1 Tuesday, 1 December 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 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 all. As I crept outside, we
9 reconvened in everybody's favourite courtroom, and we begin in the usual
10 manner by calling for the appearances.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Di Fazio.
12 I appear with Ms. Korner this morning and our case manager is
13 Ms. Bosnjakovic. Thank you.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence
16 this morning. Thank you.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
18 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Jason Antley. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. We have been alerted that before the
20 witness is called to the stand that there may be some preliminary
22 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honours, yes. I'm sorry. The first is
23 this: We filed a motion yesterday about adding documents to the 65 ter
24 list. Without saying anything for the reasons which I've expressed in an
25 e-mail to the Defence counsel and legal officers, can I just formally
1 apply to withdraw that motion. We'll have to refile it. I think you
2 have to say yes.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, as prayed.
4 MS. KORNER: Sorry?
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, leave as prayed.
6 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much. Your Honours, may I now ask to
7 go into private session.
8 [Private session]
11 Page 3932 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
6 Your Honours, I have one observation in relation to the request
7 by the Prosecutor that pursuant to Rule 92 ter with this witness that
8 we're going to hear now to adduce package of 100 documents. This is what
9 it says in the attachment that we received with this witness. So in the
10 discussion on this matter initiated by my colleagues Mr. O'Sullivan and
11 Mr. Zecevic, and since I will be dealing with that witness, I did study
12 that set of documents. I studied the testimony of that witness in the
13 previous case, the Brdjanin case, and I have a few useful observations
14 which could be of assistance both to the Trial Chamber and to us for
15 future reference and how to proceed. Namely, Rule 92 ter implies a basic
16 assumption, and that is that a set of evidence that accompanies a witness
17 to this specific case must be open and discussed in direct examination,
18 examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and of course, with the
19 participation of the Trial Chamber from the previous case. That would
20 be, if I may put it that way, the basic entry ticket for that set of
21 documents to be admitted with the witness's testimony in this case. So
22 the question we have here is what would happen if the bulk of that set of
23 documents was practically not open or discussed during the
24 examination-in-chief and the cross-examination in the previous case
1 Your Honours, I have studied all of those documents,
2 Your Honours, and I have compared them with the testimony of this witness
3 in the Brdjanin case, and I have come to the conclusion that I have made
4 the following selection out of those documents: The bulk of the
5 documents being adduced through this witness was adduced in the following
6 way: When asked if he knew anything about that particular document, the
7 witness simply replied, "Yes. I found that document in the house of
8 Mr. Rasula, at the SDS premises," and other places that he went, private
9 houses and so on. That was his only comment in relation to a particular
10 piece of evidence.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just be sure about which witness are you
12 actually talking about.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, he's talking about Mr. Draganovic, but
14 we've already admitted -- Your Honour, I was about to interrupt. Your
15 Honours have admitted the statement, admitted the documents, and I think
16 Mr. Cvijetic is trying to re-open the whole matter in the middle of
17 cross-examination of Mr. Draganovic in which case we object.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: I thought we were speaking about the next witness
19 actually, 110.
20 MS. KORNER: So did I, but he's not.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you help us out Mr. Cvijetic. Who are we
22 talking about?
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Witness Draganovic is about to
24 enter the courtroom, and as far as I'm concerned he's the next witness,
25 and this set of documents came with him, and if it's not a problem, I
1 would ask just to be given five more minutes of your time, please.
2 So the bulk of those documents related to this witness --
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Cvijetic, I think we've ruled on the
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. This is exactly
6 what I'm talking about. Please allow me to finish so that we could take
7 a position about the interpretation of your decision for future cases,
8 and my proposal actually will be directed with that goal in mind. I am
9 practically speaking about the problems that you would encounter
10 practically when you come to interpreting these witnesses -- these
11 documents, so I would like to suggest some practical things when we are
12 dealing with this particular matter.
13 So the bulk of the documents was adduced because the witness
14 simply said, "Yes, I found that document," nothing more.
15 The next group of documents is a group that the witness
16 interpreted by reading them out in the courtroom. For example, the diary
17 which is allegedly written by Mr. Rasula. And his testimony was about
18 the meeting that was held on the 19th of April, 1992, and he talks in
19 detail about what happened at that meeting, and then at the end, it was
20 established that he actually was not even present at that meeting. And
21 then the smallest group of documents out of that set are authentic
22 documents of that witness as an investigating judge or documents which
23 directly refer to him or documents relating to exhumations where he
24 actually was qualified to deal with and interpret those documents.
