 all public security stations and chiefs of all CSBs. Do you remember
4 receiving this document?
5 A. Yes. I can see that here, yes.
6 Q. This document, first of all, pertains to the conclusions of the
7 collegium held by the minister of the interior on the 5th of November
8 when current problems in the work of the ministry were discussed.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Could you please go to the last page. This document mostly deals
11 with personnel issues, most of the document. And please go to the last
12 page, item 9, which is on page 3 of your text. Item 9.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So item 9 again orders the same thing as the previous order dated
15 the 23rd of July, namely that those persons who had been held criminally
16 responsible for crimes or who had committed crimes or in some other way
17 compromised themselves need to be excluded from the ranks of the Ministry
18 of the Interior. Isn't that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have this document
22 tendered into evidence as well, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D60.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 65 ter
1 356. Could you scroll up, please, so that the witness can see the
2 signature. Rather, scroll down.
3 Q. This document is dated 15 April 1992, Ministry of the Interior.
4 It's an order. You see the order?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you remember it?
7 A. Well, yes. We had similar orders. They would come in.
8 Q. See what it says here. It has only two items. Item 1 says:
9 "Persons committing seizure, looting, appropriation of other
10 people's and missing property and other unauthorised acts in order to
11 achieve unlawful gain are to be identified and subjected to the most
12 rigorous responsibility measures, including arrest and detention.
13 "This order shall come into force immediately."
14 Tell me, please, this order actually just additionally highlights
15 your duty under the law?
16 A. Yes. And it does so for the umpteenth time.
17 Q. Did you apply this order in your work, this order and the law?
18 A. Yes. To the extent that we were able to, yes.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we introduce this into
21 evidence as well.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krulj, was this a frequent occurrence that
23 you had to arrest and detain and prosecute and ensure prosecution of
24 policemen in your municipality?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. We didn't understand each
1 other. We often received orders of this kind, and perhaps there were
2 just two or three such cases over a period of two or three years. But we
3 frequently received orders of this type. You can see yourself that the
4 documents repeat themselves. This is what I meant.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand that, that these orders came
6 frequently. My curiosity was just in relation to your answer that you
7 did in fact apply this provision. So I was curious to know how frequent
8 that happened.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps several times. I cannot
10 remember how many times there was the case of somebody from the police
11 looting or stealing or something, and then this kind of report would be
12 issued. But this was not the case in my jurisdiction.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. I apologise. Just one clarification while we still have the
15 document on the screen. This order does not strictly refer to members of
16 the MUP, because it says "persons who commit." So it refers to everyone
17 practically, doesn't it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The reason to emphasise these duties is due to the fact that on
20 the 15th of April a war broke out and this is why these duties were being
21 emphasised one more time in this order.
22 A. Yes. I apologise. I thought this just referred to members of
23 the ministry, but what I can see now is that it does say "persons."
24 Things like this were more common. There were lots of
25 confiscated vehicles that had been stolen, a lot of movable items that
1 had been robbed, and these kind of items -- kinds of items were often
2 confiscated at check-points and in town.
3 I apologise again. I thought that this referred exclusively to
4 members of the ministry.
5 Q. Thank you. I think now we've clarified the matter.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please tender this document?
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D61.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now move to the
10 next group of documents, and can the witness please be shown document
11 65 ter 138.
12 Q. It's an order on reporting for the needs of the government. It's
13 a document by the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian Republic
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina of the 26th of May, 1992, and it's sent to all the
15 security services centres, including Trebinje. I assume that via the CSB
16 you were also requested to furnish this information.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In paragraph 1 of the document, it says that "it's essential to
19 regularly write reports about offences against the people and property
20 within the territory of the Serbian Republic
21 is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And then after that certain groups of questions are mentioned,
24 and they're more of the nature of statistical information; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And on page 3, if you recall, you'll see that the deadline was
2 set until the 31st of May, 1992. Do you remember if you did send your
3 CSB in Trebinje the data from your public security station?
4 A. Yes. We probably did.
5 Q. All right. Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] We would like to tender this
7 document, Your Honour, please.
8 JUDGE HALL: It's admitted and marked.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D62.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] We're now coming to an important
11 document. It's 1D0609. Can we please show this document to the witness
13 Q. [No interpretation]
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. It was on, but it wasn't working. I'm sorry,
15 Your Honours.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, I'm going to repeat. This is a document of
17 the Ministry of the Internal Affairs of the republic -- of the Serbian
18 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the 19th of July, 1992
19 sent to the chiefs personally of the security services centres, including
20 the one in Trebinje, and the document is the result of conclusions
21 adopted at a meeting of the first MUP collegium on the 11th of July,
22 1992, in Belgrade
23 This document pertains to the tasks to document, and uncover acts
24 of war crimes or genocide and the submission of criminal reports as well
25 as other documents and orders, and for those purposes the administration
1 for administration and management drafted a questionnaire on war crimes
2 and victims of genocide, and then there are instructions on what to do
3 with this questionnaire. Are you aware of this?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what the document insists is that ...
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue?
8 JUDGE HALL: Just a moment. Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, could you please look at the third
11 paragraph on the first page which states:
12 "It should be borne in mind that questionnaires on war crimes
13 remain just a form of investigative documentation only, until such time
14 as they have been proven (judicial sentence or decision by an authorised
15 state commission) and will be so regarded, all the more so because
16 criminal reports will also be submitted against unidentified
18 Can you see that?
19 A. Yes, I can.
20 Q. Thank you. And then the last paragraph states the deadline by
21 which the documents should be provided. What I would like now to do is
22 to look at the actual form, and that is on page 3. That is the form RZ
23 on page 3 of this document.
24 You are familiar with this form, aren't you?
25 A. Yes, I am.
1 Q. It was a compulsory form for each individual case of a war crime,
2 and it would be filled in and sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
3 Isn't that correct?
4 A. Yes. This was done by the criminal police.
5 Q. Did you have cases in your practice where such a form had to be
6 filled in in your territory? I'm talking about 1992.
7 A. I don't think so, no.
8 Q. In 1992.
9 A. I don't think so, no.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we tender this document,
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D63.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I still have two
16 documents to go through and four or five questions, so I think I will
17 need ten minutes at the most. I can see that it's time for a break, so
18 if I may be allowed to continue for another ten minutes after the break
19 and then I believe that I will complete my cross-examination of this
21 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] almost as bad as mine, but
22 can I just ask. I know that Mr. Krgovic has got questions. We've then
23 got another witness. It doesn't seem to me that we're going to get to
24 Mr. Djeric today. So therefore I'm -- if anybody has any doubts about
25 that, otherwise I'm going to send him away.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, I thought that you had asked that a
3 witness ST-79 would follow --
4 MS. KORNER: Exactly. I'm talking about Mr. Djeric. He's here
5 as well. That's the one I want to send away, because I --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. There's no chance that he will begin today.
7 MS. KORNER: No, I don't think so either.
8 JUDGE HALL: So we'll take the break. We return in 20 minutes.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.
12 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, while the witness is in the process of
13 resuming the stand, we have two oral rulings to deliver. Judge Harhoff
14 will deliver one and Judge Delvoie the other.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. I hope the interpreters have been given a
17 copy so that they could follow.
18 THE INTERPRETER: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: On -- I'll read slowly then.
20 On 8 October 2009
21 65 ter numbers of additional documents for expert witness Dorothea Hanson
22 in which it requests the Trial Chamber to take note of the addition of
23 seven documents to its exhibit list. The seven documents are all
24 referred to in Dorothea Hanson's expert report. The Prosecution submits
25 that they were disclosed to the Defence no later than February 2008 but
1 that the documents were not included on the exhibit list filed on
2 8 June 2009
3 Following the direction of the Trial Chamber given at the
4 Pre-Trial Conference on 4 September 2009
5 to be heard pursuant to Rule 94 bis, and the Prosecution now wishes to
6 use the seven documents in its examination-in-chief. The Prosecution
7 therefore asks the Trial Chamber to take note of the addition of the
8 seven documents.
9 Once a party has filed its exhibit list pursuant to Rule 65 ter,
10 it can only be amended with leave of the Trial Chamber through a motion
11 showing, among other things, good cause for the request and why the
12 documents are of sufficient importance to justify their inclusion. It is
13 insufficient and inappropriate for a party to merely submit a notice to
14 the Chamber as it wishes to amend its Rule 65 ter lists. In the absence
15 of a properly filed motion, the Chamber notes that Defence is also
16 deprived of an opportunity to respond.
17 While the Chamber will on this occasion and in the interests of
18 judicial economy treat the notices as motions for the amendment of the
19 Prosecution's exhibit list, it will not accept this practice in the
20 future. Any future similar requests are to be made by properly filed
22 The Prosecution does not extend any argument to demonstrate good
23 cause for the addition of these documents to its exhibit list nearly two
24 months after the ruling on the mode of testimony of this witness, nor
25 does it indicate the importance of the documents to the evidence of the
1 witness. As the Prosecution has not established good cause for the
2 relief sought, it is not necessary for the Chamber to seek responses from
3 the Defence in this instance. Consequently, and in view thereof, the
4 Chamber denies the request for amending the Prosecution's exhibit list.
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour -- sorry, before you deal with the next
8 ruling, can I ask this: that if we do a proper filing given reasons why,
9 would Your Honours be prepared to perhaps reconsider? We take -- we take
10 the rebuke seriously, and it won't happen again.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, we, of course, don't see that we can
13 prevent you from re-filing, and once you -- we'll have to consider it.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: On the 14th of October, 2009, the Prosecutor --
15 the Prosecution filed a notice requesting the Trial Chamber to take note
16 of the amendments to the mode of testimony of ST-52 and ST-79 from viva
17 voce to Rule 92 ter, and of ST-4 from Rule 92 bis to Rule 92 ter.
18 Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 92 ter, the Prosecution seeks the
19 admission into evidence of the statements and transcripts of these
20 witnesses and associated exhibits which its status forms an inseparable
21 part of the witness's evidence.
