1 Friday, 13 November 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to everyone. May we begin by taking
9 the appearances, please.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. Tom Hannis, Gerard Dobbyn,
11 and Crispian Smith on behalf of the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Mr. Cvijetic,
13 Mr. O'Sullivan, and Zecevic for Stanisic Defence.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
15 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic. Thank you.
16 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I promised that I would finish within
18 15 minutes, but it might take a bit longer. But I think it will assist
19 the Trial Chamber, the line of the cross-examination, so with your leave
20 I will proceed with the witness a bit longer than anticipated. I'm sorry
21 for that, but I couldn't --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: For how long?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I guess half an hour all together.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, sir. I would remind you that
1 you're still on your oath.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
6 WITNESS: PETKO PANIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Panic. Are you well?
10 A. Yes, I am. Thank you.
11 Q. Mr. Panic, yesterday we talked about the prisons in Zvornik. I
12 showed you a number of orders and instructions from the Ministry of the
13 Interior relating to this issue. Let me remind you, I showed you a
14 letter dated the 10th of August, then the one dated the 17th of August
15 which we commented yesterday, and now I would like to show you a
16 letter -- or rather, an instruction dated 24th of August in which the
17 Ministry of the Interior is again making a query and asking for
18 information. That's Exhibit 1D57, if we can please have that on our
20 The Ministry of the Interior, based on the letter from the
21 Ministry of Health, Labour, and Social Welfare of the government from
22 whom they had received requests for information is now passing on to all
23 public security stations and Public Security Service centres this
24 document requiring the following information: The name and the location
25 of a camp, who ordered the camp to be established, who ordered the
1 individuals to be detained there, the number of detainees, the number of
2 the people arrested, and they gave them the dead-line for providing this
3 information by the 30th of August, 1992. Have you ever seen this
4 document, or do you know that the public security station in Zvornik has
5 ever received this kind of document?
6 A. I haven't seen this particular document. All I know is that
7 people who were working in the medical institutions used to come to Novi
8 Izvor prison. There was a female doctor. I think her name was Bela, but
9 I don't know her full name.
10 Q. Do you know that the information about the existence of the
11 prisons in Novi Izvor and the misdemeanour courts had been submitted as
12 per requests from the MUP?
13 A. No, I'm not aware of that, and I know that since this request
14 arrived an answer should have been sent, and they had to be told about
15 the doctors working in various institutions.
16 Q. Tell me about the food provided at these two prisons, Novi Izvor
17 and misdemeanours court. If I understood you correctly it seems that
18 there was a centralised kitchen providing food in Zvornik for these
20 A. Yes, we all received food, I say we and the hotel prisons from
21 the hotel kitchen.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
24 document into evidence -- yes, I apologise. Yes, it already has an
25 exhibit number. Sorry.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, yesterday I didn't object to a couple
2 of documents, but this one I do have an objection. The witness hasn't
3 seen this document. He doesn't really have anything to add to it. I
4 would oppose this one at this time --
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, but, Mr. Hannis --
6 JUDGE HALL: It's already exhibited.
7 MR. HANNIS: Okay. My apologies.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: My apologies for creating any confusion.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday, Mr. Panic, while we were talking you
10 said that either from the beginning or from mid-August, all these
11 collection centres, camps, prisons, whatever, ceased to exist except for
12 the basic prison in Novi Izvor, or rather, misdemeanours court, and all
13 the detainees had been handed over to the army and taken to the Batkovic
14 camp; is that right?
15 A. Yes. Only this prison remained I think until the beginning of
17 Q. The day before yesterday, the Prosecutor showed you a document 65
18 ter 1585. I suppose it's been given a P number now, but unfortunately I
19 couldn't find it.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have this document
21 pulled up, this document. 65 ter 1585.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
24 [Interpretation] So that's P342.
25 Q. You remember seeing this document when the Prosecutor showed it
1 to you in which a certain Colonel Ilic, despite all this warning coming
2 from the MUP and other state organs and the decisions taken in this
3 respect, orders the Muslims from the Divic collection centre, 78 men to
4 be handed over on the 22nd -- 29 August 1992. Do you remember this
6 A. I remember this document, and I said that I didn't know this
7 Colonel Ilic. He probably was from the corps because their command was
8 up there.
9 Q. At that time, did you know at all that there was any kind of
10 collection centre in Divic?
11 A. I'm not sure whether it was Divic or the residents of Divic who
12 were first in the centre in Celopek, and some of them were injured by
13 maltreatment, were sent back to Novi Izvor and the misdemeanour courts.
14 I don't know any more than that.
15 Q. Well, it says here "Divic collection centre, 78 people," shows
16 that by the end of August it was under the army's control; is that right?
17 A. I remember stating earlier to the Prosecutor, I said that there
18 was a collection centre at the football playground in Divic, only I don't
19 know whether in this period or not. And Slavko Eric used to take Muslims
20 to Olovske Luke. Some of them remained there, and the rest were brought
21 back in two or three buses, and Miko Miljanovic put those people in
22 Celopek, but I can't give you any time-frame for that.
23 Q. When you said that after these problems the rampaging by Repic
24 and the others in the Celopek centre, the people who were transferred to
25 Novi Izvor and the misdemeanours court, as you said, injured and wounded,
1 they were transferred there in order to be protected and in order to
2 receive medical treatment; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Fine.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at P347. That's a
6 report on the work of the Zvornik SJB. That's a quarterly report
7 covering July, August, and September 1992. On the last page you can see
8 that it was signed by the then-chief Milorad Lokancevic. And on page 1,
9 the last two sentences of the third paragraph, it reads as follows, just
10 to say that this document was drafted I suppose in late September or
11 early October. And it reads as follows:
12 "Also, a number of measures were undertaken relating to
13 collection centres that -- and there are two such centres in the
14 municipality housing 180 persons. This problem has been passed on to all
15 the military organs, CSB, MUP, and the Ministry of Health, but everything
16 remained as it is. It was only on the 18th of September of this year
17 that with the assistance of military organ the collection centre in Divic
18 was disbanded, where 90 people were, mainly women, elderly, and children,
19 while in the prison in Zvornik there are still 56 people."
20 As far as I understand, on the 18th of September, this colonel in
21 his previous letter now says that it has been disbanded. In other words,
22 that means that the SJB Zvornik played a role in this Divic centre for
23 more than two weeks, approximately.
24 A. Judging by the letter and the information, I have no reason to
25 doubt that. I don't know whether they wanted to go to Olovske Luke and
1 those who didn't were put into the Novi Izvor prison, but as far as this
2 information goes I know nothing about it.
3 Q. So in conclusion, on the 18th of September onwards, in the
4 territory of Zvornik municipality and under the jurisdiction of the SJB,
5 there was only this so-called basic prison in Zvornik in Novi Izvor and
6 the misdemeanours court. And that was it. Based on this letter, we can
7 conclude that nothing else existed in that sense. Later on a commission
8 from the Ministry of Judiciary and Administration came and confirmed
9 that. Can you confirm that for me?
10 A. I think, yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is of course an important piece of
15 information that by 18th of September there was only the Novi Izvor and
16 the misdemeanour court remaining as detention centres.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: But the witness also said that all the other
19 detention centres that existed in the Zvornik area prior to 18th
20 September were closed down one by one and that the detainees there were
21 transferred to Batkovic. Did I understand that correctly?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honours. That's the
23 evidence, yes.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: But it leaves me with the impression that
25 Batkovic then must have been an enormous camp. How many people were
1 there, or were people released or in -- what happened?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, Batkovic camp was a military
3 facility; therefore, we have no --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Panic, you heard the question. Do you know
7 anything at all about the Batkovic camp?
8 A. I know nothing about it. As far as Batkovic is concerned, I only
9 know that the prisoners were transferred to the Batkovic camp, and this
10 is where exchanges took place of certain detainees with Tuzla. As for
11 anything else, I don't know what was happening there.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Panic, are you able to give us an impression
13 of the number of detainees that were transferred to Batkovic and the
14 number of detainees who were then held at Novi Izvor and at the
15 misdemeanour court after 18 September? I'm interested in getting an
16 impression of the number of persons that we are talking about here.
17 Maybe I should ask first of all: Do you know how many detention centres
18 were closed down prior to 18th September 1992? Do you remember that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said as for Batkovic I really
20 cannot tell you very much because it was done by the military service,
21 and I know the technical centre, Ekonomija, the brickworks factory, Novi
22 Izvor, and the misdemeanours court. I also cannot tell you how many
23 people were detained there, but what was left behind were some 30, 40
24 individuals. I think that concerning Novi Izvor could -- Sredo Vukovic
25 who was running the Novi Izvor could give you more details.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: So can I just ask you if I have understood
2 correctly the following information, namely, that in the period leading
3 up to 18 September 1992, three or maybe four detention centres were
4 closed down and the prisoners -- or the detainees at those detention
5 centres were transferred to Batkovic, and by 18 September only 30 or 40
6 detainees remained at Novi Izvor and at the misdemeanour court. Is that
7 your testimony?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. After the war I
9 saw a number of those prisoners from Batkovic or who were in Celopek
10 prison. I saw them and I talked to them. Those were the people who were
11 exchanged, and there were many of them who were exchanged at Batkovici.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. Just one final question. I think
13 that during your testimony we heard of a significantly higher number of
14 detainees at Novi Izvor and the misdemeanour court, I think several
15 hundred but I'm not sure. Can you tell us, if you know, what happened to
16 those detainees from Novi Izvor and the misdemeanour court. Were they
17 also sent to Batkovic so that by 18 September we only had 30 or 40
18 detainees left there? I don't know if I made myself clear, but if there
19 were many more people detained before 18th September at Novi Izvor, what
20 happened to those?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, a lot of these prisoners were
22 transferred to Batkovic as well. I think that one of them was even
23 exchanged for a Serb from Sarajevo, and this man from Divic was known as
24 the Frenchman because his father used to work in France. What I said was
25 that sometime in January 1993 that there were 20 or 30 prisoners were
1 allegedly taken to cut wood but were executed there. But I really cannot
2 tell you the exact figure, maybe 30, 40, maybe even 50 because I never
3 went to that prison and I never looked at any lists. This is what I
4 heard second-hand from my colleagues.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: And one final question. I apologise,
6 Mr. Zecevic.
7 Am I also right to understand from what you have told us that it
8 was the minister of the MUP who took the decisions to have all of these
9 detainees assembled at Batkovic and have the remaining centres closed
10 down? I mean, this was -- this entire operation was done under the
11 control of the minister of MUP; is that correct?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure whether it was under
13 the control of the MUP minister. If the dispatches and letters came from
14 the ministry, they were received by the chief and the chief was the one
15 who implemented all those instructions and orders. I didn't see any of
16 them. By the rule, such things should be sent from the ministry
17 downwards and distributed from there.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
19 Back to you, Mr. Zecevic.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
21 [Interpretation] If I may be of any assistance to you, Your
22 Honours, the document that I showed you just a moment ago P347 alleges
23 that in the prison - and I'm talking about a report for July, August, and
24 September - where it is alleged that in the Zvornik prison there were 56
25 persons and that would be the exact and correct number.
1 Q. Mr. Panic, I'm a bit confused now. All the three documents from
2 the MUP that I showed you yesterday and the one that I just showed you
3 today, they are not directives of any kind. Those are directives to
4 submit information about the existence of the place or anything to the
5 contrary, and that was your testimony, was it not?
6 A. Yes, you are right. Whoever was in charge should have submitted
7 all that information and data.
8 Q. So we understand each other in that. Batkovic, Batkovic, and the
9 entire operation to transfer prisoners from Zvornik to Batkovic was a
10 hundred per cent military operation? Am I right in thinking that? I
11 believe that this is your testimony, is it not?
12 A. Yes, that's what I stated.
13 Q. That means that the transfer of prisoners from Zvornik to
14 Batkovic was something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the police.
15 The police did not have a role to play in that?
16 A. You're right.
17 Q. Very well. Mr. Panic, we have another topic that I would like to
18 discuss with you, and I believe that it will be of some significance and
19 assistance to the Trial Chamber. The document number is 65 ter 1793. It
20 was admitted yesterday, but again because of an error on my computer I
21 was not able to record the P number. Could I ask you to help me with
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P348.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the Chamber please produce
25 that document. Thank you.
1 Q. This is a report on the work for the year 1992. I believe that
2 you were present when I objected to the admission of this document into
3 evidence, and I therefore wanted to discuss some things with you.
4 Mr. Panic, in the police you spent your entire career, as it were. Am I
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How many official annual report does a public security station
8 submit to the responsible security services centre every year, either to
9 the security services centre or to the ministry, how many one or more?
10 A. There is just one annual report.
11 Q. We're talking about annual reports, exclusively about annual
12 reports. I know that there are other reports such as daily, quarterly,
13 and so on and so forth, but I would like to focus on annual reports. My
14 question to you is this: How many annual reports are submitted every
15 year? That's my question, is there one or more?