25 However, the speed with which the documents were admitted was
1 such that the documents, in the beginning, were commented on by the
2 Prosecutor during the examination-in-chief and the Defence in the
3 cross-examination, and the Chamber. However, as time went on, this
4 finally was reduced down to reading the titles of the documents, and even
5 the witness Draganovic was not given the opportunity to comment on them.
6 Part of the set are document 65 ter now 611 --
7 JUDGE HALL: Could you -- perhaps I'm the only one in here who
8 has this difficulty, but it would be useful if you could indicate what
9 the end -- what is down at the end of this road down which you're taking
10 us, and then we'd see whether this is something that time needs to be
11 devoted to at this stage, because as I understand some of your prefatory
12 comments, you were not seeking to challenge the ruling which we made on
13 Thursday. You were talking about the consequences for future matters.
14 So perhaps if you could give us a glimpse of your destination.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all my comments are
16 actually directed at my final proposal, and I am getting close.
17 All I wanted to mention was that there were documents in this
18 batch that had never been discussed. There were even documents that the
19 Prosecutor actually gave up on, claiming that they will be adduced
20 through the next witness. There were also documents which were -- the
21 objection that was put by the Defence that that particular witness was
22 not a relevant witness for that document, and that was supported by the
23 Trial Chamber and yet that document was -- was admitted into evidence.
24 So my request is this: Would you actually have to go through
25 each and every one of these documents, check them and compare them, and
1 see whether what I'm claiming is right. In other words, whether this
2 evidence was admitted in a proper way where the principle of immediacy
3 and contradiction -- or actually, equality of arms was satisfied.
4 If you find that this is incorrect -- or, rather, that I am
5 correct in what I'm proposing, my proposal is that with witnesses where
6 we have a batch of documents that are introduced, that are -- if I may
7 use the term "tied up," that we actually hear that witness viva voce; or
8 in the alternative, that we actually know what your position is on the
9 admittance of such documents, because our request will be, in those
10 cases, to have a much longer time -- much more time for cross-examining
11 those witnesses, because in that case we will have to go through all
12 those documents and thus assist the Trial Chamber in determining whether
13 those documents are relevant and proper.
14 In the opposite case, the Trial Chamber will have a very major
15 burden to make a selection from this batch of documents without the
16 appropriate assistance from the parties that the parties could actually
17 provide import. Thank you.
18 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, before I hear you, Ms. Korner, I just want to
19 ask Mr. Cvijetic one question.
20 Are we still talking about 92 ter witnesses, because I would have
21 thought -- I will hear what Ms. Korner has to say, but I would have
22 thought that the rationale behind calling a witness under the provisions
23 of 92 ter would have answered a number of the questions that you would
24 have raised, but then I may be missing something. Let me hear from
25 Mrs. Korner.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, what this is, is the Defence seeking
2 to re-open not only the ruling on this witness - and you have already
3 ruled - but on the rulings that Your Honours made in respect of all
4 applications that we've made for witnesses to be 92 ter, save for the
5 latest one. What is -- we have done, and can I explain again, is we have
6 selected from the documents that were introduced the ones which are
7 relevant to this case which were admitted in the previous cases in which
8 the witness testified, and therefore it is not a question of simply
9 putting in all the documents because they were introduced. And what's
10 more, as we said I think last Thursday, Your Honours yourselves in fact
11 looked at the selection we made, particularly for this witness, and said
12 some, in your view, as opposed to our view, did not appear relevant. And
13 so this is an attempt to re-open the rulings, to, I think, re -- re-open
14 the motion for reconsideration if Your Honours have already ruled, which
15 we think you have, but we were not entirely sure, last week orally, and
16 so we're saying we object to this.
17 So that's the position.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: For the information of counsel, the ruling on the