22 Fourteen of the documents do not appear on the Prosecution's
23 exhibit list, and the Prosecution therefore seeks to add them to its
24 exhibit list.
25 On the 26th of October, 2009, the Prosecution filed a similar
1 notice requesting the Trial Chamber to take note of the amendment to the
2 mode of testimony of Witness ST-140 from viva voce to Rule 92 ter. The
3 Prosecution also seeks to admit -- to add, sorry, nine associated
4 exhibits to its exhibit list. The Prosecution argues that there is no
5 prejudice to the accused as a result of the variation of the mode of
7 Prosecution submits that the transcripts, written statements, and
8 associated exhibits of the witnesses meet the requirements of
9 admissibility under the rules and that the amendments are made in an
10 attempt to save time in court and streamline the presentation of evidence
11 at trial.
12 As noted in the preceding decision, the party's exhibit list can
13 only be amended with leave of the Trial Chamber upon a showing of good
14 cause. The same holds true for a party's witness list. Changes to the
15 mode of testimony of witnesses who appear on the witness list are to be
16 made by a properly reasoned motion for the admission of witness
17 statements and transcripts pursuant -- pursuant to the appropriate Rule,
18 that is, either Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 ter.
19 For the reasons noted in the preceding decision, the Chamber
20 emphasises that it is insufficient and inappropriate to a party to merely
21 submit -- submit a notice to the Chamber as it amends its lists. It is
22 also contrary to the guidelines that the Chamber had -- has issued.
23 Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, the Chamber will on
24 this occasion treat the notice -- notices as motions for the admission of
25 evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
1 Having so decided, the Trial Chamber grants the Defence 14 days
2 from today to respond in respect of ST-4, ST-52, and ST-140.
3 The Chamber has been informed by way of e-mail from the
4 Prosecution to its legal officers that the Defence agrees that ST-79 be
5 heard after ST-202.
6 I think that is correct. Isn't it, Mr. Zecevic? Mr. Krgovic?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honour, yes.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
9 Can the Defence also state whether it objects to the request to
10 her -- to hear, sorry, ST-79 pursuant to Rule 92 ter? Do you object to
11 that, or are you in agreement with that?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: We do not object.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: You do not object.
14 Mr. Krgovic, you do not object?
15 MR. KRGOVIC: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: As the Defence does not object, the Trial Chamber
17 allows the Prosecution to call ST-79 pursuant to Rule 92 ter. The
18 Chamber also finds that the three associated documents form an
19 inextricable and indispensable part of this evidence. The Trial Chamber
20 will accept on to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list this prior
21 testimony and the three accompanying documents. This material will be
22 admitted into evidence upon the witnesses having complied with the
23 conditions of Rule 92 ter.
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. A minor point by way of correction. At
25 line 9 on page 36, the transcript correctly says that -- it is
1 insufficient for the Prosecution to submit a notion, but clearly the word
2 we intended to say was notice. Thank you.
3 Could we have the witness back.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. While we wait for the
5 witness, I was notified by my assistants that 1D52, which was erroneously
6 offered for evidence and then marked for identification because the
7 translation is pending, has been with the CLSS since 4th of December,
8 2008. But -- I mean, it was -- I'm not saying that the CLSS bears any
9 responsibility for that. It is probably us that didn't prioritise this
10 document on time, but I'm just saying that we diligently sent the
11 document almost a year ago for translations, but due to known reasons it
12 hasn't been translated. The moment it's -- we receive the translation we
13 will offer it. Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Krulj, can we continue? You have before you the form on war
18 crimes that we discussed earlier. Please look at A, 1 column, under
19 items 5 and 6. This is an area where ethnicity and religion should be
20 entered of the victim; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So I'm going to interpret this and you can tell me whether I'm
23 interpreting this right, namely this form was not used solely for victims
24 of war crimes of Serb ethnicity but, rather, for victims of war crimes of
25 all ethnicities, victims in that territory.
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Now can we show the witness a
3 document from another group. 0642, 1D00-0642.
4 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, are you exhibited this?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I believe it has been exhibited
6 already. I'm sorry? Oh, I'm sorry. Can I have this exhibited, please.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is 0609; right?
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, what was the ERN number?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe it has already been exhibited, Your
12 Honours, as 1D63. It's -- it's the document concerning the war crimes,
13 the war crimes form that -- I'm sorry.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: 0609.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honour. 1D00-0609 has
16 already been exhibited and it's 1D63, yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Okay. Great.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: So I was -- I was using the opportunity because the
19 document was still on the -- on the monitor that I ask the witness for
20 that. Thank you. So it's clarified.
21 Can the witness be shown the new document, 1D00-0642. Okay.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, you can see this document. Again,
23 Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska, dated 6 September 1992.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. This document pertains to an order where again in paragraph one
1 they reiterate that measures of confiscation of objects, property items
2 and so on have to be carried out exclusively in accordance with the Law
3 on Internal Affairs, the Law on Criminal Procedure, and instructions.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that also there need to be proper receipts issued that need
6 to be numbered and recorded in accordance with the rules and so on, and
7 treated as negotiable instruments.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that all of these items accompanied by proper documentation
10 need to be sent to the proper offices of the MUP of Republika Srpska.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then in paragraph 4 they speak of punishments for those who
13 violate these provisions; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you remember this order?
16 A. Yes. And you can see at the bottom that it was sent to all CSBs,
17 all public security stations. So it reached our station as well.
18 Q. And you applied this in your work?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we tender this into evidence as
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D64.
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, at the -- just before the break you had
25 indicated that you would wrap up in about ten minutes.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE HALL: I'm just reminding you that you have spent three
3 hours and nine minutes already.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours, but I thought these
5 documents will assist the Trial Chamber. That is why I insisted --
6 JUDGE HALL: I'm only alerting you at this point.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I will -- I just need to
8 clarify two things and I -- I'm going to be finished in five minutes.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krulj, thank you very much for this. We
10 have no additional documents. Now I'm interested in some facts, so could
11 you please assist us with that.
12 Were you familiar, back in 1992, with the fact that in Bileca
13 there was some sort of collection centre or a prison or anything of the
14 sort in?
15 A. Yes. I learned that from conversations.
16 Q. So from conversations you were aware of the fact that they
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what facts did you learn through those conversations?
20 A. Well, I learned that in a room, I don't know whether it was
21 students' hall or something like that, or a public security station room,
22 but I knew that there was a certain number of Muslims there who were held
23 as a result of conflicts in the northern part of Bileca municipality.
24 Q. This information, did you receive it via official channels, or
25 was it via private channels that you just happened to hear of it?
1 A. No.
2 Q. So you didn't receive it via official channels but rather via
3 private channels?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. Thank you. When you say that they were taken into
6 custody, by whom? Was it by the army?
7 A. Those were the military units, and that was the very beginning,
8 so I really don't know who participated in those conflicts and who took
9 those people in.
10 Q. All right. And you don't know who was in charge of law and order
11 of that -- in that collection centre, who was in charge of security?
12 A. No, I don't know that.
13 Q. At any rate, you are sure that you did not receive officially,
14 via official channels, any information about any prison or collection
15 centre in Bileca?
16 A. Yes, I'm sure of that.
17 Q. Thank you. I would now like to see P162. I think that you saw
18 that document the day before yesterday in examination-in-chief. P162.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the
20 second and then the third page of the document. In the Serbian. I
21 apologise. The third and then the fifth, because in between we have
22 these pages.
23 Q. Mr. Krulj, you can see on this page that there is some text
24 added. Part of sentence is added in handwriting.
25 A. Yes. I can see that it's added, and I need to read it.
1 Q. And then the parts that are added give a somewhat different
2 explanation of the positions given in the printed part of the document --
3 or, rather, they further clarify them.
4 A. Could somebody read out to me the handwritten portion? And it
5 says "And they are almost --"
6 Q. That is not so important to me. Can we now turn to page 3,
7 please. Page 3 in the Serbian -- or, rather, I apologise, page 5.
8 See in this lower part of the page there's quite a bit that is
9 added, added by hand and by pencil or pen.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we -- we need the bottom part
11 of the page, please, so could you scroll down. Thank you.
12 Q. Do you see that there are things added?
13 A. Yes. And it says:
14 "However, there is evidence -- evident moving out to the Federal
15 Republic of Yugoslavia
16 Q. All right. What is important for me is that there are certain
17 portions that have been added in handwriting in pencil or pen.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can we now turn to last page.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The page before last, please. I
22 Q. See, Mr. Krulj, this document hasn't been signed by anybody, and
23 you will agree with me that now we have seen that certain portions were
24 added by hand and in pen or pencil, that this is actually a draft, not a
25 final document.
1 A. What I would say that this is some sort of a draft version of the
2 document because it hasn't been signed, and I think that a document that
3 has such added portions, portions that are added so illegibly, could not
4 be sent to some other institution. That is my opinion.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
8 Thank you, Mr. Krulj. I apologise for taking up so much of your
9 time, but this is why you actually have come here. Thank you.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Krulj. My name is Dragan
12 Krgovic, and on behalf of the Defence of Mr. Zupljanin, I am going to put
13 some questions to you about your testimony over the past couple of days.
14 A. Very well.
15 Q. Mr. Krulj, when you talked during the examination-in-chief about
16 the Specijalna Jedinica Policija unit, you mentioned and the Prosecutor
17 showed you a document P169 how this unit was trained at the Bileca
18 barracks. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes. The Prosecutor asked me if they had training. Yes, I
20 remember that.
21 Q. And this is the military barracks in Bileca; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. It's the headquarters of the corps.
23 Q. And then you responded to the Prosecutor's question that the unit
24 existed from before; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I assume that if it was trained by the military that it was also
2 issued with weapons by the army and that it took part in combat together
3 with the army; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, probably.
5 Q. And it probably took part in combat at the time when the conflict
6 broke out; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And members of the unit did not wear police uniforms, but they
9 wore camouflage uniforms.