16 A. There's just one.
17 Q. Thank you. And now let's look at the document together, the
18 document is on the screen. On page 1, this is obviously an attachment to
19 the document where it says "1992," under 1, methodology for drafting the
20 report, under 2 report, under 3 programme of activities for the year
21 1993. Am I right, have I read all that correctly?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce page
24 number 2 in this document.
25 Q. Mr. Panic, you're going to see that page, and could you please
1 confirm that the page depicts the programme of work for the year 1993.
2 Can you see that? Is that a customary form that was used to draft the
3 annual programme of work? Would that be its first page?
4 A. Everything depended on the drafter. Maybe this was normal for
5 this particular person who authored this report.
6 Q. On page 12 in e-court is where this document ends. Page 12 of
7 this document is the end of the programme of work. You will see that it
8 shows the name of the chief of the service but the document is not
9 signed. Do you agree?
10 A. Yes, it's not signed.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
13 page 13 in the same document.
14 Q. Look at this. This is a document that was submitted to the CSB
15 Bijeljina. The document number in the left upper corner is
16 01-16-01-06-2. Can you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The date is 8 January 1993, and this is a supplement of the work
19 report of the Zvornik SJB for the year 1992. And it says that it is
20 connected with a document under the same number as this one dated 7
21 January 1993, and further on it says that the supplement is being sent in
22 order to clarify some of the tasks and duties within the purview of
23 traffic police. And the signature is by the chief of the SJB, Milorad
24 Lokancevic. Can you see all that?
25 A. Yes. It says so. The programme did not include the work of the
1 traffic security police, and that's why a supplement is being submitted.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown the
3 following page, page number 14.
4 Q. This is an accompanying letter, again, bearing the same number as
5 the previous document 01-16/01-061-2. And the date is 4th of January,
6 1993. And the document was sent to the CSB Bijeljina -- do you want us
7 to take a break?
8 A. No, no, this is all down to cigarettes. I'm sorry.
9 Q. Well, take your time. Take it easy.
10 Could you follow what I've just told you?
11 A. Yes, I've read it actually.
12 Q. So the document is a report on the work of the SJB Zvornik for
13 1992 and the work programme for 1993, and it was sent to the CSB in
14 Bijeljina and the CSB in Sarajevo. Can you see that? And it was signed
15 by Chief Milorad Lokancevic. Can you see all that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's show the witness page number
19 15 in the same document, please.
20 Q. This document bears the same number as the previous two
21 documents. I'm not going to repeat it. And the date is 7 January 1993.
22 The document was sent to the CSB in Sarajevo, and again it refers to the
23 report on the work of the SJB Zvornik for the year 1992. Again, this
24 document is signed by Milorad Lokancevic, and you can see on the
25 left-hand side that the document was sent to the Bijeljina CSB, Sarajevo
1 CSB, and archives. And in handwriting you can see that it was sent by
2 Telex via Pale on the 9th of January, 1993. Can you see all that, sir?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's now show the witness page 16
6 in the same document, please.
7 Q. Page 16 in the same document is a report on the work of the
8 Zvornik SJB for the year 1992, and the number -- or rather, the date it
9 bears is January 1993. If you scroll down just a little we'll all be
10 able to see the date. Could you please scroll down.
11 January 1993 is the date. And it says that it was sent by Telex
12 via Pale on the 9th of January, 1993. And finally you will see the
13 signature of the chief, Chief Lokancevic. Do you see the document, sir?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This document that we see now - and the pages are between 16 and
16 28 in e-court --
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] But I would kindly ask the witness
18 to be shown page 21 of the document. Page 21.
19 Q. You see this is page 21, sir.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we blow up the whole page a
21 little. Thank you.
22 Q. It speaks about the participation of MUP members in combat
23 operations, the tasks and duties of the police, and so on and so forth.
24 Could you please take a look at this page, sir, and then we will move on
25 to the next one. I would like you to compare the page that you have
1 before you now and the one that I'm just about to show you. Have you had
2 enough time to look at the page, sir?
3 I'm interested in hearing from you whether this document was
4 typed on two different typewriters. Could you please take a careful look
5 at this page, and then you will look at page 26. Did you have a good
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
9 page 22 in e-court. Again, blow up, please.
10 Q. Would you be able to agree with me, Mr. Panic, that this was
11 typed on a totally different typewriter and that on page 6 the number
12 looks very much like figure 8?
13 A. No, I wouldn't be able to say that.
14 Q. You're not able to say that?
15 A. No. The numbers are different. It says "SJB" and -- no, I
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
18 pages 21 and 22 at the same time on the screen, both in the Serbian
19 language. So could two different pages be displayed on the screen at the
20 same time, 21 and 22.
21 Q. Look at these two pages and please tell me whether you would be
22 agreeable to say that the typewriters are different and the font is
23 different. Maybe the two pages could be blown up --
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, whereas I understand the thrust of the
25 questions that you're putting to the witness, having regard to his -- he
1 doesn't -- he doesn't purport to hold any expertise in typewriter style
2 and print, wouldn't the submissions be just as effective once you at the
3 appropriate stage make it to the Chamber, who would have the -- in other
4 words, it seems to me that the witness has no greater ability than the
5 Chamber would have in this regard to the extent that this is an important
6 point for your case.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: I fully agree with Your Honours, and I understand
8 the position. I was just trying because I believe the witness is an
9 experienced policeman, that he should be able to assist us on this. If
10 Your Honour feels that this can be achieved by a submission, I'm
11 perfectly willing to stop the cross-examination on this subject with the
12 witness and make the submission in due course.
13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if it will assist the Chamber and my
14 learned friend, I'll stipulate that those two pages appear to be typed on
15 different typewriters. He's an experienced police officer, but we have
16 no evidence that he's an experienced report preparer or a typist or
17 anything of that nature. And I really don't think he can assist us much.
18 If that's the point Mr. Zecevic wants to make, I agree, we can all look
19 at that and see it was done on two different machines.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, the concern is the fact I went at
21 depth yesterday to analyse this document because I made the objection and
22 it was overruled and the document was admitted. And I'm trying to, if I
23 can, to assist the Trial Chamber because now it comes to the weight of
24 the document. What I'm trying to is to show the Trial Chamber that there
25 is a -- there is a substantial question on the authenticity of these
1 documents because they are completely different reports. And I wanted
2 just to establish through the witness. If I can, I'm perfectly willing
3 to do that by submission in due course when the Court pleases. Thank you
4 very much.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic. We remember your
6 objection from yesterday, and we do understand that you want to point out
7 the differences between the two parts of this document.
8 Now, you have taken the witness to a number of pages in the
9 reports, but I'm unsure about the purpose for doing this. You took the
10 witness from one page to the next to the next and so on, but what are the
11 points that you would wish to highlight in showing these pages or
12 passages to the witness?
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly what I said just now, that this document
14 contains two annual reports for 1992 of SJB Zvornik which are completely
15 and in a very substantial part different. There is a difference in
16 statistical data, there is a difference in comments, in everything. They
17 are entirely two different documents which are contained in one exhibit
18 right now. And that was the point of my objection yesterday. Now, when
19 I analysed it, I indeed analysed it in depth, I am perfect -- I have now
20 all the major discrepancies now, and I wanted to go with the witness
21 through this. If, as I say, the Trial Chamber feels that this can be
22 done by submission, I'm perfectly willing to terminate my
23 cross-examination and make the submission in due course whenever it
24 pleases the Court.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe I have just been unattentive or not paid
1 particular -- sufficient attention to the pages that you showed to the
2 witness, but it is at this moment a bit unclear to me which differences
3 exactly you wish to point out to the Court.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, namely, the document which
5 is -- this part of the document, so to speak, is contained in the pages
6 16 to 28 in the e-court. That is the -- that is the report of -- for
7 SJB -- the annual report for SJB Zvornik dated January 1993. This
8 document -- this document contains 12 pages. The next document which is
9 also called the report for SJB Zvornik dated December has 13 pages.
10 These two documents are completely different reports for the same period
11 of time and for the same SJB Zvornik, and that is what I intended to show
12 through the witness. It contains completely different data. It contains
13 completely different matters. So that's why I say it is -- this document
14 will not assist the Trial Chamber because we cannot be sure which one of
15 these reports is the real annual report. I -- my submission is that
16 these reports are not sufficiently -- this document is not sufficiently
17 authenticated that we can't use it properly, because we don't know which
18 one of these was the official. It might be that both are maybe versions
19 of the document which didn't -- which didn't after all became an official
20 report. That is my submission.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. Now, as I recall from my reading
22 the documents, the two versions are not entirely different. Parts have
23 been added in one and some new information has been provided.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, my submission is that the documents
25 are entirely different, and I can prove that to you. But I don't think
1 that it needs -- it would need a significant amount of court time. Maybe
2 I can do that in a submission -- in a written submission, and indicate
3 exactly the points where there is discrepancies between the two
4 documents, which I think are important and relevant of course.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: All right.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Like number of killings, like the existence of the
7 war crimes. In one there is no mentioning of war crimes; in the other
8 there are three criminal complaints filed for the war crimes. I mean,
9 that's, in my opinion, is very relevant for this case.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. I get the gist of it.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'd be thrilled to discuss some of
12 those issues, but we don't need to do it with this witness. He can't
13 contribute to this. He wasn't a report writer. He doesn't know anything
14 about that. If there was something specific Mr. Zecevic had to say
15 about -- report one lists 23 patrolmen and report two lists 28 he might
16 be able to ask this witness and say, how many were there, and if he could
17 say 23 or 28, but absent something like that, it's a waste of all our
18 time to be trying to do this with him. This should be a submission --
19 and I would argue, you already decided that this was admissible. His
20 arguments now should go to weight, and that's something we can save for
21 the end of the case or another day, but we shouldn't be doing it now in
22 the courtroom with this witness.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I fully agree, Mr. Hannis, with you.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Panic, I have no further questions.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. Please proceed.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Panic.
5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
6 No questions from Mr. Pantelic?
7 MR. KRGOVIC: We don't have questions, Your Honour.
8 MR. HANNIS: Then may I proceed with re-direct, Your Honours?
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
10 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:
11 Q. I'll deal with a few questions from today first, Mr. Panic, and
12 then go to some things from yesterday. At page 4, line 8 today
13 Mr. Zecevic asked you about all the camps ceasing to exist. And you told
14 us earlier about there were hundreds of people detained in these various
15 collection centres and camps from the beginning of the war, and you've
16 given us some evidence to indicate several hundreds were killed and
17 buried in mass graves. And I think you told us about Mr. Tanic, a police
18 employee, who was involved in identifying some of the bodies and bagging
19 the bodies. That's right, Mr. Tanic was a police employee and did that?
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, he was employed with the police, and he was appointed to the
22 commission for sanitation and hygiene clearance of the terrain.
23 Q. And to get down to the 30 or 40 or 50 that were left in
24 September, I guess hundreds of others were exchanged; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And then the rest were sent to Batkovic; correct?
2 A. I think so.
3 Q. But weren't many of the Muslims that were being held in detention
4 in Zvornik civilians and not prisoners of war, not fighters?
5 A. Yes, in most cases that referred to the technical school centre,
6 primarily the case was there.
7 Q. And at least we know from Colonel Ilic's order that we looked at
8 yesterday, that those at the Divic centre were civilians because that was
9 the purpose of his order saying these aren't military people; right?
10 A. Yes, and the residents of Divic were for the most part civilians.
11 Q. [Microphone not activated] And at page 11 --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry.
14 Q. And at page 11 Mr. Zecevic asked you about Batkovic and he said:
15 "So we understand each other in that, Batkovic and the entire
16 operation to transfer prisoners from Zvornik to Batkovic was a hundred
17 per cent military operation. Am I right in thinking that?"
18 And your answer was:
19 "Yes, that's what I stated."
20 And he goes on to say:
21 "That means the transfer to Batkovic was something that had
22 nothing whatsoever to do with the police. The police did not have a role
23 to play in that."
24 You said:
25 "You're right."
1 But didn't the police at least have a role in opening the doors
2 to Novi Izvor so the military could come in and pick up those people?
3 The police had to do something for that transfer to occur; correct?
4 A. Yes, as far as Novi Izvor or any other prison where police was
5 providing security, they would receive orders how many people should be
6 handed over to the army, and how it would help with the military trucks
7 and the soldiers who came there. That is the level of the police
9 Q. Okay. And would the police hand over civilians to the military
10 to take them to a military camp without any documentation to indicate
11 that they were prisoners of war, that is, combatants?
12 A. I don't think so. Always a document should be received
13 beforehand, and probably the chief or the commander receives such a
14 document, who then informed the prison warden who is going to be handed
15 over to the army to be taken to Batkovici. So that's how it went.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. I want to go back to yesterday. At page 2978,
17 line 7, Mr. Zecevic was asking you about Dragan Spasojevic, and you told
18 us that he worked at the police just a bit over a year. And how old was
19 he? I understand he was a pretty young man in 1992.
20 A. I think that he was born in either 1964 or 1966, I'm not sure,
21 but yes he was younger.
22 Q. Do you know why such a young man with so little experience in the
23 police was given the job of commander rather than some older, more
24 experienced guy like yourself? What was his qualification for the job?