21 motion for reconsideration is in process of being worked out and will be
22 handed down shortly, but we would consider what -- the observations that
23 Mr. Cvijetic has made this morning.
24 So could the usher call the -- bring the -- escort the witness
25 back to the stand, please. Thank you.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 WITNESS: ADIL DRAGANOVIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, Mr. Draganovic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
7 JUDGE HALL: You would not be surprised that the delay in your
8 being recalled to the stand this morning was, from your perspective, your
9 experience in court matters, was due to certain preliminary matters which
10 the Chamber had to consider. So now we resume, and I remind you that
11 you're still on your oath.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, due to the changes in the courtroom
13 schedule from afternoon to morning session, my colleague Mr. Krgovic is
14 not this morning here, so I will take the rest of cross-examination of
15 this witness, with your permission, of course. Thank you.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Draganovic. My name is
18 Igor Pantelic, and I am the Defence counsel for Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, and
19 as my colleague Mr. Krgovic, who questioned you on Thursday, is not
20 present today, I will continue where he left off.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. Mr. Draganovic, you mentioned to Mr. Di Fazio that you testified
23 in a number of cases before this Tribunal, and I believe that you also
24 mentioned that you gave evidence also in a case tried before the
25 Banja Luka District Court; correct?
1 A. Yes, I did testify before the Banja Luka District Court, but I
2 failed to mention then that I also -- that I have also testified in
3 the -- or before the Cantonal Court in Bihac, a war crimes court as well.
4 Q. What year did you testify in the Banja Luka court?
5 A. To be honest, I can't really remember what year exactly it was,
6 but it -- but this was the case against military policemen from the
7 Manjaca camp, but I can't recall exactly whether this was three or four
8 years ago.
9 Q. And this case was a case against war criminals, military
10 policemen, I assume, according to an indictment issued by the Banja Luka
11 District Court; correct?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Do you know what the outcome of that trial was, whether the
14 perpetrators were convicted?
15 A. Yes, I certainly do know what the outcome was. This trial was --
16 a final decision was issued. There were six accused. They were military
17 policemen in the Manjaca camp. Three of them were convicted and
18 sentenced to prison terms, and three were acquitted.
19 Q. And what about the case in the Bihac Cantonal Court? What kind
20 of case was that?
21 A. Well, the indictment was issued by the cantonal prosecutor in the
22 Mostar Sana canton. It was against a single perpetrator. I believe his
23 name was Stupar or something like that. I can't really remember what his
24 name was. And I believe that these proceedings were also completed. In
25 the -- at the first instance the sentence that was pronounced was a
1 prison term of 15 years, but then at the second instance, after an
2 exhumation in Hrustovo was conducted and bodies had been found, I believe
3 that this case was brought before the Supreme Court of the Federation,
4 and I believe that there was a conviction at the end of that case as
6 Q. As far as I understood you, both the Banja Luka and the Bihac
7 trials were regular trials. They were not -- these were not trials in
8 absentia of the accused; correct?
9 A. Yes, correct. The accused were present.
10 Q. All right. As a professional you can agree with me, can't you,
11 that when I say that during the war it is practically -- it is all but
12 impossible to actually try criminals for a number of reasons. Often it
13 is impossible to provide security for the thing, but in any case, this is
14 something that we also know from history, that war criminals are tried
15 after a war is over.
16 A. Well, you see, I do know that in some cases criminal proceedings
17 were instituted against certain perpetrators, but these were crimes of
18 killing or murder for the most part. I recall a lot of cases where the
19 Prijedor prosecutor, which is the lower prosecutor -- or, rather, the
20 investigating court in Prijedor also conducted certain investigation, but
21 this was again involving the crime of murder. I know that there were
22 also criminal complaints filed even during -- in the course of 1992, for
23 mass killings in some municipalities in Bosanska Krajina, but there were
24 no cases of war crimes tried, as far as I can recall. And based on the
25 documents that I had occasion to see, I would say, relying on my memory,
1 that there were no such indictments, no indictments for war crimes.
2 There were some investigations conducted in Prijedor at the lower court,
3 but they resumed after the war. They were tried first for murder, but
4 then the indictments were amended, and in fact some accused were accused
5 of war crimes. And this was also -- this was done by the district
6 prosecutor in Banja Luka.
7 Q. I apologise. I'm pausing, waiting for the transcript to be
9 A. Well, I apologise. Perhaps I was speaking too fast.
10 Q. No, no. It's all right. Now, tell us, as an experienced judge
11 and a former president of a court and currently a successful
12 attorney-at-law, you would agree with me that in all these pre-trial
13 cases -- pre-trial phases of a trial and during an investigation, it is
14 practically the public prosecutor who issues orders to the police as to
15 what actions to take and so on?
16 A. Yes, I agree with what you're saying.
17 Q. Of course, during an investigation, because our system is
18 actually the continental European system, the investigating judge has
19 practically the same role because he is the person who actually conducts
20 such investigations; correct?
21 A. Yes, certainly.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Draganovic, I just wanted to be sure that --
23 that when you say that some of the perpetrators of mass killings were
24 prosecuted during the war, that this was not related to the war as such.