10 A. Yes, they wore camouflage uniforms.
11 Q. And red berets, I assume, and maybe some other markings.
12 A. I really don't remember the kind of caps they wore. They didn't
13 wear the police caps in any event.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, I think we have come to understand
15 that camouflage uniforms could be either the colour of the army, or they
16 could be in blue colours so as to indicate somehow that they were police
17 units. Could you clarify with the witness which colour the camouflage
18 uniforms had?
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Sir, you heard His Honour's question. Could you tell us about
21 the kind of uniform that it was?
22 A. Well, I mostly saw the military camouflage uniforms in the units,
23 because that was worn by a number of the soldiers, whereas most of the
24 soldiers in Herzegovina
25 These were green camouflage uniforms. Let me put it that way.
1 Q. Well, I apologise. They were not wearing the blue uniforms.
2 A. As far as I know, they were not, no.
3 Q. Mr. Krulj, we're going to go back to a different topic now and
4 that's the meeting of the 11th of July, 1992, in Belgrade. From what I
5 understood, the point of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for
6 the chiefs of the CSBs and individuals from the public security station
7 to talk about the problems they were encountering in their work, to
8 report on the situation in their zones where they were located, and to
9 try through the ministry to take certain steps in order to resolve all
10 these matters; is that correct?
11 A. Yes. You can see that from the minutes of that meeting.
12 Q. And each of the participants at the meeting talked about the
13 problems they were encountering and about the most burning issues in the
14 territory covered by a certain SJB or a CSB; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And this was a legitimate legal way to indicate some problem or
17 some occurrence in order to have that matter resolved within the system
18 pursuant to regulations and the laws that were in effect at that time; is
19 that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The problems that were discussed at the meeting were more or less
22 identical in the entire Republika Srpska territory, with minor deviations
23 here and there; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, there were some deviations.
25 Q. And because of that you were able to form an impression of the
1 situation not only in your own region but in the other regions as well.
2 You were able to get a complete picture; is that correct?
3 A. Yes. I don't remember if the meeting was held in two parts, and
4 I don't remember if we attended the entire meeting, the meeting between
5 the stations.
6 Q. I'm going to take you back now to the document from that meeting.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness P160,
9 Q. I don't know if you have that in front of you, but these are the
10 minutes from the meeting. And if you don't have it in front of you, you
11 can just follow it on the screen, and we will show the relevant pages.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
13 page 4 of the document in the Serbian, and this is page 7 in the English
14 version. This is ERN number 324-1854. That's the relevant page in the
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, you said that this meeting took
17 place in Belgrade
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. And the witness
19 explained yesterday why that meeting was held in Belgrade.
20 Q. This part that I am referring you to is the address by
21 Mr. Zupljanin, and I'm going to read a part of it.
22 "Paramilitary organising and violent behaviour of a number of
23 armed groups and vast quantities of illegally held weapons in
24 circumstances of ethnic intolerance, chauvinism, and revenge-seeking
25 present a great danger for the law, security of the citizens."
1 Would you agree that the situation was the same where you were?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And Mr. Zupljanin pointed the problems with the paramilitary
4 forces at this meeting, and as a conclusion of what he says, I would like
5 to show you page 26 in the B/C/S. In the English that would be page --
6 A. All right.
7 Q. I think it's page 26 in the English. You can see that conclusion
8 there. Perhaps you can read that part where it says "Activities of the
9 paramilitaries," and, "We would need to submit a special report and take
10 specific measures."
11 So what Mr. Zupljanin is suggesting, the collegium accepts those
12 discussions and responsibility for carrying it out.
13 I would now like you to go back to page 5 in the B/C/S, in the
14 Serbian version, and that is page 8 in the English version. The part
15 that the Prosecutor showed you says that the army and the Crisis Staff or
16 the War Presidency demand that as many Muslims as possible be assembled,
17 and it talks about these camps and the conditions in these camps. Do you
18 see that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Then after that, let's go back to page 26 again. Actually, we're
21 talking about page 27, where the collegium and the minister reach a
22 conclusion to solve the question on investigating judges, the detention
23 centres, and especially the collection centres, and in relation to that
24 the jurisdiction of the organs so that the MUP, pursuant to the law on
25 the criminal procedure and law internal affairs can act against people
1 only when they are put on trial or handed over to the justice organs in
2 compliance with these organs.
3 So, Mr. Zupljanin pointed to the problem. He conveyed the
4 information he had about that to the collegium and the minister, and in
5 response the collegium and the minister adopt a conclusion and take
6 measures from their jurisdiction; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Mr. Krulj, this is precisely the way to deal with problems if
9 some illegal matters crop up, and that is the way that Mr. Zupljanin
10 dealt with it. Would you agree with me?
11 A. Yes. He followed the procedure where you would inform the
12 minister and the relevant bodies, which would be followed by appropriate
13 action. The usual way would be to inform about these problems at the
14 meetings, which would either be held at the CSB or the ministry, and then
15 if there are any problems the ministry would respond by issuing certain
16 orders or requests.
17 Q. And this is the same thing that you would do had you had the same
18 sort of problems?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In this specific case, Zupljanin was pointed to the problem of
21 the collection centres under whose authority they were, the problems that
22 were cropping up, and he wanted instructions and assistance in order to
23 resolve that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could the witness now be shown 1D55, please.
1 The document was shown to you by my colleague Mr. Zecevic this
2 morning, and now I would like you just to look at paragraph 2 where it
4 "The security of collection centres shall be the direct
5 responsibility of the Serbian Army ..."
6 This is precisely the existing chain of command. Zupljanin
7 informed the collegium about the problems. The minister took specific
8 steps, probably after consulting certain judicial organs, and then it
9 says in the statement, and I'm going to -- in the conclusion, and I'm
10 going to go back to that after that and that it should be necessary to
11 contact the Ministry of Justice. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And so this dispatch is the result of the initiative started by
14 Mr. Zupljanin at that meeting; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could we now go back to Exhibit P160, please. Mr. Krulj, let's
17 look at page 5. According to these minutes, Mr. Zupljanin says:
18 "The financing of the MUP and the services is done by the SAO
19 Krajina government. When the financing is resolved, we will have fewer
20 interventions and less influence."
21 As far as I understood you from this discussion, practically
22 local authorities in the municipality financed the police for a certain
23 period of time because there were no communications.
24 A. Yes, for a time.
25 Q. And they also tried to exert their influence on the local organs
1 of command, trying to influence their work.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And this is the problem pointed out by Zupljanin.
4 Now I'm going to go back to the conclusions. Page 28, item 16.
5 The ministry -- well, let me allow you to find it first.
6 A. Very well.
7 Q. "The Ministry of the Interior must be financed exclusively from
8 the budget of the Serb republic."
9 Do you see that conclusion?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So Stojan Zupljanin's initiative adopted in these conclusions,
12 and as a result of that certain people were entrusted with the execution
13 of that task. We can see that from here. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now we're going back to page 5 again. I'm sorry that I have to
16 do it this way, but I have -- my intention is to show clearly what
17 actually Stojan Zupljanin said and what the conclusions were and how
18 things developed after that.
19 So can you please look at this part where he says that the
20 functional network of -- of connections was shattered. Connections were
21 not functioning.
22 So the same thing applied in the territory of your own
23 municipality; is that correct? The communications were not functioning?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you please look at the next page. This is page 6 now.
1 A. All right. Very well.
2 Q. Mr. Zupljanin says here exactly what you were talking about
3 today, and that is that the military judicial system was not functioning,
4 that judges had not been elected, and that overlapping jurisdictions or
5 mutual jurisdictions would need to be regulated.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer of the
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. And then he goes on to say that there are no judges for the
10 criminal cases. They're afraid, they're exposed to threats in some
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I apologise. Could you please repeat your previous answer when I
14 was asking you about the court jurisdictions. You said yes. I heard you
15 say that, but it was not recorded in the transcript.
16 A. I said yes, that was a major problem.
17 Q. And then there is this second conclusion here that several
18 thousand court cases are not completed. There aren't enough judges for
19 criminal cases. Judges are afraid. They are exposed to threats, and
20 hardcore criminals were being released from prison, which made it
21 difficult for the rule of law to function as well as for the work of the
22 police organs. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So this was the same problem that you were encountering in your
25 municipality; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Also, Mr. Zupljanin goes on to say about measures being taken
3 that would need to be taken for -- some unclear matters would need to be
4 resolved, that you would need to resolve the status of criminal case
5 judges, and resolve some other problems there that affected the work of
6 the MUP. All of that is stated here, is it not?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. After that, I'm going back to page 26 again.
9 A. Very well.
10 Q. Where it says in one of the conclusions that the work of the
11 military judicial organs, and they're functioning. Then we have page 27,
12 paragraph 14: For the purposes of resolving existing problems and
13 outstanding issues it is necessary to organise a joint meeting with the
14 Ministry of Justice at which the following problems would also be
16 In essence, the bulk of these proposals and failings were
17 included in the minutes of that meeting; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I'm going to go to page 29 now. That is the last page. The last
20 paragraph where it says:
21 "The summary of this meeting with the conclusions should be
22 submitted to the CSBs for further direction and better quality work and
23 also to the prime minister and the president of the Presidency for their
24 information and for the purpose of taking further measures to improve the
25 work of the Ministry of the Interior."
1 So we can conclude on the basis of that that this -- these
2 conclusions and the minutes were also submitted to the government and to
3 the Presidency and not only to the CSBs so that these matters could be
4 dealt with adequately.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So specifically in relation to what Stojan Zupljanin said and his
7 request for assistance in relation to these matters, he practically
8 fulfilled his obligations pursuant to the regulations of the work of the
9 MUP and his authority and powers by informing those authorised and by
10 seeking that certain steps be taken.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Just as you would have done in an identical situation; is that
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I just have one part here that Mr. Zupljanin spoke about, but
16 this is then included in the conclusions, so it's not really subject for
17 analysis. So in relation to this part I'm not going to put any more
18 questions to you. I did have one question that had nothing directly to
19 do with this meeting.