25 A. He was an SDS member from the very beginning, and he was in the
1 Main Board. I was not an SDS member, and these things were decided along
2 the party lines.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you. Next at page 3006, beginning at line 18,
4 Mr. Zecevic was asking you about the special brigade who came to make the
5 arrest of the paramilitaries. Do you know how many men came in that
6 special brigade unit for that purpose approximately?
7 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you the exact number because they came
8 during the night. We were ordered not to leave the hotel. They arrested
9 them, took them to Bijeljina, and we never saw them again until some of
10 the groups returned again sometime later.
11 Q. And Mr. Zecevic was asking you whether or not the -- given the
12 nature of these groups and the nature of the problem, whether it was
13 appropriate that some time would be required to plan and organise such an
14 operation. And you agreed with him. It was not something that would be
15 appropriate for an ad hoc operation. But my question is: In Zvornik you
16 had had problems with Zuco and the other paramilitaries a long time
17 before the 20th of July; right? They'd been a problem from the very
18 beginning in April?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And we saw in a report by a couple of inspectors, Mr. Andan and
21 the other gentleman dated 17 June, that the inspectors were aware of the
22 problem in the middle of June. Do you recall that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And you -- I think you'd told us you had heard about the incident
25 where Minister Ostojic was stopped at the check-point and taken out of
1 his car. Do you recall that that was sometime in July?
2 A. I think it was in July, but I'm not sure about the specific date.
3 Q. Okay. Next at page 3012, line 16, Mr. Zecevic asked you
4 regarding Repic and those crimes he was committing against the detained
5 in Celopek, he said:
6 "Do you know that due to the nature of the crimes involved, these
7 are crimes that are violations of international humanitarian law. In the
8 law of war in the former Yugoslavia it was military organs that dealt
9 with this?"
10 And you said:
11 "Yes. As far as military personnel were concerned, they were
12 tried by military courts."
13 Mr. Zecevic said:
14 "Not only with regard to military personnel, also with regard to
15 these particular forms of crime that were committed in a situation of
17 And you said:
19 But did you know about the law about war crimes in the newly
20 formed Republika Srpska? Was there any change between the old law and
21 the new law, or do you know?
22 A. I wasn't familiar with any new laws, whether there were any
23 changes or not. I know only that Repic was later tried and convicted in
25 Q. Even under the old Yugoslav criminal law, wasn't it possible for
1 certain crimes, like the murder of the Muslim civilians in Celopek Dom,
2 could not a crime like that be charged either as a regular murder under
3 the criminal code or as a war crime? Didn't the Prosecutor have
4 discretion, do you know?
5 A. He probably had, but why I can't tell you.
6 Q. Do you know -- my -- I'm not sure about this, but do you know
7 whether or not there was a longer penalty, prison sentence, for a regular
8 murder than for a war crime, or do you know?
9 A. I don't know about that, but I think that the penalty for a war
10 crime should be longer, but that's my view.
11 Q. And even if it was something that might be defined as a war
12 crime, if you as a policeman had knowledge of it would you have an
13 obligation to report it to somebody, no matter whether it was committed
14 by a military person or a civilian or a policeman? If you knew about it,
15 would you have an obligation to report?
16 A. It is possible that I would have reported it, but as for the army
17 and their jurisdiction and everything to do with them, it was up to the
18 military police. At that time, when all these paramilitary formations
19 were so strong, I have very strong doubts that they would dare report
21 Q. Did you personally ever report any crimes you were aware of to
22 the military authorities or the military police?
23 A. I've never seen any crime or any murder, only what I said in my
24 statement was that I saw Repic coming in and therefore I wouldn't make a
25 good witness. However, the witness -- the army authority and its
1 officers knew very well what the military was doing, particularly in the
2 area of Zvornik. The situation was normalised. We were back to our
3 regular duties of maintaining law and order.
4 Q. At page 3013, line 20, Mr. Zecevic asked you about the special
5 unit coming back to Zvornik after the Yellow Wasps and the others had
6 already been arrested and detained. You don't have any personal
7 knowledge yourself about why the special unit came back after that
8 operation was completed, do you?
9 A. No, I don't. Occasionally a few number from Bijeljina would come
10 passing by or if they decided to come to Zvornik.
11 Q. Talking about Repic at page 3016, line 5, you were asked about
12 your view about the reserve policemen vis-à-vis Mr. Repic, and the
13 question was:
14 "And knowing the structure of his personality, I mean he did not
15 mind who was of which ethnicity, there was his readiness to mistreat and
16 kill anyone for any reason; right?"
17 And your answer was:
19 My question is: First of all, at Celopek how many guards were
20 there? How many reserve policemen were guarding that facility, do you
22 A. I think two or three, whereas the rest were at the school or on
24 Q. And the information you got from your colleague there about Repic
25 coming, what was your understanding? Did Repic come alone or with one or
1 two friends or in a large group?
2 A. They always appeared in troikas or in twos.
3 Q. And the guards, the reserve police, were armed with automatic
4 rifles; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you ever see Repic do anything to a Serb?
7 A. No, no. I never met with him. I didn't see him, maybe just in
9 Q. And you never heard of him doing anything to a Serb, only the
10 Muslims; is that right?
11 A. No, I didn't hear that. However, judging by the rumours about
12 him it is possible. I suppose that they did not dare oppose him, and
13 even if a Serb had opposed them I suppose that --
14 Q. But you don't know of any instance where a Serb or a Serb
15 policeman ever opposed him or he ever mistreated a Serb or a Serb
16 policeman; right?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know how long the delay was in moving the Celopek
19 survivors after the police first became aware that Repic had abused them
20 and mutilated the genitals of some of them and committed those other
21 atrocities? How long did it take before they got moved to someplace a
22 little safer? Was it weeks or months?
23 A. I don't know exactly. I believe that it was less than a month.
24 Q. Thank you. At page 3017, line 9, Mr. Zecevic was asking you
25 about the nature of prisons in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, how
1 they're established and who guards them. In Zvornik, from the beginning
2 of the conflict when the paramilitaries and the TO and these other groups
3 were capturing people and setting up these -- I guess the best definition
4 is that one that was in Mr. Stanisic's comments in the July meeting in
5 Belgrade, these undefined camps, they weren't really arresting them in
6 the strict legal sense that you as a policeman arrest somebody, were
8 A. That's true. No procedure was followed, no normal police
9 procedure. They arrested them and they established the camps. They
10 incarcerated them there.
11 Q. And these places where these people put were not really prisons
12 in the strict legal technical legal sense like Novi Izvor and the
13 misdemeanour court might have been a prison. Would you agree?
14 A. None of the facilities where they were incarcerated was a real
15 prison. Novi Izvor and the misdemeanour court served as prisons before
16 the war, so they could be referred to as prisons in a certain manner.
17 And the others were mostly factories, schools, and other such makeshift
19 Q. Gogic and Crni, were they also capturing some people or arresting
20 people and bringing them into detention, if you know?
21 A. I did not see that, but I heard that they did.
22 Q. And you told us they were wearing police uniforms and being paid
23 out of the police budget; correct?
24 A. Yes, but they never brought them to Novi Izvor, for example, or
25 to the police station where there was a room where people were
1 interviewed. I don't know where they took them.
2 Q. Okay. In the MUP quarterly report for April, May, and June,
3 that's Exhibit P322, Your Honours, there was an -- there was one entry
4 that said that during this time-period police employees brought in 537
5 and interviewed 48 Muslim extremists. Does that number include people
6 brought in by Gogic and Crni, or do you know?
7 A. It is possible that that number includes those; however, those
8 who were brought for interviews were brought in by the police and the
9 military to a certain extent. And then crime prevention police
10 inspectors or inspectors from the state security would interview these
11 people and decide as to what to do with them.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you. In terms of these other detention facilities
13 or undefined camps, I believe you told us in your testimony before that
14 some people were detained for a while at least at the Celopek Dom,
15 Drinjaca school, Standard, Alhos, and Karakaj Technical School. Were
16 there any others that I've missed or that you remember?
17 A. Ekonomija, yes, the brickworks; Novi Izvor, yes.
18 Q. Oh, yes, Ciglane I forgot. Thank you.
19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I know it's nearly time for the break.
20 I have probably 10 or 15 more minutes. So I don't know if you want me to
21 continue for a while or recess now.
22 JUDGE HALL: If this is a convenient point -- because as you say
23 you're just maybe two minutes early of the break, but if this is a
24 convenient point --
25 MR. HANNIS: It is.
1 JUDGE HALL: -- and you can't complete before the break, we may
2 as well break now.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
7 JUDGE HALL: Our delay in taking the bench following the break
8 was dealing with certain administrative matters which relate to the
9 hearing, as counsel would appreciate.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
12 Q. Witness, I just have a few more questions for you. At page 3019,
13 line 23, Mr. Zecevic was showing you a document and he said:
14 "Here it says that the army was taking into detention or bringing
15 into detention members of the public and population without any documents
16 and then left such camps to the Ministry of the Interior."
17 And you were asked if that was the situation in Zvornik. And he
18 went on to ask you:
19 "So you also knew that there were no documents supporting the
20 detention of such individuals were found by the police once they took
21 over; that's right?"
22 And you said:
23 "No, only later did the prison, wardens, and guards start keeping
24 records of events."
25 My question is: When the police took over some of these
1 non-standard detention facilities or these undefined camps and you had no
2 records for the people that were there, shouldn't they have been released
3 if there were no documents to support their detention, just as a
4 procedural matter? Did you understand my question?
5 A. I understood the question. However, whether they should have
6 been released or not, they could not have taken that decision without the
7 superior officer, and I suppose the officer appointed a warden, guards,
8 ordered them to keep the records of daily events, and everything else
9 that was a standard procedure.
10 Q. I guess I understand your answer to mean that you don't believe
11 that the guards at that level had the authority to release the people; is
12 that what you're saying?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But generally speaking based on your experience as a policeman,
15 people can't be kept in detention without some kind of criminal charges
16 or some finding by a judge, et cetera; is that correct?
17 A. By the book, that should have been the case. They should have
18 been interviewed, they should have been said why they were brought in,
19 they should have been informed as to what was being alleged against them,
20 they should have been handed over to a court or a prosecutor's office,
21 but that was simply not the case.
22 Q. Thank you. Lastly, at page 3026, beginning at line 22,
23 Mr. Zecevic had asked you if you knew about any incidents where
24 paramilitaries had broken in to some of these detention facilities
25 guarded by the police and abused the prisoners. And you said:
1 "I know about that. I did not see it, but I heard, for example,
2 that a military policeman came in, the previous day his brother had been
3 killed and he entered with a rifle, disarmed the guard, and beat some
5 Which facility was that at, if you recall?
6 A. I believe that that was in Novi Izvor. I'm not sure that our
7 active or reserve policeman was on duty or whether it was a military
8 police policeman whose brother had been killed. In any case, as far as I
9 remember his name was Slavko Lukic.
10 Q. Do you recall approximately when that was, what month?
11 A. No, I can't say. It was 17 years ago. It was in 1992, very
12 early in 1992, but I can't be sure of the month.
13 Q. How far was that Novi Izvor facility from the SJB building in
14 Zvornik, how many metres or kilometres?
15 A. Twenty metres, immediately behind the police building. Between
16 the police building and Novi Izvor there were some depots, the
17 misdemeanour court, and then behind the two there was the Novi Izvor --
18 administrative building of Novi Izvor.
19 Q. Regarding that incident, do you know whether the guard or the
20 warden or yourself, did anybody inform the military police about that
22 A. I wouldn't know that. I probably heard that only a month or so
23 after the event. Either the guard or the warden should have reported
24 that. If they were members of our police, they should have reported that
25 incident to the public security station, and alternatively if they were
1 military police then they should have reported that to the military
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Panic.
4 MR. HANNIS: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
5 Questioned by the Court:
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Panic, on Wednesday, I think, and it's
7 transcript page 54 -- just one moment. 53, 25 -- 53, 25, yes, you were
9 "With regard to equipment that regular policemen in Zvornik had,
10 what kind of uniforms and weapons did you have in April, May, June, July
12 Your answer is:
13 "We had multi-coloured camouflage uniforms in olive-drab."
14 Is that right?
15 A. We had both camouflage and olive-drab uniforms and we also had
16 blue camouflage uniforms. When we were engaged, we --
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. You -- indeed I should have finished
18 your -- the answer. You indeed said "and police uniforms." But then my
19 question is as follows: If someone would say that he have seen people or
20 units wearing olive-drab uniforms and therefore he makes the conclusion
21 that that must have been military and not police people or units, he
22 could have been wrong because you were wearing olive-drab uniforms as
23 well. Is that right?
24 A. It is possible those who were not familiar with uniforms didn't
25 know that military uniforms were different. They were more intense
1 green, whereas ours had more white in the pattern.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Panic. I would like to just
4 return briefly to the matter of closing down these undefined camps and
5 transferring the detainees from there to the Batkovic military prison.
6 And my question is: Why was it decided to close down the camps and
7 transfer the detainees to Batkovic, do you know?