25 So the mass killings and the prosecution and possibly conviction for mass
1 killings was not prosecuted as a war crime? Is that correctly
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly. There were no -- there
4 was no prosecution for war crimes, and there were no criminal complaints
5 accusing anyone of war crimes. These were individual cases of murder.
6 For instance, in Prijedor municipality, in the course of a single night
7 there were some 20 or so murders of elder people, Bosniaks, who stayed
8 behind in Prijedor, in which certain individuals took part, and a number
9 of persons were taken into custody then as ordered by the Prijedor
10 prosecutor's office and an investigation was conducted, but an
11 investigation into murder and robbery. There were no war crimes
13 I also remember that there was a criminal complaint in one case
14 in Kljuc municipality where there were mass killings of people in a
15 certain locality. There was a criminal complaint prepared there, but
16 there was no further prosecution following that.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this explanation, but I just want
18 to ascertain, because the borderline between a mass killing committed
19 during war and a war crime may be difficult to understand correctly.
20 What do you mean when you say that they were not convicted -- or
21 prosecuted, sorry, for war crimes? How do you define a war crime in --
22 in your practice?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, primarily a war crime, as a
24 criminal offence, has no statute of limitations. As for the crime of
25 murder, it is characterised by certain features, and it is usually more
1 difficult to prove a murder in the absence of evidence, which is why in a
2 number of these investigations these individuals were actually released
3 [as interpreted]. And it was only after the war and under pressure from
4 the victims and their families we were able to actually have the District
5 Court in Banja Luka amend those indictments and, in fact, now pronounce
6 them to be war crimes against civilians. And also, war crimes are far
7 more -- far graver -- far graver crimes than murder, and that is a
8 clearly defined limit or delimitation between the two. And in fact, in
9 this case there were certain individuals who committed these crimes who
10 belonged to either the police or the Republika Srpska Army.
11 So these would be the features that would actually qualify these
12 crimes as war crimes. That's in my humble opinion.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Would the laws and the legal basis on which a
14 murder would be prosecuted, would they be different from the legal basis
15 on which a war crime would be prosecuted, and would there be any
16 difference in the judicial institution that would try these crimes, in
17 terms of the court?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, it's clear. There is a
19 difference there.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you explain?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the crime of murder, pursuant
22 to the criminal laws applied in Republika Srpska, which is the former FRY
23 law, if I'm not mistaken, there were some changes, some amendments of
24 that law in Republika Srpska, so that for the crime of murder -- the
25 crime of murder could be tried by lower courts, by the basic courts in
1 municipalities, while only the higher courts were authorised to try war
2 crimes; namely, the Banja Luka higher court would be authorised in that
3 case for the area of Republika Srpska. It would be the only one
4 authorised to try war crimes in that period until the court of Bosnia and
6 the war crimes court actually decides on jurisdiction, whether some lower
7 court, for example, would be able to try a specific war crimes case.
8 I think that there is a rule there that if proceeding -- if
9 proceedings were started during the war or later, so the case is still
10 ongoing, that had been tried already, in that case the Banja Luka
11 District Court would be authorised, or the Cantonal Courts in the
12 Federation if they had been conducting such proceedings before.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: And is there a special law on war crimes that
14 would form [Realtime transcript read in error "forward command post"] the
15 legal basis on which prosecution would take place for the prosecution of
16 war crimes?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think that there is a
18 special law on war crimes. There are regulations now.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Just a correction to the transcript. Witness
22 mentioned on page 14, line 24, it should be -- instead of the word
23 "released," it should be "acquitted," because he mentioned that a number
24 of persons who were tried before the Banja Luka court were acquitted, not
25 released. Just a correction to the transcript.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: And may I also, on my own account, draw attention
2 to the transcript on page 16, line 11. I think I said that -- I was
3 asking the witness whether there would be a special law on war crimes
4 that would form the legal basis of the prosecution of war crimes. Thank
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Well, we are more familiar with the regulations, so we are in a
8 position to help the Trial Chamber, so let us deal with a few more
9 questions on that matter in order to clarify matters. So qualifications
10 on a certain crime are given by the Prosecutor in his request for an
11 investigation and then later in the indictment. That is according to our
12 laws. Isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In that sense, the prosecutor is -- instructs the police to carry
15 out certain investigations such as forensic examinations, interviews with
16 potential witnesses, and so on and so forth; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So now Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, namely both the
19 entities, in 1992, 1993, and 1994, were applying the criminal law of the
20 former SFRY, of the former Yugoslavia
21 their legislature. Both the Federation and the Republika Srpska did
22 that. Isn't that right?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. And that law contained an entire set of crimes, war crimes,
25 crimes against the civilian population, crimes of destruction of
1 religious facilities during war operations. These are all the crimes
2 that are contained in international conventions, ranging from genocide to
3 others; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You perhaps know this and perhaps you don't know, I leave that up
6 to you, but if I were to say to you that during war operations, from 1992
7 all the way until 1994, the military court was authorised for those
8 crimes, war crimes. The jurisdiction lay with the military courts, not
9 with the civilian courts. Did you know that?