20 When Mr. Zecevic showed you these rules about disciplinary
21 responsibilities applied during imminent danger of war and the state of
22 war he - actually these rules date from September 1992 - according to
23 those regulations and prior regulations initiating disciplinary
24 proceedings for MUP employees is something that is the responsibility of
25 the commander or the chief of the public security station. The
1 initiation of such proceedings should he find out about certain
3 A. The disciplinary proceedings are initiated by any employee. That
4 is their right. The proposal to initiate proceedings is something else.
5 That is submitted by the authorised superior officer of the station or
6 the centre to a commission or to the Prosecutor.
7 Here we're talking about summary proceedings, and I think there
8 is no need for me to go into that, but that is the way how a disciplinary
9 proceedings are initiated.
10 Q. Thank you, sir. I have no more further questions for you.
11 A. Thank you very much.
12 Re-examination by Ms. Korner:
13 Q. Mr. Krulj, I want to go over some of the matters you've been
14 asked about by the Defence in the last couple of days.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, Ms. Korner. Do you need the lectern?
16 MS. KORNER: Oh, no, I'm fine, thanks. I've got one down there
17 somewhere. I'll live without it.
18 Q. Now, first of all, you were asked a number of questions by
19 Mr. Zecevic in relation to how you dealt with paramilitary formation that
20 came into your municipality. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can I just get this right. First of all, yours, as we saw at the
23 beginning, was a small municipality with a very, very small proportion of
24 Muslims. Is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And was there much difference between the size of your
2 municipality, Ljubinje, and those of Bileca and Gacko?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In what sense? Were they much bigger?
5 A. Much bigger, with much more population. Bileca about 12.000
6 inhabitants, and Gacko perhaps even more than that.
7 Q. And each of those, as we've seen, had SJBs. Gacko and Bileca.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And can I just confirm, because I'm going to show you a document
10 a bit later, but the head of the SJB in Bileca was Mr. Goran Vojovic?
11 A. Mr. Goran Vujovic.
12 Q. Vujovic. So sorry. And was the commander a man named Miroslav
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in Gacko, is that right, it was a gentleman named Popovic who
16 was the head of the SJB?
17 A. Yes, but I'm not sure whether it was so at the very beginning.
18 Q. All right. Now, as I understand what you're saying, the only
19 information you received about events in either Gacko or Bileca was at
20 meetings that were held at Trebinje with the other chiefs of the SJBs?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Or obviously collegiums.
23 A. Yes. At internal collegiums those matters were not discussed,
24 and you could see it based on the documents that you have.
25 Q. Particularly on the diary.
1 A. Yes. That's what I meant.
2 Q. All right. And you told, I think it was either Mr. Zecevic or
3 Mr. Krgovic, a few minutes ago that you only heard about what was
4 happening in Bileca and prisoners privately. Is that right?
5 A. Mostly through private channels, and that was before the meeting
6 that was held in Trebinje.
7 Q. All right. I want to come back to that aspect a little later.
8 You've also been shown a large number of documents emanating
9 largely from Mico Stanisic by Mr. Zecevic, and do I understand this
10 correctly, that you are able to recall that you received each and every
11 one of these documents?
12 A. I'm not able to remember now, but if I take a look at the
13 document and I can see to whom it was addressed, then I can remember that
14 it reached us. I can guarantee you that it reached every public security
16 Now, if you were to tell me, "Give me a quote from a document of
17 the 26th of June, 1992," then I wouldn't be able to do that, but if I see
18 a document like I saw it here today, then I can claim with certainty that
19 that document reached my public security station.
20 Q. Yes. Sorry, but -- you see, this is quite important, and nobody
21 blames you for this, Mr. Krulj. Are you saying it's simply because it's
22 addressed to the SJB or the CSB you must have received it or that you can
23 actually recall receiving it, because there's a difference.
24 A. I remember receiving these documents. And there were a lot of
25 documents with similar content.
1 Q. All right. So even if you didn't have to take any particular
2 action in your own municipality, you can still remember that you received
3 those documents?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And so there was no problem in getting those documents to you.
6 Communication certainly worked to that extent?
7 A. Well, perhaps we reached it after ten or -- perhaps we received
8 it after 10 or 15 days via courier. It certainly didn't reach us on the
9 day the document was written.
10 Q. All right. But -- that's why I wanted to confirm. You're quite
11 sure you got all these documents.
12 A. Yes. And you can verify that in the archives of our station.
13 Q. All right. Now, I want to talk to you a little bit, please -- or
14 I want to ask you - sorry, I don't know exactly what I corrected somebody
15 else for - about something that you said in respect of a document, which
16 I believe has now been numbered 1D46. And if we could have that on the
18 This is this order of the 15th of May dealing with the wartime
19 organisation of the ministry, and you were shown item 8. Please, in
20 English and in Serbian. And 9, which is the setting up of the
21 disciplinary matters and the setting up of this staff. And you told us
22 that violation of regulations and failure to carry out tasks which had
23 been ordered in an appropriate display of disciplinary and criminal
24 punishment, et cetera. You were asked was that abided by in practice and
25 you said yes.
1 How do you know that? How do you know it was abided by in
3 A. When talking about this, I speak of the institution where I
4 worked, and I can state with full responsibility that I upheld, I abided
5 by this order. And as for you mean how it went in practice, I can
6 explain. For example, if somebody committed such and such crime, then,
7 yes, sanctions followed.
8 Q. Yes. No. Sorry --
9 A. In accordance with the law.
10 Q. This is what I'm trying to get at. You can say that in your
11 municipality you abided by it, but do you have any idea whether everybody
12 else abided by it? That's the question.
13 A. I gave responses in relation to my municipality, and that's how I
14 understood the questions.
15 Q. Yes. Exactly, Mr. Krulj. It's not your fault, but the
16 impression may have been given that you were giving an answer for
17 everywhere else in the whole Trebinje section.
18 And then you -- it went on, the question, item 9 said that:
19 "A staff should be established, and this staff is being
20 established only in the structural sense, so to speak," said Mr. Zecevic,
21 page 35, and not in the sense of effective command and control; isn't
22 that right?" And you said, "Well, I never received any kind of letter
23 signed by a staff commander so you are right.
24 "Did you ever receive any sort of official letter from the
25 police staff in 1992? Do you have any information indicating that the
1 CSB you belonged to ever received a sort of letter sent by staff or staff
3 And you said:
4 "No, I don't know that anybody received it."
5 Right. Can I ask you to have a look now, please, at 65 ter 2369.
6 It will come up on the screen in front of you. Eventually.
7 Now, this is a decision by Mico Stanisic, dated -- I'm not sure
8 what it's dated, but it says "Following the 15th of May." Decision to
9 appoint Krsto Savic to the position of chief of Trebinje CSB security
10 services centre, member of the Serbian republic of the interior staff for
11 command and control of the overall forces of the Ministry of the
12 Interior. And then pursuant to the powers, statement of reasons, et
13 cetera, establishing a staff for command and control of the ministry's
14 forces in accordance with position held, et cetera.
15 So were you -- are you saying to the Court you didn't know that
16 in fact Krsto Savic had also been appointed chief of this staff, or
17 appointed to the staff?
18 A. He is being appointed to a member of the staff as chief of CSB.
19 So he had previously been appointed chief of CSB and then staff member.
20 As I have said yesterday, I didn't see this decision, and I also
21 said that I didn't see the signature right here at the bottom where it
22 says "Minister." I never saw somebody sign as Chief of Staff. And as
23 for Krsto being a staff member, yes, I could see it on the basis of the
24 previous document where it said who the staff consisted of. It says who
25 was the chief, who was deputy assistant, and then all chiefs of CSBs, and
1 Krsto was a chief of a CSB. So based from that document I could see that
2 he was a member of the staff, and as for the decision actually appointing
3 him, no, I never saw that.
4 Q. No. At the moment I'm just asking you whether you knew that in
5 fact such a staff did exist and that Krsto Savic was a member of it.
6 A. Yes. I could see it from the document that we saw before this
8 Q. No. But did you know in 1992, in May, that this staff existed
9 and that Krsto Savic was a member of it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, in those circumstances, may I ask this
13 be made an exhibit.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I have no objection, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
16 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P170.
18 MS. KORNER:
19 Q. Now, I just want to ask you a little bit more about this business
20 of the resubordination that you were asked about of police to the army.
21 You told us - I'm just going to find the place - that you had a
22 conversation -- sorry. I'm just trying to find my ... yes. Yeah. This
23 was at page 46 of the -- the -- yesterday's LiveNote. That the brigade
24 commander asked you to provide assistance to him with policemen, and you
1 "I didn't have to be pushed to do this because certain areas had
2 to be closed off. I attended the meeting, and I accepted to give some of
3 my men to resubordinate them."
4 Do you remember saying that? Do we take it from that, when you
5 say you accepted, that you had a choice as to whether or not you were to
6 supply reserve police for the purposes of the army?
7 A. We did have a choice in accordance with the agreement with the
8 senior officials at the centre, especially if there was no communication.
9 And if I didn't make a decision within ten minutes, then it would have
10 been too late if they informed me three days later. So I could have not
11 sent a unit. Because if I were to wait for somebody to actually send me
12 an official request and then for me to officially respond, then it could
13 have been too late. So, yes, I was authorised to do that.
14 Q. No, no. I understand that. I just -- so it's not that the
15 brigade commander could order you to supply them, he could request, and
16 you could decide whether yes or no?
17 A. Precisely so. He could not order me.
18 Q. Can I just understand this: Supposing when one of your policemen
19 was engaged under the command of the military in an action he had
20 committed a criminal offence such as looting, who would be responsible
21 for initiating the prosecution against the -- or the investigation,
22 rather, not the prosecution, against this individual?
23 A. At the time while he is resubordinated -- it was never just one
24 single person. It was mostly a unit at the level of a platoon, say 20
25 people. So during that period of time, it is the military
1 resubordination that is responsible and competent.
2 Now, if that unit were to be sent back to the MUP forces, and
3 that's precisely for that reason that we sent the command of the unit as
4 well, then there would be disciplinary proceedings, because the documents
5 say if somebody does or has done previously a crime, then, yes, we could
6 send the information and the report, but it would be the military
7 hierarchy that would actually have the jurisdiction.