8 A. I can't give you a correct and honest answer. It was up to my
9 superiors, and at the time I may not even have been there. I was sent
10 all over the place. To be honest, I really can't -- I may make a
11 mistake. I don't know who took that decision. I know that it was
12 somebody above me, a higher instance. I only heard that they were
13 transferred. Who ordered that, who arranged that, I really can't tell
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Panic, for your attendance to assist
17 the Tribunal. You are now released as a witness, and we wish you a safe
18 journey back to your home.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and I wish you a
20 pleasant stay here.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, Mr. Di Fazio has the next witness.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, the next witness is
24 Mr. Majkic, Dragan Majkic, and I call him.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, Mr. Witness. Thank you for coming
4 to The Hague --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: May I ask you your name, please.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dragan Majkic.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: And your -- and your date of birth?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 6 September 1958.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: What is your ethnicity, sir?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serb.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Did you ever testify before this
13 Court before or before any court in your country?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have, three times in
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Well then, as you are a witness
17 called by the Prosecutor's office, they will start putting questions to
18 you; afterwards, the Defence will; and eventually, the Judges may have
19 some questions for you. I forgot one detail. Your profession, please?
20 What is your occupation?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a mechanical engineer with a
22 university degree.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
24 Mr. Di Fazio.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 WITNESS: DRAGAN MAJKIC
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio:
4 Q. Mr. Majkic, just to continue on with those personal details, what
5 is your current occupation?
6 A. At the moment, I'm a fire inspector, cantonal fire inspector in
7 the canton of Bihac.
8 Q. And fire inspectors, are they -- do they work with the police?
9 A. A few years ago we became civil servants, therefore we are not
10 police employees any longer.
11 Q. Thanks. I just wanted to put some more personal details to you,
12 and could you tell us if they're correct. You've given us your date of
13 birth and your ethnicity. You were born in the village of Podug, which
14 is about 3 or 4 kilometres from Sanski Most. You're a widower, and you
15 have two children; correct?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. Thanks. You were educated in Sanski Most, and you did an
18 engineering course at a place called Rijeka University, and in 1994 you
19 started working at a place called the Famos factory?
20 A. In 1984.
21 Q. Yes, I'm sorry if I said "1994." I meant 1984. Thank you for
23 In 1987 you joined the police as an inspector of fire protection,
24 and in July of 1991 you were appointed as chief of police in Sanski Most.
25 Are those details correct?
1 A. Yes, they are.
2 Q. And you held that position as chief of police until very late
3 April of 1992?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On the 18th of November -- sorry, my apologies. You joined the
6 SDS political party prior to the November 1990 elections in Bosnia, and
7 you left the party in February of 1993?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. I want to ask you about some personalities in the -- that you may
10 know. Do you know Stojan Zupljanin?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you remember when you first met him, when you first were
13 introduced to him?
14 A. That was probably seven or eight days after I had been appointed
16 Q. Thank you. Do you know a gentleman named -- or did you know a
17 gentleman named Nedeljko Rasula or Rasula?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he hold any position in the SDS in Sanski Most?
20 A. He was the first president of the SDS Municipal Board in Sanski
21 Most, and he was an MP in the BH parliament and also the president of the
22 Assembly of Sanski Most municipality.
23 Q. Thank you. The Municipal Board of the SDS in Sanski Most, was
24 that occasionally known as the principal -- the principal board of the
1 A. No. The principal or the Main Board was at the very top of the
2 SDS. I'm talking here about municipal boards that had their own
3 Executive Boards at the level of local government, that is to say at the
4 level of municipalities.
5 Q. Thank you. In 1990, can you recall if there was an Executive
6 Board at a municipal level in Sanski Most; and if so, who were the
8 A. Are you referring to the SDS?
9 Q. Yes, indeed, yes.
10 A. First an initiating board was established, and it worked on the
11 preparations for establishing the Municipal Board of the SDS in Sanski
12 Most where the Municipal Board was elected, and Mr. Rasula was elected
13 president of this board for Sanski Most.
14 Q. Thank you. Do you know a gentleman named Dusan Nikolic?
15 A. Yes, he was a doctor. He was a physician working at the clinic
16 in Sanski Most.
17 Q. Was he on the Executive Board?
18 A. Yes, he was a member of the Executive Board of the SDS.
19 Q. Thank you. I just want to run some names past you, and I want
20 you to tell the Trial Chamber if you know these people and if they were
21 members of the Executive Board in Sanski Most. Boro Savanovic?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Nemanja Tripkovic?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Drago Djuric?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mico Prastalo?
3 A. I think that he was, but I'm not quite sure.
4 Q. Okay. Slobodan Krunic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And yourself, what about yourself, were you a member of the
7 Executive Board?
8 A. Yes, I was.
9 Q. Do you know a gentleman named Vlado Vrkes, or did you know a
10 gentleman named Vlado Vrkes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did he occupy any position in the SDS in 1990 and 1991?
13 A. In 1990, when the Municipal Board had already been formed, at a
14 meeting held in the village of Tomina - I think that was prior to the
15 elections - Rasula brought him to this meeting and nominated him to be
16 elected the secretary of the SDS in Sanski Most. We were slightly
17 against this. We protested because nobody knew him; however, he said
18 that, "If this man is not elected secretary, I will not continue to be
19 your president." Therefore, we had no choice but to accept this
20 nomination made by Mr. Rasula.
21 Q. Thank you for that. Just earlier in your testimony this morning
22 you mentioned that the Main Board or principal board, I'll refer to it as
23 the Main Board of the SDS for Bosnia, was that located in Sarajevo?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. How was policy formulated in the SDS, or perhaps my question
1 should be more refined and I should ask you: Who formulated policy in
2 the SDS?
3 A. Well, you had Mr. Karadzic up there. He was one of the founding
4 members of the SDS at the level of the republic. Then at his initiative,
5 or I don't know exactly how, municipal or regional boards of the SDS were
7 Q. Thank you. Incidentally, was there a regional board in Banja
9 A. Yes. It existed there before we even started with our initiative
10 board in Sanski Most.
11 Q. Thanks. Just cast your mind back to the period of time before
12 the elections in 1990. How did the Sanski Most local SDS explain policy
13 to the people in that period of time leading up to the elections?
14 A. Well, let me start from the beginning. A group of some 20 men,
15 including myself, got together. Three of them somehow chaired this
16 meeting. They said that they had been with Mr. Karadzic some month or
17 month and a half with him, and that they discussed the idea of
18 establishing the SDS in Sanski Most. Mr. Karadzic approved the idea, and
19 they called one or two persons each from every village and they got
20 together in the social club of the local commune in Sanski Most. And
21 that was when it was agreed to establish the SDS in Sanski Most. In the
22 village of Tramosnja the initiative on the steering committee was
23 elected, Mr. Rasula was elected chairman, and after that a decision was
24 made to establish boards in local communes. Then the presidents of
25 subcommittees in local communes were later appointed to the executive
1 committee of the municipality, and then later at the founding meeting of
2 the SDS which was held in the sports hall, all these subcommittee
3 presidents became members of the Executive Board.
4 Q. Thank you. Let me perhaps explain myself a little better. In
5 the period of time when you were electioneering, carrying out election
6 activities, how did you explain to the local people, to the villagers,
7 what SDS policy was? How did you tell them what the SDS stood for? What
8 did you rely on? Did you have any documentation to assist you?
9 A. There was no documentation available. Everybody knew that
10 single-party system of the communist rule was abolished, and a decision
11 was made to introduce a multi-party system. And this idea was embraced
12 by everyone. It was possible to establish all kinds of political
13 parties, just like the League of Communists transformed itself into the
14 SDB, or the Socialist Democratic Party.
15 Q. Thank you. Did the Main Board of the SDS in Sarajevo ever
16 provide the Sanski Most SDS with written documentation concerning
17 official policy?
18 A. Of course we had a platform or a manifesto and the statute of the
19 SDS. This is what every political party had. It was probably Mr. Rasula
20 who was at the head of this steering committee, had the statute, that he
21 operated pursuant to this statute as well as to the programme and
22 manifesto at the level of BH.
23 Q. Thank you. Did Mr. Rasula ever go to Sarajevo to attend meetings
24 with the Main Board?
25 A. I know that he went there, and he informed us always about these
1 trips, and then he would provide some feedback information, whether any
2 instructions were given by the Main Board to be implemented or adhered
4 Q. Thank you. So Mr. Rasula acted as a go-between, so to speak,
5 between the SDS in Sanski Most and the Main Board in Sarajevo?
6 A. Initially, there was a regional board of the SDS, and above it
7 was the Main Board. Rasula used to go to meetings, both at the regional
8 board and also at the Main Board when invited. I don't know how he
9 appeared there, in what capacity, as a member of the Main Board, but he
10 always went and he always told us what tasks or what instructions had
11 been issued at these meetings.
12 Q. Thank you for that. During these meetings, either in Banja Luka
13 at the regional board or the Main Board in Sarajevo, do you know if he
14 had contact and discussions with Mr. Karadzic?
15 A. Well, he -- yes, he was later elected at this first multi-party
16 elections an MP for the BH parliament. But I really don't know whether
17 he met with him head to head. Once he asked me to come with him because
18 I was already nominated for this appointment to the chief, he never met
19 with Rasula. There was some discourse between regions and Mr. Karadzic,
20 but at the end of the day everything ended normally at the meeting, ended
21 normally. And then I did not notice Mr. Rasula meeting with anybody. He
22 was at the meeting just like I was. Everybody was standing.
23 Q. Apart from meetings that you attended personally, did Mr. Rasula
24 report to you that he had had discussions with Mr. Karadzic on occasions
25 when he attended the regional board or the Main Board?
1 A. He never said that to me personally. He would talk about it at
2 the meetings of the municipal board or of the Executive Board, which was
3 formed later. He just reported to us whenever he -- any contacts were at
4 the regional or the republican level. As I said, he never reported to me
6 Q. Thank you. Did there come a time when the Executive Board in
7 Sanski Most was reduced in size, the Executive Board of the SDS?
8 A. Excuse me. When the statute was amended, as far as I can
9 remember, it was necessary to establish within the Executive Board a
10 smaller operative body so that there would be no need to convene the
11 meetings of the Executive Board always, and that was called Registry.
12 And that smaller body -- because they had 11 members, and if necessary
13 then the entire membership of the executive body would attend meetings.
14 But that happened later.
15 Q. Thank you. Can you remember when that happened, what year that
16 was or month if you can?
17 A. It might have been in June 1991 or maybe July. I'm not sure.
18 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us if in this reduced and more
19 compact Registry created from within the Executive Board, whether Rasula
20 and Vrkes were members?
21 A. Yes, they were.
22 Q. You were a member?
23 A. Yes, I was.
24 Q. And it had approximately 11 members?
25 A. Not approximately, exactly 11 members.
1 Q. Thanks. And another member of that smaller, reduced body was
2 also Boro Savanovic; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Thanks. Now, I don't think there's any dispute. You were
5 appointed as police chief on the 9th of July, 1991. Is that date right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thanks. And you've told us already that you ceased to be police
8 chief in late April 1992. In that period of time between your
9 appointment as police chief up to the period of time you left the
10 following year, did you report to that secretariat or Registry that
11 you've just been talking about from time to time and told them about
12 police matters?
13 A. Well, no. All these people from the secretariat were people from
14 the Executive Board, and later on they were all in the Crisis Staff. So
15 they were already privy to everything that was going on. There was no
16 need for me to report anything about the police work because it was the
17 majority of them in this Registry or secretariat who were
19 Q. Just -- could you just explain to the Trial Chamber but more
20 clearly, please, if you would, why you say there was no need for you to
21 report anything about police work because the majority of them were
22 already in the Registry or secretariat. I don't quite understand that
24 A. I'm sorry. When the Crisis Staff was set up after I left,
25 there -- but there was already a Crisis Staff. After that point, for a
1 certain period of time there was no secretariat, there was no executive
2 committee; they were dead. The Crisis Staff and the Assembly, made up of
3 the Serbian deputies who remained in the Assembly, the political party
4 executive committee or Registry didn't exist at all. Only later did they
5 resume their work.
6 Q. Okay. But I'm talking about not the period of time after the
7 creation of the Crisis Staff, but the period of time between your
8 appointment in July 1991 up until the time you left. Now, in that time
9 did you as police chief occasionally report or hold discussions with this
10 smaller secretariat formed from the Executive Board of the SDS?
11 A. When I was appointed chief, I immediately made it known to them
12 that I wished my position in the SDS to be put on hold because I think
13 that politics and my duty were incompatible. So I kind of wanted my
14 membership to be frozen, so to say, and I refused to attend any meetings,
15 either the executive committee or the secretariat. Well, later on it
16 turned out that there were some lies launched against me. I appeared
17 before the board, and I refuted all these accusations, and every time the
18 Executive Board decided that I still have their trust and I should remain
19 in my position, however, that I should be more diligent in providing
20 report about my work in order to avoid all these malicious rumours going
21 around. So on several occasions when all these rumours were widespread,
22 I always went before them to tell them that it wasn't true. But I said
23 that I wanted to do my job properly because it was not only the SDS who
24 appointed me to this duty, and because it was the SDA and the HDZ
25 endorsed my appointment. Therefore, I felt that I should be working for
1 the well-being of everything, not only of my party.
2 Q. Thanks. Leaving aside those explanations, did this secretariat
3 or -- small secretariat or Registry in -- formed from the Executive Board
4 ever seek information from you concerning police activity or police work?
5 A. I don't remember attending the secretariat meetings. I may have
6 gone to the executive committee meetings three times, let's say. And I
7 never went to the Main Board meetings at all, but I have to say that
8 everything important took place on the Main Board.
9 Q. Okay. Well, let's turn to the middle of 1991. You said --
10 you've told us that you were appointed in July 1991. Was there a
11 commander of police also appointed around the same time, a gentleman
12 named Enver Burnic?
13 A. About a month before I was appointed, he was appointed, because
14 there were some problems. However, he was first nominated -- actually,
15 appointed and then later on I was appointed.
16 Q. Thanks for that. And was he of Muslim -- was he a Muslim?
17 A. Yes, he was.
18 Q. Thanks. Think now about the work that you were doing in the
19 ensuing months after July 1991. You've told us that you met -- already
20 this morning that you met Mr. Zupljanin some days after your appointment
21 as police chief. At that time, what position did Mr. Zupljanin hold?
22 A. He was my superior, and he was the head of the security services
23 centre Banja Luka.
24 Q. Known as the CSB -- was that the CSB regional headquarters?
25 A. I cannot remember exactly when it was operated as CSB like the --
1 which meant security services centre because the state and the public
2 security were together. Later on, I don't know exactly when they were
3 separated, so it became the centre of public security.
4 Q. Leaving aside the acronyms and the bureaucracy involved, was he
5 regional police chief in Banja Luka?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How often did you meet with him?
8 A. We had monthly meetings, regular meetings of all chiefs at his
9 invitation, and we had to submit reports for the previous month about our
10 work. And then quarterly, we would submit quarterly work reports, and
11 then -- sixth-monthly report, and then annual report. As I said, we met
12 every month. We met -- I say all the chiefs met with him.
13 Q. Thanks. In addition to the transmission of these reports, who
14 set the agenda for these meetings?
15 A. He would send out dispatches with the agenda so that we had to
16 prepare ourselves for the meeting. It was him who decided the topics,
17 and we just had to prepare ourselves for the discussion.
18 Q. And thinking back to those meetings, was Mr. Zupljanin a thorough
19 man? Did he ensure that all the matters in the agenda were covered at
20 those meetings or do his best to ensure that all matters were covered?
21 A. I never noticed if something was done that wasn't on the agenda.
22 We followed the agenda to the letter. That's how things always were.
23 Nothing new was added; nothing was omitted.
24 Q. Now, this system of reporting by the various police chiefs to the
25 regional headquarters in Banja Luka, did that continue right up until
1 late April of 1992?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thanks. Individual police stations such as the Sanski Most
4 police station, did they create daily reports?
5 A. We were duty-bound to submit our reports every morning at 5.00
6 about all that had happened over the past 24 hours, and we sent that
7 report to the CSB in Banja Luka.
8 Q. And the report -- this daily report that you said was prepared
9 every hour -- sorry, every day, sorry, was a copy sent to the commander
10 of police, such as Burnic, to yourself as well?
11 A. Yes. The same report was -- what was waiting for me in the
12 morning on my desk and one was on the commander's desk.
13 Q. Thanks. And this sort of report, daily report, that you've just
14 described, was -- were all the other SJB stations covered by the Banja
15 Luka regional police area also providing such reports?
16 A. That was their obligation. They had to do that.
17 Q. Okay. So the CSB in Banja Luka between July and April of 1992
18 was receiving police information consisting of at least daily reports,
19 information that you provided when you actually met face-to-face,
20 quarterly reports, biannual reports, and yearly reports?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Up until April of -- late April of 1992, did the police in Sanski
23 Most use teleprinters, telephones, and couriers to transmit information
24 to Banja Luka?
25 A. Most was done by teleprinter, by sending dispatches, because
1 every dispatch had a marking, the marking of confidentiality, and the
2 speed of delivery. That was one way. The second way was by couriers.
3 The mail that had to be sent that way was sent that way. And the third
4 way was by telephone, and that was what I used for my communication with
5 the chief when I needed to set up meetings, when we needed to set up
6 meetings in his office, when I asked him to receive me, because I had
7 information for him that I had something to discuss with him or when I
8 needed to reach some conclusions with him.
9 Q. Thanks. And those modes of communication that you've just
10 described, were you -- you were using those modes of communication right
11 up until the time that you left on the 30th of April, 1992?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. Okay. Turn your attention now to April of 1992. In
14 early April of 1992, did your police station in Sanski Most receive any
15 dispatch from a gentleman named Momcilo Mandic?
16 A. As far as I can remember, I know that on the 2nd of April a
17 dispatch came from Mr. Mandic. He was the assistant minister of the
18 interior at the time.
19 Q. Assistant or deputy?
20 A. Assistant. In the joint BH ministry, he was the assistant
21 minister for crime prevention.
22 Q. Thanks. And I want to ask you about this dispatch that you've
23 spoken about. You've told us it came on the 2nd of April, and it was
24 from Mandic. Was it directed just to your police station, or was it
1 A. It was sent to all the centres and public security stations.
2 Q. Thanks. Can you remember the content; and if so, can you tell
3 the Trial Chamber basically what the content of that document was?
4 A. I can't remember the details. In any case, it was about the
5 take-over of public security stations, where that was possible. That was
6 the gist of it. Wherever possible, public security stations should have
7 been taken over before the 15th of April. That was the gist of the
9 Q. Okay. Could you explain to the Trial Chamber who was going to
10 take over the public security stations. What was contemplated in the
12 A. What I'm saying is this: As far as I can remember, it was to the
13 effect that wherever possible, wherever possible, public security
14 stations should have been taken over. From Mr. Zupljanin I received
15 several orders even before that that Kljuc, Sanski Most, Prijedor, and
16 Bosanski Novi should be left out even for a year if need be, that we
17 should remain living together irrespective of the situation in Bosnia,
18 that those four enclaves should be -- should continue working normally
19 together, and that's why that dispatch did not mean that much to me. In
20 factual terms it meant nothing.
21 Q. Okay. Thanks for that explanation. But I just want to be clear
22 about something. Public -- you said wherever possible the dispatch said,
23 wherever possible public security stations should have been taken over.
24 Now, leaving aside what was intended for Sanski Most, what did that --
25 what did you understand that to mean, that public security stations
1 should have been taken over? Who was going to take over?
2 A. This is what was actually done. That was done where national
3 composition was pronouncedly different, where one people was a minority
4 with respect to the other people which was a majority. This was done
5 spontaneously. Nobody tried to put up any resistance or whatever. I
6 don't know. As far as I know, this was done spontaneously in the public
7 stations in question and the hand-over was very smooth. Nobody even
8 noticed that something had happened.
9 Q. Okay. Forgetting how smooth the hand-over was and demographic
10 issues, all I want to know is this: Who was going to take over the
11 public security stations according to the dispatch?
12 A. Nobody had to occupy them. Within the station they had to carry
13 out a transformation from one status to another. There was no visible
14 take-over, just a transformation wherever that was possible.
15 Q. Thanks for that. I think we're getting closer to the information
16 I'm seeking. The transformation from one status to another mentioned in
17 the -- or referred to or understood in the document, what change in
18 status are we talking about here, from what to what?
19 A. Given the fact that the Assembly of the Serbian people in the
20 parliament - and I can't say much about that - since they took a decision
21 sometime in March, adopted a constitution and a decision on the Ministry
22 of the Interior, those decisions were sent to the centres and the public
23 stations. And we were well informed about the details that were passed
24 down from the very top. And since that was issued in the municipalities
25 that were -- that had municipalities formed as Serbian Assemblies, there
1 was no problem with the transfer of police from one status to another.
2 And where the Municipal Assemblies were not in a position to make such
3 decisions, of course that the police did not have an easy task. Things
4 were not as simple. It was very difficult, actually, on both sides it
5 was difficult.
6 Q. Did the dispatch refer to the creation of Serbian police
8 A. Within the framework of that what was it called Bosnia and
9 Herzegovina of the Serbian people, that was already an area in Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina of the Serbian people where the Assembly of Serb MPs took a
11 decision on the creation of such an area. That's when they adopted a
12 constitution, the laws, the law on the interior. And that's when
13 Mr. Mico Stanisic was appointed the minister of the then -- and we were
14 informed about that. In dispatches he was appointed the minister of such
15 a MUP within the area of the Serb people as they were called at the time.
16 Q. Did you speak about this document or dispatch to anyone else in
17 the police station when you received it?
18 A. I did not want to show such dispatches to anybody. Only on the
19 2nd of April when we received that dispatch from Mr. Mandic, in the
20 afternoon I went to Mr. Rasula, he was the president of the municipality,
21 and I informed him about the dispatch that had arrived. He was taken by
22 surprise. He didn't understand what was going on. But I didn't even
23 want to inform anybody within the police about any such dispatch.
24 Q. What about --
25 A. Although everybody in the police knew. It was on the grape-vine
2 Q. What about Mr. Burnic, did you speak to him about it?
3 A. When I received a dispatch, a few minutes later he came to my
4 office and asked me if I had received a dispatch. I told him, "There's
5 no dispatch. Just proceed the way we've done so far. We will continue
6 working within the framework of our legal obligations."
7 Q. What do you mean? You told him that there -- that no dispatch
8 existed or something else? I'm not quite clear.
9 A. I told him, "There's no dispatch, no dispatch. It's not valid
10 for me. We continue as we have done so far." On several occasions
11 before that, Mr. Zupljanin ordered me not to do anything, that we should
12 maintain peace, and that we should try and curb all the national tensions
13 in the municipality, that we should not allow them to get off the ground.
14 And then Mr. Burnic, even before Zupljanin told me that, Burnic told me
15 that it had been decided that the four municipalities would remain
16 enclaves and that nothing would be going on here in terms of the
17 take-over, we would remain oasis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later on
18 I heard that from Mr. Zupljanin who warned me about that and he told me
19 how to behave.
20 THE INTERPRETER: If the witness could be asked to slow down.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. DI FAZIO:
23 Q. Take it slower if you wouldn't mind.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown 65 ter 62, please. Is it
25 possible to get the English up?
1 Q. Let's just have a look first at this document. I think you've
2 seen this before. This is not the dispatch that you've just been
3 speaking about, is it?
4 A. No.
5 Q. It's dated the 31st of March, 1992, and you can see it goes to
6 all public security stations and the SDB, the State Security Service, and
7 all security services centres. In -- the first paragraph, as you can
8 see, describes various political and legal developments, and I'm
9 interested in asking you questions about the third -- well, what appears
10 in the B/C/S as the second paragraph headed -- and above that page 2,
11 little number 2.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: So if we could scroll down on the B/C/S, please.
13 Q. Just have a read of that document.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: And if we could also scroll down to the bottom
15 with the English. Thanks.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 2, do you want me to read
17 the paragraph on page 2?
18 MR. DI FAZIO:
19 Q. No, just read it to yourself. I'll ask you questions about that.
20 The document is signed by Deputy Minister of the Interior, Momcilo
21 Mandic. And it says that public security stations of the Socialist
22 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the territory of the Serbian
23 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina are abolished and their tasks and
24 duties are taken over by the MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina. Do you see that? And finally in the paragraph it says that
1 prior to engagement of -- these new bodies, employees are obliged to
2 swear an oath of allegiance before the minister or an official.
3 Is there anything in that document sent to the SJBs that is
4 inconsistent with the dispatch that you received?
5 A. I can't -- I don't know. I don't understand you. Are you
6 referring to this as compared to Mr. Mandic's dispatch dated the 2nd of
8 Q. I'm comparing this document here signed by Momcilo Mandic, and
9 asking you to compare it with the dispatch that you've spoken about.
10 This document is -- can you tell the Trial Chamber if this document is
11 consistent with the information that you read and saw in the dispatch
12 that you have told us about this morning?
13 A. The dispatch dated the 2nd of April that arrived and that was
14 signed by Mr. Momcilo Mandic was shorter than this one, of course. It
15 may have been half a page. I found it very strange. What I'm reading
16 now and what I remember from before, I know that that dispatch looked
17 very strange to me, and that's why perhaps I just put it in my pocket.
18 And when my commander came, I just told him, "Just proceed the way we're
19 doing now." And it differed from this dispatch here, it did.
20 Q. I'm sure the documents are different. You've already told us
21 they are different. You told us that, we know that. Thank you. What
22 I'm asking you is this: Is this document basically consistent with the
23 dispatch that you received? In other words, this document refers to the
24 abolishment of public security stations for the Socialist Republic of
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina on the -- where they appear on territory of the
1 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2 A. I've told you already several times that I don't remember
3 exactly, but it differed in the style. It looked like an order, an order
4 to do something that differs a lot from what I am reading now. The
5 essence of the two was different. Globally speaking, there was some
6 similar characteristics, but the style was different, and it was -- I
7 found it very strange. And I really can't find any grounds of comparison
8 between the two.