8 Q. But as you say if -- I just want -- so we can get this clear. If
9 the platoon came back to resume normal police duties and there was a
10 report that someone had committed a crime whilst on the military duties,
11 you would be responsible -- I say "you," but the police would be
12 responsible for beginning the investigation.
13 A. It was the commander of the battalion who was duty-bound to start
14 the investigation or, rather, military police and the security. Each
15 brigade had a military police detachment and a security department, and
16 they were stronger than a police station in Ljubinje. And each town had
17 a brigade with military police and military security.
18 If they were to fail to do that, then upon their return we would
19 submit a criminal report and take disciplinary action to expel the
20 perpetrator due to a crime that had been committed earlier.
21 Q. Yes. All right. You say to expel you would submit a criminal
22 report to whom, the military prosecutor or to the ordinary prosecutor,
23 the civil prosecutor?
24 A. After their return, then it was us who were duty-bound to submit
25 it to civilian prosecutor.
1 Q. Thank you. And just while we're on that topic, if a crime was
2 reported to you and you made investigations, even if the investigations
3 showed that the perpetrator was likely to have been a member of the
4 military at the time, would you submit a report still to the civilian
6 A. I don't know how to reply to that. If he was a member of the
7 military, then normally it would be military police who would come and
8 take over that case from us with all the appropriate documents that we
9 had about the crime, the act, and so on, and they would submit it to the
10 military prosecutor in Bileca. They would submit a report.
11 Q. Can we just -- sorry, let's look at an actual example from your
12 own municipality. You told us about the mosque being blown up, and you
13 told us you carried out an inquiry -- or an investigation. Do you
14 remember telling us that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Supposing your investigations which you had begun had shown that
17 it was likely to have been a military unit that blew up the mosque, would
18 you then submit a report to the civilian prosecutor or simply contact
19 the -- the military police?
20 A. Well, it was -- if it was a military unit, we would get in touch
21 with the military police.
22 Q. So you wouldn't submit any kind of report to the prosecutor?
23 A. We could submit a report, the basic report, to the civilian
24 prosecutor, but if it was a military unit, then it was -- then it is the
25 military prosecutor who has jurisdiction. Had we uncovered who the
1 perpetrator was, then the civilian prosecutor would declare himself not
2 to be competent and would send the case over to the military prosecutor.
3 Q. Right. This is what I'm trying to get at. It was actually the
4 civilian prosecutor, wasn't it, not the police who made the decision
5 which of them -- two of them had jurisdiction. That's right, isn't it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, can I move --
8 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, it's 12 -- it's time for the break.
9 MS. KORNER: Yes. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE HALL: We'll resume in 20 minutes.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 MS. KORNER:
16 Q. Mr. Krulj, I want to go over some of the things you said again
17 about the Special Police. You told Mr. Zecevic at - here we are - page
18 48 of yesterday's transcript, who was going over what you said to me in
19 chief, about the special unit that was established by the SAO
21 A. It was Specijalna, not Posebna unit.
22 Q. I fully understand.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 MS. KORNER:
25 Q. I fully understand the distinction you're making, but I just
1 wanted to concentrate on this unit. You told Mr. Zecevic it was not
2 under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, it did not carry
3 out any police tasks but only participated in combat. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And how did you know that?
6 A. I knew that as a member of the MUP, that nobody in the territory
7 of the Trebinje centre had any sort of jurisdiction or competence over
8 that unit. I said that that unit didn't come to my territory, but I also
9 know that commander in Trebinje or chief on Bileca could not deploy that
10 unit either, nor could anybody else among us do that. And I can tell you
11 that the centre had not yet been established when the unit was set up.
12 Q. Yes. That's -- that's what you're telling us, but I want to come
13 back to that in a moment. How do you know - or are you saying this is
14 what you were told by somebody else - that this unit carried out combat
16 A. From talking to my colleagues in Trebinje, I knew that they went
17 to the area of Ravno and area of Mostar. That's all I learned from the
18 conversation. I never saw that unit taking charge of traffic or
19 patrolling in town or conducting any sort of checks. That's what I know.
20 Q. No, no. But you wouldn't expect a special unit to do traffic
21 duties, would you? A special unit was designed, as you told us, to deal
22 with outbreaks of public disorder, roadblocks and things like that,
23 wasn't it?
24 A. Those are Posebna units what you're talking about, about
25 disturbances of law and order and other things. That's done by Posebna
1 units. As for Specijalna units it was a combat unit of SAO Herzegovina
2 that had nothing to do with public security stations in the territory of
4 Q. All right. So you're quite clear on that. So Mico Stanisic as
5 minister of the interior had nothing whatsoever to do with this
6 particular unit that you're talking about. Is that what you're saying?
7 A. At the time he didn't. On the 28th of March I was in Mostar at
8 the security centre there having coffee with my colleagues and Specijalna
9 Jedinica was already in existence at the time.
10 Q. All right. And this is the unit that you say contained
11 criminals, but also, as you said when you gave evidence when I was asking
12 you questions, two members of the regular police.
13 A. I said two.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. I think there were several members of police who had left police
16 force and were members of that unit.
17 Q. But you said -- sorry, the word you used was "active policemen."
18 A. Yes, who used to be active policemen and then they left police
19 force and joined that unit. They were active policemen who had left
20 police force and went to the army on their own initiative.
21 Q. Well, this isn't the army we're talking about. I'm now
22 talking -- leave this -- I'm talking about this group called the Special
23 Police set up by the SAO Herzegovina.
24 A. What I'm saying is that these people earlier used to be active
25 policemen, and then they transferred to that unit.
1 Q. But in order to transfer to that unit, they must have got
2 permission, must they not, from their superiors in the police force?
3 A. No. They simply left their job as policemen and then moved on to
4 the other unit, and by doing so they were taken off any duties at the
5 police. If somebody failed to come to work without legitimate excuse for
6 more than three days, that would constitute a grave violation of
7 discipline and automatically would terminate them.
8 Q. And can I ask you how you know that that's what happened to these
9 several members of the police? How do you know that they left without
11 A. I don't know these people. I don't know these members. I am
12 talking about what I heard. I don't know people who were in that unit.
13 I said that from Ljubinje, from my station, there were no men who joined
14 that unit, but I think that that was the standard procedure of the
15 Ministry of the Interior, regular procedure.
16 I have to say that at the time we received our salaries from the
17 centre in Mostar.
18 Q. All right. Did you also hear that the men who were in these --
19 in this particular SAO unit committed crimes?
20 A. I didn't hear of any crimes, but I did hear that they behaved
21 inappropriately, drank, broke things, grabbed drinks in certain areas
22 around Mostar, and that they also seized materiel and equipment,
23 especially vehicles.
24 Q. All right. You see, you told Mr. Zecevic earlier that one of the
25 things you wanted to do in coming here was to protect the reputation and
1 work of members of the police who did their job honourably. Is that
2 something you feel quite strongly about?
3 A. If you really want me to say, I mean, it's for the purposes of
4 protection of the truth and the dignity of those people and the people
5 who honourably and professionally conducted their duties. Not everything
6 should be placed on the shoulders of the police. The police didn't have
7 an easy time during the time of this dirty war, and you probably don't
8 have an idea about that.
9 If I were -- if I were to tell you one particular instance that
10 had to do with me when I was in a vehicle and ten people were firing at
11 this vehicle where I was in, and this was something that was under the
12 jurisdiction of the military, and then those perpetrators, the following
13 day, were actually released to go home. They were allowed to -- they
14 were relieved temporarily to go on holiday. That's the story.
15 Q. Mr. Krulj, can I say I'm not suggesting that you acted
16 dishonourably. I'm just -- I just want to look at some of the things
17 that you've said, that's all.
18 I'd like you to have a look, please, at an article that was
19 published in "Glas" --
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, if I may.
21 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think there is a misunderstanding,
23 clarification is perhaps needed for me eventually.
24 You're insisting about the active policemen that were in those
25 Special Police Unit. I think you were referring to the Specijalna unit,
1 weren't you?
2 THE PROSECUTOR: I'm referring to the unit that he's described
3 that was set up by the SAO Herzegovina.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, yes. That's the Specijalna. But I checked
5 it on the transcript yesterday, and I think that the active policemen
6 that the witness meant were in the other unit, the Posebna.
7 MS. KORNER: No.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's what he told us yesterday.
9 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour. What he said on -- and he's just
10 confirmed it. What he said on -- on the -- whatever date it was -- the
11 26th, Monday, at page 2001, 2002:
12 "There was one unit called the Special Police, but this was not
13 under the jurisdiction of the CSB because the CSB had not been formed
14 yet. This was formed by the government of the SAO Herzegovina, and there
15 were a couple of people," and he now says, "who were active policemen."
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: But yesterday, and I'm referring to page 53, line
17 9 and 10, I specifically asked whether it was Specijalna or -- what's the
18 other name? Posebna. And there I got the answer Posebna. So perhaps --
19 MS. KORNER: He's talking about.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: We need to clarify that.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if you go back to you -- this, he was
22 talking about a different -- he was talking about the PJP, which was
23 different from this unit. That's what he was talking about.
24 All right. Shall we -- I accept it probably needs clarification.
25 Q. Can we just understand this. In the group that -- the group
1 you've called Special Police set up by the SAO Herzegovina, did that
2 contain people who you now say were active police but left and
3 transferred to this unit?
4 A. I did hear of such cases, yes, but may I clarify one thing,
6 Q. Certainly.
7 A. Until the 1st of April, 1992, we belonged to the Mostar centre.
8 There was no security centre in Trebinje. The chief of the centre in
9 Mostar was a Croat, Slobodan Bozic. He was my boss.
10 Do you believe that that Specijalna Jedinica unit was part of the
11 police and the centre in Mostar because there was no security centre in
13 Q. Yes. At the moment what I'm trying to concentrate on is this
14 group that you say was set up by the SAO Herzegovina that has no
15 connection with the -- the formal MUP of the Ministry of the Interior.