9 Q. Thank you, thank you.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I seek to tender the
11 document. If there's going to be an objection I will ask that it be
12 marked for identification and another witness can deal with it.
13 JUDGE HALL: Is there an objection?
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object. The witness
15 did not identify this as something that he received. He did not
16 recognise the content. There is not enough nexus to introduce this
17 document through this witness.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I join my colleague Krgovic. I
19 believe it's impossible to use this witness as an appropriate witness to
20 clarify the ambiguity.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And Mr. Mandic is also on the list
22 of Prosecutor's witnesses, so maybe my learned friend, Mr. Di Fazio, can
23 face Mr. Mandic with this document and try and seek clarification with
24 him as regards to this document.
25 JUDGE HALL: Well, inasmuch as Mr. Di Fazio is content to have it
1 marked for identification, we do that at this stage.
2 And, Mr. Di Fazio, this is time for the break.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: It's a good time for me, thank you.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P353, marked for identification, Your
6 [The witness stands down]
7 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, while the witness is being brought in,
10 may I raise or alert you to a possible scheduling issue because I think I
11 have to take some of the blame, it took a little longer with the last
12 witness than I thought it would take. I understand now based on the
13 estimated time for Defence cross-examination that with a normal sitting
14 day on Monday we may not finish with this witness, and I think on Tuesday
15 the videolink witness has to take priority. We've discussed with the
16 Defence they don't object to interrupting his testimony and proceeding
17 with the videolink as scheduled. The witness I think has been alerted to
18 this possibility. He doesn't mind staying here and finishing his
19 testimony on Thursday or Friday if need be. If that pleases Your
20 Honours, that's what we would propose.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, I'm sorry, but I'm -- I get very
23 frustrated when -- your -- the document we just marked was 65 ter 62; is
24 that right?
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, I get very frustrated when I can't find it
2 on your list of documents to use -- for use with this witness. Can you
3 assist me?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No, I can't. My case manager alerted me earlier
5 to the fact that it wasn't on the list, and it should have been on the
6 list. It was always in my contemplation to use it and it's my
7 responsibility entirely, and I have to accept responsibility for that. I
8 hadn't realised it wasn't on the list. I had assumed that it being one
9 of the first documents I was going to use that it was on the list. So I
10 have to apologise to you.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll try and ensure that that doesn't happen
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Or if it happens, Mr. Di Fazio, it would be of
17 assistance if you can say that it isn't on your list.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
21 The next one is on the list. Could the witness please be shown
22 65 ter 76, please.
23 Q. Again, Mr. Majkic, this is a document that was sent to all SJB
24 stations or on the face of it was apparently sent to all SJB stations and
25 appears to be a document of Mr. Zupljanin, although it's unsigned. In
1 the -- could you just have a quick look at the -- sorry, and it's dated
2 the 10th of April, 1992, so not long after the dispatch that you've
3 spoken about earlier. And the document refers to a dispatch
4 communication that -- an earlier dispatch communication about forced
5 formation of organisational units of the Serb MUP. And then it goes on
6 to say that there's no -- I'll withdraw that. Yes, then it goes on to
7 say that there are -- that there is -- in the formation of organisational
8 units, there is no forcing. And then it goes on in the second paragraph
9 to talk about employees needing to sign a formal statement, and this
10 should be no different from the statement of the ex-minister of internal
11 affairs and should have nothing to do with the so-called statement of
12 loyalty noted in the dispatch.
13 Firstly, have you seen this document before? Do you recall
14 receiving this document?
15 A. The title or the address is to the SJB chief and commander to all
16 SJB chiefs and commanders, that means that I must have received it.
17 Q. Thank you. And the format. Look at the format, not what the
18 content of the document is but the format, what it looks like visually.
19 Is that the sort of format of -- or one of the formats of documents sent
20 to various SJB stations by Mr. Zupljanin?
21 A. The A4 format is a normal format. All such letters and
22 dispatches were sent on the A4 format papers, and I believe that this is
23 A4 format, is it not?
24 Q. Thank you. Do you recall actually receiving any such document?
25 A. I can't remember, but it says that it was sent to all the SJB
1 chiefs and commanders, which means that I must have received it. But I
2 can't recall this. There were a host of such dispatches. I can't recall
3 this particular one, but I must have received it judging by the address.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: I seek to tender that document into evidence.
6 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P354, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Mr. Cvijetic, you were about to raise an
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Identical as before. The witness
11 cannot recall the document, cannot recognise the document, cannot
12 interpret its contents. Maybe this document should be introduced through
13 another witness. Again, the same objection as before.
14 JUDGE HALL: What I understood the witness's testimony to be is
15 that unlike the previous document that he must have received this one.
16 So wouldn't that have -- wouldn't that put it in a different category?
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's your decision.
18 I just raised my objection.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, the document is not signed. Is it
21 a Telex, or what is it exactly?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not sure if it's a Telex, if Your Honours
23 please, or if it was a typed document. Perhaps we could ask the witness
24 himself. He might be -- he's probably in the best position to answer
25 that question.
1 Q. You heard His Honour's question. Looking at the document, what
2 does it tell you, that this was a Telex or sent by fax or letter, can you
4 A. I apologise. I've just spotted in the address to the SJB, to all
5 chiefs and commanders, I am not sure. It doesn't really make sense for
6 the chief of the security services centre to send this dispatch both to
7 the chiefs and to the commanders. Normally such dispatches would only be
8 sent to the chiefs. And as for the manner of sending, I don't know. I
9 don't know whether it was sent by teleprinter, whether it was typed and
10 sent by some other media. I really -- I can't say anything for sure. I
11 wouldn't be able to tell you what method of sending was used.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Can I just ask -- I apologise. Can I ask just one
13 more question of the witness that might assist in this topic?
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
15 MR. DI FAZIO:
16 Q. Can you recall there being any controversy or issue concerning
17 whether or not the creation of the Serbian MUP was to be forced or
18 whether it was to be voluntary? Can you remember that being an issue and
19 being raised in paperwork in April of 1992?
20 A. I apologise. You will have to repeat because I did not arrive at
21 understanding the question the way you put it.
22 Q. Okay. Look, the document says -- refers to a previous dispatch.
23 You told us about that earlier today. And it talks about having --
24 police having been informed about forced formation of organisational
25 units. And the author, apparent author Mr. Zupljanin, goes on to warn
1 that the formation of organisational units is not forced in any way.
2 Now, can you recall - regardless of what this document says - but can you
3 recall if in April of 1992 there was any concern or controversy in police
4 circles about that issue, that very issue?
5 A. I've already told you several times and I have repeated several
6 times, the status of Sanski Most, Kljuc, Prijedor, and Bosanski Novi were
7 explained to me by Mr. Zupljanin on several occasions. He spoke about
8 our status in the future as well. So I was not much bothered. I was not
9 interested in the dispatches or information with such context. I really
10 did not give such things any second thought. Even if I received such
11 kind of instructions or dispatches, I would just ignore them because they
12 actually did not apply to me. And why would Mr. Zupljanin tell me one
13 thing and then send me an entirely different thing? It doesn't make
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: We recall the order marking it as an exhibit and
17 will now have it marked for identification.
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]
19 JUDGE HALL: That is pending authentication through another
20 witness who is able to speak more directly to the document.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the purposes of the transcript,
22 this is Exhibit P354 marked for identification.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
24 Q. In 1992, did you become aware of an organisation in Sanski Most
25 bearing the acronym SOS and standing for Serbian Defence Force?
1 A. Well, the existence of the SOS, Serbian Defence Forces, was the
2 first time mentioned at the meeting of the 14th of April, that is the
3 meeting of the executive committee where they appeared with a sort of
4 ultimatum. I think that this was more of a fantasy made by people in
5 town. They used to tell stories about this small group of young men. We
6 assumed there were seven or eight of them. And we used to call them SOS
7 men. Prior to that, we had no information about any organisation and
8 existence. To put it simply, people were talking in the town about the
9 SOS. As for the police, the police had no information about their being
10 formed. Only on the 14th of April when they appeared for the first time
11 before the executive committee with the ultimatum of taking over the
12 public security station was when I saw these three men for the first
13 time, and they declared themselves or introduced themselves as members of
14 the SOS.
15 Q. Okay. So is it your position that the police in Sanski Most had
16 no information or intelligence about SOS or SOS activities in Sanski Most
17 up until the 14th of April?
18 A. There was mention of that organisation in the police as well,
19 just like among ordinary people, in the same way. We had some suspicions
20 that there were these seven or eight lads. Later on, when I saw that
21 there were about 50 of them, then I realised that they were a rather
22 serious and larger organisation because we had no idea that they had such
23 strengths. We thought that they were self-styled organisation, member
24 numbering seven or eight people. So we acted according to the stories
25 that reached us from the streets.
1 Q. Okay. So the police were gathering intelligence, I assume, or
2 information about them and concluded that there were about seven or eight
3 of them, local Sanski Most lads?
4 A. That's what we in the police concluded, that there were no more
5 than seven and eight of them. We suspected of certain crimes being
6 committed by them, and then we engaged all our resources in order to try
7 and catch them in flagrante in committing these crimes, but we never
8 managed to do that.
9 Q. And what sort of crimes were these?
10 A. Usually planting of explosives in certain Muslim and Croat
11 buildings, but in three occasions they attacked the buildings owned by
12 the Serbs. However, they caused only damage but there were no
13 casualties. And the damage was insignificant.
14 Q. Thank you. And were these bombings occurring in late 1991 and
15 also early 1992?
16 A. Precisely in that period, autumn of 1991 and the beginning of
17 1992, so four or five months all together.
18 Q. Okay. Now, you said that these crimes were investigated. Did
19 the police ever get any results, and by that I mean solve the crimes?
20 A. The police and the investigating judge and the prosecutor would
21 always visit the crime scene, do what they were supposed to do, criminal
22 reports were being filed, but we never managed to detect who the
23 perpetrators were, although I also ordered the commander as well to take
24 part with the police in on-site investigation and to become involved in
25 the detection process of these crimes. Therefore, we had quite a few
1 people involved in these investigations, but as I say, we never succeeded
2 in solving these crimes or proving who the perpetrators were. Although
3 the suspicion was always there, that this was exactly those young men.
4 Q. Okay. So your police had suspicions that the SOS was involved in
5 these bombings throughout 1991 and 1992. The police must therefore have
6 paid particular attention to the SOS and done its utmost to investigate
7 the SOS, this group of seven or eight lads from Sanski Most; is that
9 A. That's correct, yes.
10 Q. And were the police able to get information about these seven or
11 eight lads in Sanski Most, for example, where they lived, who they were,
12 what they were doing in Sanski Most?
13 A. The two who we thought were the ring-leaders used to be
14 sportsmen, they played hand-ball, however, they didn't have any criminal
15 records or even misdemeanour records in the police. So we were a little
16 perplexed about that, that all of a sudden such a law-abiding citizen
17 started committing crimes. Therefore, we carried out this thorough
18 investigation in order to detect them and prove anything, but as I said,
19 we failed. Either they were too skilful or I don't know.
20 Q. I'll come back to the Sanski Most SOS in a while. In early April
21 1992, did you go to Banja Luka and attend a meeting with -- where
22 Mr. Zupljanin was present?
23 A. Yes, it took place on the 6th of April. He sent a dispatch
24 inviting us to come to this meeting three or four days before that, and
25 he included an agenda for the meeting.
1 Q. Thank you. And was this -- on this occasion did Mr. Zupljanin
2 explain to you that the SOS had taken over Banja Luka?
3 A. The meeting took place on the 6th of April, but on the morning of
4 the 4th of April on Radio Banja Luka on some other local radio I heard
5 that the Serbian Defence Forces in Banja Luka had carried out a sort of
6 assault or whatever and took power. Then Mr. Zupljanin informed us about
7 this piece of news at this meeting.
8 Q. On the 6th?
9 A. Yes, 6th of April.
10 Q. That was the first you heard of it?
11 A. I said I first heard it on the radio on the 4th of April, on the
12 day it happened. It happened on the early morning of the 4th of April
13 when the SOS carried out this act, and when I came to the meeting on the
14 6th of April Mr. Zupljanin told us the same story about what had
16 Q. Did the radio provide information to citizens in the area that it
17 was the SOS that had taken over Banja Luka?
18 A. Yes, yes. They even said that they were called the Serbian
19 Defence Forces and that they were the ones who took over power.
20 Q. Thanks. Well, now given the fact that police in Sanski Most had
21 suspected the SOS of carrying out bombing attacks in Sanski Most, and
22 considering that you knew because you'd heard it on the radio that they'd
23 supposedly taken over Banja Luka, was this issue of the activities of the
24 SOS discussed -- sorry, on the agenda of the meeting that you went to?
25 A. As I said, Mr. Zupljanin informed us about this act of theirs and
1 what had happened. That was at the very beginning of the meeting. He
2 told us what had happened in Banja Luka. And he commented nothing
3 further about that.