16 Do you understand that?
17 A. Yes. That was a paramilitary formation that named itself
18 Specijalna Jedinica Policija special unit of the police, or it was named
19 that by somebody from the leadership of the SAO Herzegovina.
20 Q. All right. I think maybe we can clarify this because you've
21 mentioned the 1st of April and it's obvious an important date.
22 MS. KORNER: Can we have a look please at 65 ter 10142.
23 No, that's not it. 10142. I don't know what's up on ...
24 And I think we need to -- no, that's fine. Yes. That will do.
25 Slightly to the left in the B/C/S, please.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I put my colleague Ms. Korner on notice
2 that I would in principle object to admission of -- of these documents.
3 So let me just briefly explain.
4 Your Honours, the theory of the Prosecution is that the media in
5 1991 and 1992 were used as a propaganda machinery for -- from all sides
6 in Bosnia
7 creating a sense of fear, was building up the war effort or hatred
8 towards other -- other nationalities, ethnicities, and so on and so on.
9 Now, if that is -- if that is the situation, which we -- which I
10 personally believe is true, then I don't think that it is consistent with
11 that position that the -- that the Prosecution uses the very same
12 propaganda documents establishing quite the contrary situation. I'm not
13 saying -- I'm just using this opportunity because this is the first time
14 that we are having a media article presented in our case to state this as
15 a general objection that we have towards admission of the media -- media
17 Thank you very much.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's an overstatement of our
19 position. When I opened the case, I drew your attention to certain
20 organs such as the Informator in Sanski Most which I said was certainly
21 propaganda, but media articles where, you know, report, and indeed when
22 it comes to Banja Luka, we'll be putting in the whole of the -- the
23 "Glas" articles about the SOS. Media articles are admissible in this
24 Tribunal with all the caveats, and I think we've discussed this before.
25 We're not saying that all the media all of the time was an instrument of
1 propaganda for the SDS or the SDA or whichever party it was. We're
2 saying in some cases, particularly the publications where the language
3 used is inflammatory, that's one thing. This article is a
4 straightforward report, apparently, and I simply want to ask the witness
5 about what's contained in that report in the light of what he said. And
6 it's the same with many other articles as I say that we'll be introducing
7 and which have been entered into evidence on many occasions before.
8 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, do I also understand your objection
9 also to be to the question that she's about to put to him about the
10 article apart from the question of admissibility, and the question of
11 admissibility, I would have thought that what Mrs. Korner has said is the
12 answer to the question, but did I understand your objection to be even to
13 putting the question to him that she will --
14 MR. ZECEVIC: No, not at all, Your Honours. I just in principle
15 wanted to object because this is the first time we're going to have this
16 article, and I want the record to clearly show that we are taking in
17 principle the objection to admission of media articles in this case.
18 Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 MS. KORNER: Well, there's nothing like rewriting the
21 jurisprudence in the Tribunal.
22 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Ms. Korner.
23 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
24 Q. Okay. This is an article that you were -- you were familiar,
25 were you, with the "Glas" newspaper, Mr. Krulj?
1 A. I did hear of it, but I don't read the paper.
2 Q. All right. But this reports apparently on the 1st of April that:
3 "The SAO Herzegovina police and Special Police Units were
4 established in Trebinje today. Following the national anthem and the
5 inspection of the units, the policemen took their solemn oath.
6 "Mico Stanisic, minister the interior of the Serbian republic
7 stressed at this celebration that the people of the Serbian republic have
8 their own Ministry of the Interior," and so on and so forth.
9 Now, firstly, were you present at this parade or whatever it was,
11 A. Yes. I was in civilian clothing, and I was expecting a meeting,
12 but I will tell you that on the 28th, after the cistern exploded in
13 Mostar, all the Serbs ran away from Mostar, all the civilians, the
14 judges, all those who managed to escape from the -- to the eastern part,
15 and then the policemen who came from Mostar came to Trebinje. So this is
16 not a review of any kind of Special Police because if it says so in the
17 paper it's a pure lie, because it's a matter of some 20-odd active
18 policemen, exclusively active service policemen. And I wasn't there in
19 that review line in front of the centre where those people were standing
20 when the minister arrived, but I was standing next to that line, and I
21 was in civilian clothing, and they do not -- there was no mention of
22 anything like that. If that is what is said here, I do not accept that,
23 that it was any kind of special unit. It was just regular active-duty
24 members of the police force, and the reason for that was the one that I
25 explained before.
1 Q. I'm sorry, first of all, you said that -- okay. The newspaper
2 reporter has got it completely wrong. There were no Special Police at
3 this parade. Can you just say -- is that what you're saying?
4 A. Yes, I state that with full responsibility.
5 Q. Well, do you know why Mico Stanisic was there reviewing just
6 20-odd active policemen?
7 A. Krsto Savic was the one who did the review, while Mico Stanisic
8 came to inform us about the new Law on Internal Affairs and about the
9 beginning of the functioning of the new security centre in Trebinje.
10 That meeting we held very briefly in the premises of the public security
11 station in Trebinje.
12 Q. Yes. You -- exactly. You told us about the meeting, but --
13 sorry. I'm just going back to the document for a moment.
14 So the words "SAO Herzegovina police" and "Special Police Unit"
15 you say simply aren't right?
16 A. As for the presence in front of the station, there was no
17 Specijalna Policija from SAO Herzegovina there.
18 Q. All right. On the face of this article, the -- what you've just
19 told us about the SAO Special Police would be wrong, that's right, isn't
20 it? What you told us earlier about it being the police, it had nothing
21 to do with the Ministry of the Interior. It would be wrong, wouldn't it?
22 A. It's true there was a police that had nothing to do with the
23 Ministry of Internal Affairs, and those police members were not at this
24 review on this particular day.
25 Q. All right.
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I'm not seeking to put this in
2 at the moment without further [indiscernible], but could I have it marked
3 for identification.
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Mr. Zecevic.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: My objection still stands, and I believe the
6 witness directly gave the reason why I was objecting, that it contains
7 not -- not truthful -- it's a document which is not truthful at all.
8 Thank you.
9 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, that's a matter for Your Honours
10 to decide rather than Mr. Zecevic. Your Honours have heard what the
11 witness said, and you've seen what the article said. At the moment I'm
12 not asking for it to be admitted as an exhibit. I'm simply asking for it
13 to be marked for identification. Whether it's untrue or not, I heard
14 what the witness said. Your Honours decide whether or not you accept it.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I agree with Ms. Korner. It is just that the
16 witness was there, and he confirms that there was no -- there was nothing
17 like -- like this parade of SAO Special Police, and that is exactly the
18 right example of the propaganda which I was talking about. Thank you
19 very much.
20 MS. KORNER: Can I -- I'm sorry, it isn't propaganda. It's a
21 report. What's propaganda about it? It's simply a report. But could I
22 ask just one further question, Your Honour?
23 JUDGE HALL: Is --
24 MS. KORNER: Can I ask one further question and then we'll see.
25 Q. Are you saying that there was no Special Police Unit as well that
1 was set up in Trebinje at this time, 1st of April?
2 A. These were active police officers who were there.
3 Q. I know. I understand what you said about who was at the parade.
4 I'm simply asking you whether -- are you saying as well there was not the
5 establishment at this period of a Special Police Unit, and by that I mean
6 which comes under the minister of the interior?
7 A. It was formed and it existed permanently pursuant to provisions
8 of the law.
9 Q. Yes. So there was -- you see, we're going around in circles now.
10 There was a Special Police Unit set up in Trebinje around this period.
11 That's right, isn't it?
12 A. Yes, but this review was not a review of that unit. One vehicle
13 filled with policemen came from each municipality accompanying the
14 leadership that had come to attend the meeting, and these were just
15 regular active police officers who in front of the police station were
16 lined up by Krsto Savic in honour of the arrival of the minister of the
17 interior. It was not a formation of the Posebna Jedinica unit. There
18 was summons to come on the 1st of April, and so there was maximum of five
19 policemen per vehicle, and so the review actually was a review of regular
20 active-duty police forces.
21 This is not the only such heading. This was -- there are many
22 such headings, headlines. It was written by the Serbian press. They
23 were writing how the unit was armed and so on. There was all kinds of
24 things that were being written at the time.
25 Q. Tell me something. Is there a film in existence of this parade
1 that you've ever seen?
2 A. I didn't, but perhaps it does exist. It's possible that there
3 was a recording, taping of it, yes.
4 Q. And finally on this -- this document, did Mico Stanisic say words
5 to the effect of, "Our legality and legitimacy are derived from the
6 legitimate will of the Serbian and other peoples expressed at the
7 plebescite and declared their wish for their own Assembly, their own
8 constitution and their own laws"?
9 Did he say something like that at this ceremony?
10 A. I think that he did, and I think that he had a full right to say
11 that. What you just referred to did occur over the previous month, the
12 plebiscite, the formation of the Assembly of the Serbian people in
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and mostly Mr. Stanisic asked that the police
14 continued to work the way it worked before pursuant to the regulations in
15 effect. There was no insightful language or anything like that, although
16 it's quite a different matter how this was portrayed in the press.
17 Q. All right.
18 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, in that event, partially
19 accepted. May I just have it marked for identification?
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
21 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 171 marked for identification, Your
24 MS. KORNER: Right.
25 Q. Now, the -- sorry. Yes. All right. Do you agree that there was
1 in fact set up at the CSB in Trebinje a Special Police Unit, what you
2 call the PJP?
3 A. There was a unit of the police that was called Posebna Jedinica
4 Policija, the PJP at the Trebinje station. It was not called Specijalna
5 Jedinica Policija, no.
6 Q. All right. Well, can you have a look, please, at a document,
7 65 ter 155.
8 A. [No interpretation]
9 Q. We're going to make it -- enlarge it, if that's what you said. I
10 didn't get a translation.
11 Now, can you just read out, please, the Cyrillic.
12 A. "We have been made aware of the situation and the problems --"
13 Q. No, sorry. I'm so sorry. Mr. Krulj, not that. The top, because
14 it's been translated in English as something.
15 A. "CSB security services centre Trebinje.
16 "To the Special Police Brigade Detachment Commander."
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. So to the commander of the Specijalna police.
19 "We have been aware of the situation and problems of the Trebinje
20 police detachment. It is imperative that as soon as possible --"
21 Q. Right. Stop. This says -- do we agree it has been translated
22 both orally and in writing as "Special Police"? So that's what it was
23 called at Trebinje.
24 A. Detachment of the special brigade of the police of Trebinje, and
25 the special brigade of the police is at the seat of the ministry. Here
1 this is addressed to the commander of the detachment of the Special
2 Police Brigade, and that was Karisik Milenko and the assistant of --
3 actually, it was signed by the Assistant Minister, Tomislav Kovac.
4 Can you please just tell me what the date of the document is if
5 you --
6 Q. Regrettably we can't.
7 A. -- have it.
8 Q. No. Regrettably it doesn't have a date on it. It's 251 of
9 the -- but can I just ask you this: "We have been made aware of a
10 situation, problems of the Trebinje police detachment."
11 In your view this is the detachment from the Special Brigade
12 under Karisik; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. Yes. This is late 1992 and early 1993. Well, this is all right.
16 Q. All right, yes. That's the next thing I want to ask you about.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't think I'll have that made an
18 exhibit at the moment. Could I have it marked for identification because
19 I think we need to investigate.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't -- I don't have a problem. I just want to
21 remind my learned colleague that this document was withdrawn from your
22 65 ter list.
23 MS. KORNER: It was?
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.
25 MS. KORNER: Oh, that's news --
1 MR. ZECEVIC: That is the information that I received from my
3 MS. KORNER: Well, if it was withdrawn it's news to us, but as I
4 said, Your Honour, I'm not seeking to have it admitted as an exhibit but
5 obviously just marked for identification at the moment. I think we need
6 to make a bit more inquiries about it. Can we just check though?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: If it is not on the 65 ter list, it is
10 MS. KORNER: Well, no, Your Honour. We've been through this I
11 thought. We've been marking them for identification a number of
12 documents which aren't on our 65 ter list on the basis that we would
13 apply to amend our 65 ter list. If we don't get it marked for
14 identification it's a bit difficult to bring it back up again. So can we
15 have that marked for identification? And apparently it's on our 65 ter
16 list still.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. It wasn't any objection. I was just
18 notified that it was withdrawn. I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE HALL: So it's marked for identification.
20 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P172 marked for identification, Your
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. All right. Just very simply, are you saying Milenko Karisik was
25 only appointed in charge of Special Police in the end of 1992 and early
2 A. No. He was appointed earlier, but I think that the detachment of
3 the brigade in Trebinje was formed at that time.
4 Q. Right.
5 A. And this is a legal document that is in keeping with the
6 regulations. The only thing is that it is not dated.
7 Q. Yes. All right. That's fine. So I didn't want to -- I didn't
8 want to show you earlier documents. Milenko Karisik was in fact
9 appointed, wasn't he, early on in 1992 to head the -- the Ministry of the
10 Interior Special Police Brigade, and then when the CSB ones were
11 abolished later, there was a new -- there was a formation of a new
12 brigade towards the end of 1992. Is that what you're saying? Is that
14 A. As far as I know. As far as I know, from the 4th of April there
15 was the special brigade of the police under the command of Karisik. And
16 as for CSBs, abolishing it, I don't know. Maybe somebody from the
17 ministry knows about it. I don't.
18 Q. Well, don't worry, I'm not going to trouble you with it. All
19 right, that's all I want to ask you, please, about the Special Police.
20 Well, actually, no, there's one other document.
21 MS. KORNER: Can I have 65 ter 2132 just to finally put an end to
22 this. We've only translated, Your Honours, the top bit.
23 Q. Do you agree that this appears to be a list of employees of the
24 special unit for the the payment of salaries for the month of April 1992,
25 for the SJB in Bileca? And do you recognise any of the names on the
2 A. I do not recognise a single policeman here.
3 MS. KORNER: All right. We'll have to deal with that some other
4 way, Your Honours. And that can come down.
5 Q. All right. Leaving the Special Police, please. I want to deal
6 now with this matter of this particular order from Mico Stanisic that you
7 were shown yesterday and today, or the series of orders, 23, 24, and 26
8 of July.
9 Do I understand what you're saying to be this: that police
10 officers who were thought to have committed criminal offences would be
11 dismissed from the police and sent to the army because that was
12 automatic, that if they left the police they would go into the army? Is
13 that what you're saying?
14 A. I said that measures of disciplinary and criminal responsibility
15 were taken against them, and in addition to that, their names and their
16 files were sent to the Ministry of Defence in order for them to be
17 enlisted into the army units.
18 Q. All right. Well, let's just have a look at the first one that
19 you -- you looked at yesterday. I have no idea what the P number is. It
20 was 1 Defence 2751.
21 I thought -- yes. I don't know what the P number was, I'm
23 MS. KORNER: Well -- it's a Defence document, yes. That's what I
24 just said, 2751.
25 Q. And you told Mr. Zecevic you definitely received this document.
1 Is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it's repeating the -- or they're forwarding to you the
4 dispatch of the 23rd of July, with the order that "all members of the MUP
5 who have committed crimes," and we've got that one, "prior to or since
6 the start of combat take legal measures to remove them from our ranks,
7 relieve them of duty, and put them at the disposal of the army of the
8 Serbian republic."
9 Now, on the face of that that does not mention, does it,
10 anywhere, taking criminal proceedings against them. It simply says, get
11 rid of them from the police and stick them in the army, to put it
12 colloquially, doesn't it?
13 A. Well, if you want to relieve somebody of duty, if you want to
14 remove them from the police, how are you going to prove that that person
15 committed a crime if there hadn't been any criminal reports? And there
16 were such cases where people had criminal reports filed against them, not
17 traffic violations, and they were still members of police. And here
18 they're ordering that anybody who was subject to criminal proceedings or
19 there were criminal reports filed against them, that they need to be
20 removed from the ranks of police, because how can you dismiss somebody if
21 you don't have evidence that that person committed a crime?
22 You need to have evidence, and that is criminal report.
23 Q. Yes. But hang on. But nowhere does it say, does it, in that
24 record, and we look at the original order itself, or we can, which came
25 out on the 23rd of July, it doesn't mention the word or criminal
1 proceedings had been taken, does it? So if you read the document on the
2 face of it, it just says if they've committed crimes, remove them and
3 send them to the army. And I appreciate what you say.
4 A. The law is what prescribes what a crime is, and no order is
5 needed in relation to each single crime. What they need to do is file a
6 criminal report in case somebody committed a crime. And in cases where a
7 criminal report was filed, three, five, or I don't know how many months
8 ago, then we were duty-bound to relieve that person of police duties.
9 I don't think that they should have written, "If somebody commits
10 a crime, make sure that you file a criminal report." I don't think
11 there's a need to specify it so plainly.
12 Q. All right. We'll come on to this, what's further down in this
13 document in a moment, but are you saying that -- well, first -- no. The
14 first question is: Why was it necessary, if it was already legally in
15 place, for such an order to be issued in the first place if the law
16 already said that police officers who committed crimes against whom a
17 criminal report has been filed should be suspended from duty? Why was
18 that necessary?
19 A. Because there had been such cases in certain stations, and
20 because ministry had learned that there were such cases in certain SJBs
21 and that people who had committed crimes were still in the ranks of
22 police, and I think that this is fully clear.
23 Q. Is it your understanding of this order that as His Honour
24 Judge Harhoff asked you, if you had a police officer in custody who had,
25 for example, killed a prisoner who was in his custody, or raped a woman
1 who was in his custody, that instead of the criminal proceedings
2 continuing, he would be released and sent to the army? Is that what your
3 understanding is, Mr. Krulj? You say you've got this order.
4 A. How could I understand it in that way? I'm explaining it for the
5 hundredth time. That would be equal to pardoning somebody from criminal
6 prosecution. How could police do something like that? Where did you
7 come up with such a thesis?
8 So if somebody goes and kills somebody and as a punishment is
9 sent to the army? It is simply beyond me to think that somebody could
10 legitimately believe that that was possible. If somebody killed
11 somebody, then they cannot go to the army. And if they were awaiting
12 trial, then they would go to the army.
13 Q. But on the face of this order, where is the distinction drawn,
14 Mr. Krulj, between an offence which allows you to suspend the prosecution
15 and send him to the army and one which does not?
16 A. I don't think so. I disagree.
17 Q. No, no. I'm asking you. I'm asking you the question.
18 MS. KORNER: If you don't mind, Mr. Zecevic.
19 Q. Where in this order which you say you received can one see,
20 reading the order, a distinction between the sort of crimes that allow
21 you to suspend criminal proceedings and the sort of crimes which do not?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: I have to object, because --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will reply --
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't think that there is any basis for -- for
25 this question, I think, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE HALL: What --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: The witness -- the witness answered, and I wouldn't
3 like to answer -- to give me reasons, because I wouldn't like to
4 influence the witness, but ...
5 JUDGE HALL: What I -- thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
6 What I was going to ask Ms. Korner was having regard to the
7 witness's answer which you may or may not accept, is the -- in fairness
8 to -- to the witness, aren't you inviting an argument in respect of this
9 document of which he was not the author?
10 MS. KORNER: No, no. I'm going to come on to it --
11 [indiscernible] deal with another part of this document, but I'm asking
12 him as a recipient how would he have known from this order if he'd had
13 somebody in custody who had allegedly committed a murder and someone in
14 custody who had allegedly stolen from a house, how he would distinguish
15 between those who could be sent to the army and those who could not?
16 JUDGE HALL: As a recipient?
17 MS. KORNER: As a recipient. Exactly.
18 Q. Do you understand the question, Mr. Krulj? Supposing you had
19 somebody who allegedly had committed a murder, beaten a prisoner to
20 death, and someone who had stolen from a house, how would you distinguish
21 which one remained in custody based on this order, and which one -- the
22 criminal proceedings continued against and which was released?