4 Q. That's all he said, just that they -- the SOS have taken over
5 Banja Luka?
6 A. Yes, that they had carried out this act of take-over of power,
7 and that in fact the power in Banja Luka had changed hands.
8 Q. This must have been a source of serious concern to you, given the
9 fact that you - as chief of police in Sanski Most and the police in
10 Sanski Most - suspected the SOS of carrying out bombing attacks
11 throughout the latter part of 1991 and into 1992 and now they were taking
12 over Banja Luka. So that must have been a source of absolute concern to
13 you; correct?
14 A. I'm sorry, but these SOS forces, as far as I know -- or actually,
15 I'm convinced 100 per cent, they were not at the government level. They
16 were rather some local organisations. There were some towns that, for
17 example, needed these kind of forces. This is where they were formed.
18 For example, the SOS in Sanski Most and the one in Banja Luka had no
19 connection. They didn't cooperate with each other. They had their own
20 respective plans and operated according to those plans. They had their
21 own agendas that they pursued.
22 Q. Okay. Explain to the Trial Chamber, please, where you obtained
23 information about the agenda and plans of the SOS in Sanski Most. Where
24 did you get that from? How did you know it?
25 A. On the 13th of April, it was a Monday, I was --
1 Q. No, no, I'm talking about the 6th of April. The 6th of April at
2 the meeting. Where did you have the information about the SOS and its
3 leadership and its plans -- from where had you obtained that information
4 as at the 6th of April when you were sitting in the room there with
5 Mr. Zupljanin?
6 A. Well, I already said Mr. Zupljanin informed us about this act.
7 That's all. It was a very brief information, and nobody discussed this
8 any longer. The meeting went on according to its established agenda.
9 Q. Which did not include anything about the SOS; is that correct?
10 A. I don't remember exactly what the agenda was, but if this
11 take-over of power in Banja Luka took place on the 4th and we arrived on
12 the 6th and we received the invitation before the 4th containing the
13 agenda, it is most probable that some items on the agenda had been added
14 to the agenda following the events of Banja Luka, maybe to involve those
15 berets and tri-colours and the uniforms that were mentioned were probably
16 included into the agenda by Mr. Zupljanin as something that had a bearing
17 on the events in Banja Luka. So probably that was the outcome of what
18 happened on the 4th April. Of course the agenda that we had originally
19 received with the dispatch, we worked on it. I can only understand that
20 probably the agenda was amended by adding some additional topics.
21 Q. Thank you. Given the fact that Mr. Zupljanin merely announced
22 that the SOS had taken over Banja Luka, and given the fact that you and
23 police in Sanski Most had suspicions that an organisation also named SOS
24 had been responsible for bombings in Sanski Most, did it not occur to you
25 to raise the issue with your regional chief and indeed with all the other
1 police chiefs and explain that a very serious problem was developing with
3 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honours. I didn't intervene
4 before. I don't -- in principle don't have any problems with the line of
5 questioning that my learned friend Mr. Di Fazio is posing, but the
6 formulation of the questions and -- sometimes they're multi-folded, they
7 are loaded, and they are leading questions at the end. So I kindly ask
8 to either split questions or be underlining like he usually excellent is
9 doing in examination-in-chief. Thank you so much.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: All right. I'll reduce it to one question.
11 JUDGE HALL: And the leading questions, Mr. Di Fazio.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry, yes.
13 Q. Did you raise the question of the bombings at this meeting on the
14 6th of April with your regional chief, bombings in Sanski Most?
15 A. At each meeting when I submitted my monthly reports, I always
16 highlighted these crimes or any other crimes that had happened, just like
17 we did on a daily basis if need be. But we only had suspicion about
18 these young men, these SOS or however they called themselves. We had our
19 suspicions. We didn't want to pressure them and to flush them out; we
20 wanted to call them at -- catch them red-handed. But I did report any
21 crime at our regular meetings.
22 Q. You had driven from Sanski Most to this meeting on the 6th of
23 April; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you were in a police car?
1 A. Yes, always in a police car.
2 Q. Right. And you're able to enter Banja Luka and go to the meeting
3 no problem I assume?
4 A. At this point I cannot recall, but when I was travelling on the
5 6th I don't think that I saw any check-points along the way on my way to
6 Banja Luka or perhaps I've forgotten. I really don't remember. All I
7 know is that I didn't encounter any problems on my way to Banja Luka.
8 Q. So it was a -- as far as you were concerned, a smooth ride into
9 Banja Luka?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you make inquiries of the original police chief,
12 Mr. Zupljanin, or any of the other police chiefs as to what SOS taking
13 over actually involved?
14 A. Well, that was already a fait accompli. Under the pressure of
15 the SOS, the power changed hands. For me coming from Sanski Most was
16 something that was a fait accompli. Probably Mr. Zupljanin behaved
17 afterwards in keeping with what the government or the local governments
18 of these taken-over municipalities had agreed with him. But I know
19 nothing about that; therefore, I'm not the right person to comment on
21 Q. Thanks, and thanks for that explanation about power changes and
22 so on. But my question is very simple. You apparently had a smooth ride
23 into Banja Luka and yet you are informed, A, by the radio; and B, by your
24 regional police chief that the SOS had taken over. In those
25 circumstances, did you consider getting information about what precisely
1 was involved in the take-over?
2 A. Since this took place on Saturday, it was a non-working day, on
3 the Monday I went to Banja Luka - and since this was an ongoing process
4 not only in Banja Luka but in other municipalities as well - it sort of
5 became something normal. I'm not saying normal, but kind of -- it became
6 a frequent occurrence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, this way of taking over
8 Q. Okay. You said that Mr. Zupljanin said nothing more about the
9 take-over of power other than to announce the fact of it. Did you or any
10 other policemen offer any solutions as to what you might do to ensure
11 that the SOS were disarmed, arrested, placed into prison, and order
12 restored? Was that discussed by you or any other policemen?
13 A. I don't know what to tell you. This SOS, we assumed that this
14 was a kind of paramilitary armed force of a considerable size and we were
15 not sure whether the police was fit to enter into any conflict with them.
16 Perhaps it was only the military capable of doing that, and I very much
17 doubt that the police was capable of doing anything to counter the SOS.
18 Q. Thank you. Could you explain to the Trial Chamber what it is --
19 sorry. Explain to the Trial Chamber how you and the police and why you
20 and the police assumed that the SOS was a paramilitary armed force of
21 considerable size. How did you know that?
22 A. Well, I can tell you that in Sanski Most when the war started and
23 when they were disbanded, we never found out who set up this organisation
24 and how. We never learned where they had come from --
25 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
1 A. -- the same applied to Banja Luka. There was no one standing
2 behind the SOS organisation, not even the SDS. Quite simply, it was a
3 paramilitary organisation and how they organised themselves was never
4 clear to me to this date --
5 Q. Fine, fine --
6 A. -- all I know is that there was no one behind them.
7 Q. Okay. Thanks. Well, that's some intelligence about the SOS that
8 you had. Given that intelligence, can you explain to the Trial Chamber
9 where the assumption comes - assumption - that this SOS was a
10 paramilitary force of considerable size? Where did that -- on what was
11 that assumption based, the assumption you spoke about?
12 A. We didn't know that until they appeared in reality or in practice
13 with this act of taking over power in Banja Luka or when they came at the
14 meeting in Sanski Most with this ultimatum that power should be
15 transferred to them. We had no other information. We didn't know who
16 was behind them. We -- all we knew was that they were a paramilitary
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Majkic, I haven't finished yet with the 6th of
19 April meeting, but just leave it for a moment. Given what you had been
20 told by Mr. Zupljanin in -- on the -- at the 6th of April meeting and
21 given your suspicions of the SOS in Sanski Most being involved in
22 bomb-throwing campaigns or throwing of bombs, did you go back to Sanski
23 Most and continue to investigate the activities of the SOS in Sanski
25 A. If a criminal report had been filed against an unidentified
1 perpetrator, that means that there is an ongoing search for these
2 perpetrators. It was already April, but I think that this stopped
3 sometime in mid-March, but nevertheless the police had an obligation to
4 investigate such crimes until they uncover the perpetrators, for as long
5 as it takes.
6 Q. Thank you. What I'm asking you is that given what you discovered
7 in Banja Luka and were informed in Banja Luka, did you -- did that
8 provide any incentive to go back and investigate more thoroughly, more
9 deeply, the activities of the SOS in Sanski Most; and if so, what did you
11 A. On that day, on the 6th, when the meeting ended sometime in the
12 afternoon I arrived home in the evening. I didn't go back to the office
13 because the office hours were over. And on that day, between the 6th and
14 the 7th, the 6th Krajina Brigade arrived in Sanski Most. And the troops
15 were deployed on the hilltops and all over the place. I don't know what
16 their employment schedule was, but in any case the brigade was deployed
17 there on the 7th of April. That's when I met Colonel Basara. We had
18 coffee together. He came to me and told me, "I arrived to prevent
19 international inter-ethnic conflicts." Given the fact that in mid-March
20 those inter-ethnic tensions started mounting -- in Sanski Most I
21 experienced some personal problems because I was involved in curbing
22 those inter-ethnic tensions and I was successful to some extent.
23 However, in mid-March I sent a letter to the 5th Corps and the commander
24 of the 6th Brigade, Basara, asking for the 6th Sana Brigade to return to
25 Sanski Most after having spent a lot of time on the front line because I
1 expected there would be imminent inter-ethnic conflicts in Sanski Most.
2 According to the information that I had from people in the army who had
3 told me later about that, Colonel Basara took this letter on several
4 occasions to the corps commander asking him to allow him to attend to
5 Sanski Most. This was approved some 20 days later, and he returned to
6 Sanski Most together with the brigade. And that was done because the
7 inter-ethnic tensions had been mounting in Sanski Most for some time
8 before that.
9 Q. I didn't actually ask you about that, but you raised that issue
10 of the 6th Brigade returning. Did they provide any reassurance to you in
11 dealing with groups like the SOS in Sanski Most?
12 A. Again, I repeat. In Sanski Most the SOS did not exist. Nobody
13 knew about it. Those were all suspicions by -- on the part of the
14 citizens, on the part of the police. There were, as we assumed, only six
15 or seven lads. We didn't have a clue that the group was actually much
16 bigger than only perhaps six or seven of them. I really don't know. I'm
17 a bit -- I don't know. I don't know what I actually wanted to say. I'm
18 a bit confused now. The existence of the SDS was nowhere on paper. It
19 was never made official. It was never in writing. Nothing. We tried to
20 detect the perpetrators of crime, but we failed. We never made any
21 progress. We can't be sure to this very day that they were the ones who
22 did all those things.
23 Q. Okay. We'll return to Mr. Basara and the SOS later. Just let's
24 go back now to the 6th of April meeting. On -- you've told us that
25 Mr. Zupljanin mentioned the take-over and that was it. What else did he
1 discuss with you police chiefs?
2 A. It was probably reports. It was the beginning of the month. We
3 had to submit our reports, and after that he spoke about the berets, the
4 markings on the berets, the solemn declarations. One uniform was hanging
5 on the coat rack in the corner. He showed us that uniform as a model of
6 what the uniforms would like under new circumstances. That was
7 discussed, and at the end he distributed the berets, the markings for the
8 berets, and the solemn declarations. I received some hundred of the
9 berets and some hundred of the solemn declarations.
10 Q. Just tell us about these berets. What exactly were they, what
11 were they intended for, and what insignia did they contain or have on
13 A. The berets were blue, very standard issue. It could have been
14 any colour, but it was blue. And the insignia on the berets were a metal
15 three-coloured Serbian flags, and they're supposed to be put on the
16 berets, the flags.
17 Q. And what did he say should be done with these berets?
18 A. When the transformation had already been completed of the police
19 forces in the municipalities and when new conditions were in place with
20 keeping with the constitution and the laws that had been adopted by the
21 Assembly of the Serbian People, those berets were given to those
22 municipalities. They did give them to me also, but then Mr. Zupljanin
23 told me Sanski Most, Prijedor, Bosanski Novi, as I've already told you
24 five times and he said to me at least five times, you shouldn't do
25 anything in these municipalities be it as long as it may -- even a year.
1 So what I did with the berets is I put them in the trunk of my car, never
2 showed them to anybody, only when the conditions changed in Sanski Most I
3 took them out and distributed them.
4 Q. Thank you. Thanks for explaining that.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, could you think of winding up between
6 1.30 and 1.35. There's a procedural matter which Mr. Zecevic wishes to
7 raise before we adjourn, and then the Chamber itself has a short matter
8 with which to deal.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly, Your Honours, perhaps if I just deal
10 with this particular meeting, that would probably be a natural break.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, if you think of 1.35 as the outside time for
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you. So -- sorry, would Your Honours
14 just bear with me. I just want to look at the transcript.