23 A. I understood your question. This document means that members of
24 the police are educated enough so that when a crime is committed, for
25 each crime they need to file a criminal report. In addition to a
1 criminal report, that member would be removed from police duties. If
2 that person committed a crime, he would be put in detention for up to
3 three days. Prosecutor and the relevant court would be informed of it.
4 I suppose in that case the Court would extend the pre-trial
5 detention. The investigative judge would have done it as it was
6 regulated at the time, and that person would have been in gaol during
7 that period of time. Whereas with respect to the person who stole
8 something, a criminal report would be filed for theft, for having
9 committed theft. That would have been sent to the prosecutor's office.
10 And while awaiting trial, that person would have been placed at the
11 disposal of the army.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. Those were our regulations.
14 Q. All right. Well, let's -- I hear what you say on this. Let's go
15 down to the end of this particular order.
16 Dispatch -- it repeats what it says is in dispatch of the 23rd of
17 July and then dispatch number 0211 of the 24th of July. This is where we
18 get the mention apparently of the proceedings.
19 "It is necessary that all members of the MUP who have been held
20 criminally accountable or against whom criminal proceedings are under way
21 in the competent courts be relieved of duty and be put at the disposal of
22 the army of the Serbian republic."
23 Exactly. Right.
24 Now, I would like you to have a look, please, as you were shown
25 this morning, of the 24th of July dispatch number 0211, which was
1 produced as an exhibit. If it's --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours, I have the
3 objection. I believe the witness answered many times, and this is
4 getting nowhere. He -- he answered that this was prescribed by the law,
5 and that is the basis on what they were doing. He said that --
6 MS. KORNER: It's a --
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] He said that five teams at.
8 MS. KORNER: It's a completely different point, Mr. Zecevic, if
9 you wait a moment. I'm not pursuing what he says about this now.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
11 MS. KORNER: Right. Can we find, I think it was 65 ter but it
12 was produced as a Defence exhibit 18 -- 188. It's 1D59, the exhibit.
13 Q. Okay. This is allegedly, this is the order 20211 signed on
14 behalf of Mico Stanisic, which is allegedly referred to in that 26th of
15 April one from Krsto Savic.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now -- yes, I see. Sorry.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in fact -- don't worry. This is not a
19 point I want to proceed with. In fact, Your Honour, there's no further
20 point I want to make on these documents then. I made a mistake in my --
22 Q. All right. Can we finally then, please -- that's all I'm going
23 to ask you on this topic.
24 You were shown the document -- no. You were asked by
25 Mr. Krgovic -- sorry, there's one last point, not on this document. War
1 crimes. You were asked by, I think, Mr. Zecevic about investigation of
2 crimes, and in particular, war crimes, and about the difficulties with
4 I want you to have a look, please, at -- it's gone again. Yes.
5 Document 65 ter 127.
6 This is an order from Mico Stanisic, dated the 16th of May, to
7 the security centres in -- including Trebinje. And can we go, please, to
8 the third page in English and the second page in B/C/S.
9 "War crimes.
10 "Measures and activities conducted to document war crimes.
11 These activities must involve collection of information and documents on
12 war crimes against the Serbs."
13 Did you get this order?
14 A. No. Since only preliminary information was collected at the
15 police stations and war crimes were processed by CSB at the seat, and it
16 was mostly done by crime prevention police. So perhaps a letter was sent
17 based on this document to the SJB.
18 Q. So, what, you saw every other order from Mico Stanisic but never
19 got sent this one?
20 A. It's possible that I saw this one too. I'm familiar with the
21 content and I have said so. Either it was copied from something else.
22 Every order that was sent to public security stations to everybody and to
23 CSBs, to everybody, was something that I received as well, whereas an
24 order that was sent only to centres, security centres, was sometimes was
25 forwarded to public security stations in its original form or it could
1 have been copied into a different form and sent to public security
2 stations. This is the usual way the police conducts communication.
3 Q. Okay. But you are familiar with the -- with this instruction to
4 collect material and investigate war crimes against Serbs? Do you ever
5 recall receiving an order --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- from Mico Stanisic which said conduct investigations into war
8 crimes generally, whoever they may have been committed against?
9 A. I think that that can be seen partially in this order and can
10 also be seen in the form that was attached, the form that required that
11 entries be made about the ethnicity and religion, and that was the form
12 that accompanied this order.
13 Q. This order of May?
14 A. The form?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. No. Because you were shown a form of -- for a later document,
18 much, much later, dealing with the investigations into camps, which I'm
19 going to come on to.
20 Did you ever -- did you ever conduct an investigation on the
21 orders of Mico Stanisic or on Krsto Savic in relation to any offences
22 committed against Muslims?
23 A. Not pursuant to an order. However, there were some crimes,
24 property crimes, in my municipality, some minor crimes, and we did it
25 based on the law, not pursuant to an order.
1 Q. All right. And this is the final topic I want to -- you were
2 asked about Bileca by, I believe, Mr. Zecevic or Mr. Krgovic, and you
3 were shown a document, 2765. I think it was. Sorry, 2764. Sorry. You
4 were asked about collection centres. If you look at that. I have no
5 idea what the number was. D35 -- 55. 10th of August.
6 Were you aware at all, Mr. Krulj, that there had been publication
7 of -- in international media of camps, particularly in the Prijedor area?
8 A. Yes. Yes.
9 Q. And were you aware that as a result of that this is why this --
10 there was this hive of activity about prisons and collection centres
11 within the Serbian republic?
12 A. I didn't understand your question.
13 Q. Well, were you aware that these letters asking about -- and
14 orders in respect of collection centres and prisons came about as a
15 result of the international publicity? If you weren't aware, say so.
16 A. I wasn't aware.
17 Q. You were asked by I think again His Honour Judge Harhoff, the
18 difference between a collection centre and a detention centre I think it
19 was, and you said that you couldn't see any difference. Is that right?
20 A. That's what I said, but the premises for detention as regulated
21 by law exist only within police stations, and this is where suspects are
22 held, and for me in the jargon, in the unofficial language, the detention
23 centre and the collection centre are the same. I don't see the
24 difference in it.
25 Q. All right. As you said, the detention centres -- sorry. The
1 only premises for detention as regulated exists within police stations
2 and presumably also prisons. Did you hear about prisons in Bileca being
3 held -- prisons, I say, people being held in a place called the Dacki
5 A. I said that I heard of it and I mentioned that name.
6 Q. And some were called the Student Dormitory?
7 A. It was pupils hall, not students. There is no university in
8 Bileca so it was students as in secondary school students.
9 Q. And people were being held there, you heard about that, didn't
11 A. I said that I heard it from conversations and also from a meeting
12 when it was discussed in Trebinje.
13 Q. Right. Well, this is the next point I wanted to make. So that
14 was the difference, wasn't it? That was clearly not a SJB premises nor a
15 prison. So that was a collection centre, wasn't it? If that's what you
16 call them.
17 A. I never visited it, and I never called it, referred to it under
18 that name. It wasn't a prison because later on the terminology was
19 established and -- or rather it was done later whether they started
20 calling it collection centres, then I don't know. At that time, back
21 then nobody said to us there are this many people at a collection centre.
22 Q. But these were not --
23 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, it appears that you aren't going to
24 finish this afternoon.
25 MS. KORNER: Oh, I am. I'll do it in two minutes so he doesn't
1 have to come back.
2 JUDGE HALL: Two minutes?
3 MS. KORNER: Two minutes, yes.
4 Q. And as you said, you say you told Mr. Krgovic, I think it was
5 Mr. Krgovic, that you never heard any official information about Bileca
6 but you did actually, didn't you, because when you attended meetings, as
7 you told us, in Trebinje you would hear reports on what was happening in
9 A. I think that was in that meeting when the representatives of the
10 Ministry of the Interior attended.
11 Q. But -- sorry, I'm just dealing with it. It's not right to say
12 that the only information that you got about Bileca was private
14 A. What I was trying to say is this: In the document, in the diary,
15 you can see that there are meetings described and not in a single meeting
16 was this discussed, perhaps just once.
17 Q. And finally on this. Can you think of any reason why the head of
18 the SJB, Mr. Vujovic, of Bileca, should be providing lists of persons
19 over 60 who have been detained?
20 A. I think there was a working group comprising two inspectors who
21 did it. As I have said to you, I think that I know one of them but not
22 the other one. These two inspectors are from the Ministry of
23 Judiciary -- or, rather, could have been that the MUP submitted a report
24 to the Ministry of Judiciary and this is what Vujovic said, if I remember
1 Q. All right. But would you recognise Mr. Vujovic's writing if you
2 saw it?
3 A. I don't think so, because I never received any documents from
4 him, and I haven't seen the man for almost 20 years, since 1993.
5 Q. All right.
6 MS. KORNER: That's all that I ask. Thank you very much.
7 Oh, yes, Your Honours. I'm reminded I didn't ask to have the
8 document relating to war crimes exhibited, which he said he recognised
9 the contents thereof. It's 65 ter 127.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P173, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krulj, we thank you for your attendance and
13 assisting the Tribunal. You're now released, and we wish you a safe
14 journey back to your home. Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you all.
16 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, before we rise there's a question that
17 we have of you, and we would seek your answer tomorrow. You would
18 remember that in common with counsel from the other side and indeed the
19 bench, it was recognised that it would be useful for there to be
20 scheduled in advance days when we could all catch up with those things
21 necessary to make our work in court more efficient, and it is proposed
22 that the first of those days be Monday next, the 2nd of November, and
23 that is dependent on how firm your arrangement is for a witness for that
24 day but we'll take your answer tomorrow morning.
25 MS. KORNER: I'll just tell you very quickly. We're so backed up
1 now, Your Honours, that we've got three witnesses here at the moment.
2 Monday would be not a particularly suitable day, I'm afraid, unless we
3 would sent the witness away.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE HALL: So we will resume tomorrow --
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we fully appreciate -- we think it's a
7 very good idea, but I think we need more advanced notice so that we can
8 reorganise ourselves.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Tomorrow morning at 9.00 we resume.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day
12 of October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.