15 Q. Now, you said that Mr. Zupljanin told you that in various
16 municipalities, including yours, some -- you shouldn't do anything in
17 these municipalities. Did you know what was going to happen in the other
18 municipalities, that he was -- the ones he wasn't referring to?
19 A. To be honest, I did not even think about what would be happening
20 in the other municipalities. I was only concerned with the security of
21 my and sanctity of my municipality.
22 Q. And he said that you shouldn't do anything in particular with the
23 berets, and only when conditions changed you took them out and
24 distributed them. Was that by pre-arrangement? Did you know what sort
25 of conditions had to apply before you could use the berets?
1 A. Mr. Zupljanin distributed those to all the chiefs where the
2 transformation had been carried out. I received them too. I don't know
3 whether the berets were also given to the Prijedor chief. I can't be
4 sure of that. But I know that everybody was given or should have been
5 given all the berets. Zupljanin distributed them to everybody, including
6 myself, but then again he repeated, "You do not take any steps even for
7 as long as a year. Stay put. Don't do anything." And he mentioned
8 Kljuc, Sanski Most, Prijedor, Bosanski Novi as the municipalities that
9 should not be affected by the distribution of the berets.
10 Q. Thanks. The steps that you just spoke about, don't take any
11 steps even for as long as a year he said, stay put. Now, did you
12 understand what steps Mr. Zupljanin was referring to you when he said to
13 you, "Don't take any steps, even for as long as a year"? What were those
15 A. If the chief told me not to do anything, he told that to me, he
16 ordered me not to do anything, no steps, nothing, nothing. He just said,
17 "Continue doing what you have done so far. You will be an oasis in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina where people will live in peace, in unity, as you have
19 in the past." That's the way I understood him and that's the way I
20 behaved, according to his instructions or orders. You call them what you
21 will. I don't know what to call his words.
22 Q. Thank you. But in order for you to have had a sensible
23 discussion, you must have understood what the steps were that he was
24 talking about when he said to you, "Mr. Majkic, don't take any steps in
25 Sanski Most." So explain to the Trial Chamber what were the steps that
1 you two had in mind?
2 A. Nobody had any intention to do something. Nobody had any
3 intention to take over. Even if I took the 2nd of April dispatch to
4 Mr. Rasula, he was taken by surprise. He was the top man in the
5 municipality, and he agreed with what Mr. Zupljanin said. Because we
6 found that a most convenient thing in Sanski Most and we behaved
7 normally, we worked normally, together until the very last day, until the
8 moment there was an agreement on division. And when we parted our own
9 ways, until that very day we worked together as if everything was normal.
10 The police force was united as if nothing was going on.
11 Q. All right. Okay. Did he also have oaths, loyalty oaths, printed
12 out on paper and did he distribute those?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. And did he have a uniform which he showed to you
15 police chiefs as an example of a new uniform that was to be worn by
17 A. There was just one uniform hanging on the clothes rack in the
18 corner -- but not really in the corner. It was actually next to the desk
19 at which he was sitting together with the other leaders from the centre.
20 He stood up and he showed us the uniform, he pointed to it and said that
21 that was the kind of uniform that policemen should wear. There was just
22 one sample, that one uniform hanging on the coat rack.
23 Q. And can you just describe it, please, to the Trial Chamber.
24 A. There was a beret, and since it was April or already warm there
25 was a blue camouflage shirt and there was also a pair of trousers with
1 pockets on the side. It was also a blue pattern similar to the military
2 camouflage uniform. The police uniform would have been similar, not the
3 same but very similar. It was a camouflage uniform but the colour was
5 Q. Thanks. Let's just wrap this topic up quickly, if you could keep
6 your answers as short as possible. Did you eventually -- sorry, did you
7 take possession of your berets, your copies of loyalty oaths, put them in
8 your car, and eventually drive back to --
9 MR. PANTELIC: Objection. I didn't hear that the witness
10 mentioned a word "loyalty oaths."
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay.
12 MR. PANTELIC: This witness simply said "oaths."
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll rephrase my question.
14 Q. Did you put the oaths on paper and the berets and -- into your
15 car and drive back to Sanski Most?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you distribute the berets and the oaths on paper when you got
19 A. No, on the contrary. I hid them well. I didn't want somebody to
20 steal them. I had thought that I would not be needing them in a while,
21 in a long while.
22 Q. Where did you hide them?
23 A. In the trunk of my car, and the car was only driven by me and
24 that's where I hid them, in the trunk. And my car was always in the
25 garage that was locked, and only when I used it I would take it out of
1 the garage and then I would drive it myself.
2 Q. Thanks. And just the actual content of the oath, in fact, what
3 was the oath on that -- printed out on that paper that was given to you?
4 A. It was a solemn declaration. The title was "solemn declaration."
5 I know that the contents were the same as the contents of the former
6 solemn declaration that we used to take before 1990 in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So it was identical. The only difference being a
8 reference to Republika Srpska and the Serbian people. I can't really
9 give you the exact details of those changes. Everything else, the rest
10 of the contents, were absolutely the same as before.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: This would be an appropriate time on this topic.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE HALL: We must take the adjournment for today, and we will
15 resume with your testimony on Monday, Monday morning. You having been
16 sworn as a witness, you cannot communicate with the lawyers from either
17 side; and in such conversations that you have with anybody outside of the
18 chamber, you can't discuss your testimony before the Tribunal. Do you
19 understand what I've said?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
21 JUDGE HALL: Well, thank you, sir. You're now excused, and we
22 wish you a safe weekend, and we will see you on Monday morning.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, before I hear you, we have a ruling to
1 deliver, and that is that -- this is an oral decision on the
2 Prosecution's notices on the mode of testimony of SD-4, 52, and 140.
3 On the 28th of October, the Trial Chamber granted the Defence
4 until the 11th of November to respond regarding requests of the
5 Prosecution filed as notices on the 14th and 26th of October to amend the
6 mode of testimony of witnesses 4, 52, and 140. The Prosecution requests
7 that these witnesses testify pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
8 In addition, the Prosecution seeks to add to its Rule 65 ter
9 exhibit list 20 documents relating to the witnesses. Also on the 28th of
10 October, the Chamber granted a similar request regarding ST-79 and allow
11 the Prosecution to add to its exhibit list three documents relating to
12 this witness. The Defence did not file any request by the 11th of
13 November. The Prosecution submits there is no prejudice to the accused
14 as a result of the variation of the mode of testimony of ST-4, 52, and
15 140. It argues that the transcripts, written statements, and associated
16 exhibits meet the requirements of admissibility under the rules and that
17 the amendments of the mode of testimony are made in an attempt to save
18 court time and to stream-line the presentation of evidence. The
19 Prosecution submits that the 20 documents form an inseparable part of the
20 witness's prior evidence. The Prosecution submits that ST-4 will be
21 testifying about police involvement in crimes. 52 is a crime base
22 witness and 140 is a linkage witness.
23 Considering the nature of the testimony of the witnesses, the
24 Trial Chamber finds that the witnesses should be present in court to
25 attest the accuracy of their prior statements and be available for
1 cross-examining judicial questioning pursuant to Rule 92 ter. The
2 Trial Chamber is satisfied that the evidence of the witnesses fulfil the
3 requirements of Rule 92 ter. It is recalled that the parties' witnesses
4 and exhibit lists can only be amended with leave of the Trial Chamber
5 upon showing of good cause of the requesting party.
6 The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the 20 documents form an
7 inextricable and indispensable part of witnesses' evidence. It also
8 notes that there is no objection from the Defence.
9 The Chamber therefore allows the Prosecution to call ST-4, ST-52,
10 and ST-140 pursuant to Rule 92 ter. It will accept on to the
11 Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit lists ST-4's prior statement, ST-52's
12 prior statements and 11 associated documents, and ST-140's prior
13 statements and testimonies and nine associates documents. This material
14 will be admitted into evidence upon the witnesses having complied with
15 the conditions of Rule 92 ter. Thank you.
16 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I wish to
18 raise a matter which is of great concern for the Defence, and actually
19 the last question and the answer of the witness gave me a perfect
21 Now, Your Honours, when my friend Mr. Di Fazio showed the
22 document P353, which was MFI'd, he mentioned in the document when he
23 was -- he was directing the witness, he mentioned the oath of allegiance,
24 and I -- and I was wondering where did that come from. Now I checked the
25 document. The document, Serbian original, says clearly "solemn
1 declaration," like it was interpreted here in court Svecana Obaveza means
2 solemn declaration, so there was no oath whatsoever mentioned in the
3 document. Now, the translation of that document is clearly wrong, and I
4 was always wondering where did the idea -- the allegation, which is an
5 issue in this case, of a loyalty oath, of oath of allegiance, of any kind
6 of oath came to the -- came as an idea for the Office of the Prosecutor
7 because I never ever in all the documents which were disclosed in this
8 case ever found anything suggesting oath or anything of a kind. It was
9 always a solemn declaration, which does not mean an oath like over here.
10 The witnesses are giving the solemn declaration. They are not taking an
12 Now, my submission is that I would ask the Trial Chamber to order
13 that this document, 353, be sent to the CLSS for official review of the
14 translation so that in future we don't have any more of this -- because
15 this is not the proper allegation. It is only the misinterpretation
16 which led the Office of the Prosecutor to allege that there was some --
17 any kind of oath taken and something like that. And I think -- I think
18 this is of help for all the parties that we do not use the time -- the
19 court time improperly by making objections and that we clarify this
20 situation once and for all. Thank you very much.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, the Chamber wishes to thank you for
23 drawing our attention to these problems. It's very useful that you have
24 done so, and we urge counsels consistently to take up any difficulties
25 that they may become aware of regarding translation. It -- it is of
1 course of no secret that translations as well as interpretations will
2 occasionally incur inaccuracies, although I believe generally that the
3 services we have at our disposal, both for interpretation and also for
4 translations, are of a very high standard. But of course we are dealing
5 with human beings and inaccuracies or mistakes do occur, and that's why
6 it's important that you who speak the language draw our attention to it.
7 In the instant case, I suggest we ask translation -- the CLSS to
8 have a look at it and then take whatever measures are required
9 accordingly. So if we can ask Madam Registrar to bring this to CLSS.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Thanks, Your Honours, I understand, and I
11 appreciate, and I just didn't mean to criticise either CLSS or
12 interpreters. It's just a mistake which I didn't say was intentionally
13 made. It's just that this mistake has misleaded our friends from the
14 Prosecution for their allegations. Thank you very much.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Just very shortly, and as usual our friends from
16 Prosecution like to be sort of misleaded and they create their own
17 theory, and, you know, that's why we have to clarify all these issues in
18 order to have very precise proceedings.
19 Your Honours, just very briefly, I would like to respectfully
20 bring to our attention our old motion when Honourable Judge Harhoff was a
21 Pre-Trial Judge sometimes in June. Actually, 3.000 documents from --
22 which was seized from CSB Banja Luka police regional centre in 1998 are
23 still not available to the Defence. I would call this issue, issue
24 3.000. As far as I remember, we filed a joint motion with that regard.
25 The position of the OTP was that for certain public reasons, security
1 reasons, or whatsoever we were not allowed to have access to these
2 documents. So we discussed that in details, Judge Harhoff I believe is
3 aware about that. Now we are most -- more than -- let's say -- we are
4 almost two months in trial and you can imagine, Your Honours, that -- I
5 don't want to speculate, but maybe some of these 3.000 documents might be
6 of certain importance for the Defence.
7 So I just want to bring to your attention to see where we are in
8 this issue about the motion that we filed with respect to these
9 documents, 3.000 documents, and what would be the position of the OTP
10 with that regard. I mean, I'm not asking immediate resolution, but just
11 to put on the record that I think that we have to deal with that issue.
12 Thank you so much.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, would you like to give a reply or
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I would need to be able to look at the --
16 refresh my memory and look at the motion and our response in order to be
17 able to comment in any way that would assist you, and I can't do that as
18 I stand here. If Your Honours please, the matter can be addressed on
19 Monday. I can raise it with my colleagues, and I think that's probably
20 the easiest and best way of going about it.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, I'm just being instructed or being
23 reminded by our Legal Officer that the issue is under consideration in
24 the Chamber and that we will hand down our ruling shortly. And so I
25 don't think -- we have heard already the submissions by the Prosecution,
1 so there is no need to bring -- unless of course you have anything new to
2 add. But otherwise the decision is due to arrive very shortly.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sure the matter has been well ventilated in
4 the motions.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: I have one short matter to discuss as well. The
6 time estimates again. I was told that we got your time estimates for the
7 witnesses that are expected to come before Christmas from the Defence
8 counsels. Is that right?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, we have the estimates.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. And we have them as well. You have
11 communicated them to us?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't believe so.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Oh.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: As yet.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Because we were waiting for some witnesses which --
17 we want to give you the complete list --
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Because we --
19 MR. ZECEVIC: And we still haven't had the time to check all the
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: We would still like ST-29 -- 25, 29, 33, 34, 35,
22 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43.
23 So if you could please provide us with that.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I will, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: I wouldn't dare draw as a conclusion that you
1 don't have cross for them.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I understand.
3 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Monday, the 16th day of
6 November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.