10 A. Yes. I actually -- when I was working on these assignments as
11 the president of the court, and at the same time I was carrying out the
12 duties of an investigating judge, so sometime in 1999 or maybe even
13 earlier, I received in Sanski Most some cases from the military court in
14 Banja Luka about some cases in the Sanski Most municipality, which, once
15 again, were cases of military personnel. And here I'm thinking about
16 soldiers who were in uniform and who had carried out some crimes. These
17 were mostly killings and robberies. I confirm that this was like that.
18 So the military court at that time in the Autonomous Region of the
19 Krajina or the Serbian Republic
21 Q. Of course you will agree with me that if during certain military
22 operations it is noted that a member of some military unit commits a
23 crime, regardless of the qualification of that crime, then the role of
24 the military prosecutor is to process that before the military court.
25 Isn't that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's how it should have been, and I think that that's how
2 it is.
3 Q. And let us assist the Trial Chamber here a little bit as well. I
4 think it will be useful.
5 When we're talking about sentencing, if I'm not mistaken, the
6 situation was like this: In the old law, the law of the SFRY, such grave
7 crimes such as war crimes, crimes against the civilian population, were
8 subject to a -- to the death penalty. Isn't that right?
9 A. Well, I cannot remember all the details, but I think that you
10 were correct that the death penalty was envisaged for such crimes.
11 Either that or a life sentence, depending on what the difference was in
12 these crimes. When we're talking about a war crime, regardless of the
13 type of war crime or just murder, homicide and things like that, that's
14 where the difference was.
15 Q. Well, we're talking about 1990s, since at that time as the former
17 that time, so the law was changed at that time so that the highest
18 sentence after the death sentence was abolished was 25 years in prison.
19 Isn't that right?
20 A. Yes, that is correct. Yes, it was -- the death penalty was then
21 replaced by the strictest penalties of 25 [as interpreted] or 15 years.
22 Q. There has been a mistake in the transcript. Actually, the
23 maximum sentence was 20 years for those most serious crimes. Isn't that
25 A. Yes, 20 years was the maximum sentence.
1 Q. And as we have already mentioned for crimes of homicide and
2 robberies, since you're an experienced judge you know that the sentences
3 for such crimes were also quite severe and ranged from 15 to 20 years for
4 some aggravated crimes, and this is not only from your own practice
5 probably that you know but from general case law.
6 A. Yes, I think that the maximum sentences for crimes like that were
7 up to 15 years. At that time.
8 Q. Well, perhaps you may agree with this or not, but I think that
9 for a victim and for the family of the victim, the greatest satisfaction
10 is the sentence itself and not whether a certain crime is qualified as a
11 war crime or as a homicide. We could say that even some sort of social
12 role is to establish a certain kind of procedure by setting up maximum
14 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't want to cut off
15 Mr. Pantelic from any relevant line of cross-examination, but I'm having
16 some trouble understanding what the point is here and where this line of
17 cross-examination is going. I hope I'm not the only one who's troubled,
18 but I wonder if Mr. Pantelic could perhaps indicate to us what exactly
19 the relevance of this body of evidence is. I'm having some trouble with
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I will do that gladly.
22 First of all, Honourable Judge Harhoff made a certain line of
23 questions which personally I find very important for this case for
24 several reasons, and then on a follow-up basis, what Judge Harhoff just
25 asked, my intention was to clarify certain categories with that regard
1 with the witness who is competent, who is a professional, who has
2 experience, in order to shed a light on all these proceedings before the
3 courts, because a part of the prosecution theory was that --
4 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't have any problems at all with the
5 witness's ability to comment usefully on these topics, but it's the
6 ultimate point of this evidence. How is it going to help you, and how is
7 any of the -- any of the material that the witness is currently talking
8 about not available from all the other documentation in the case and
9 matters that are agreed between the Prosecution and Defence, especially
10 pertaining to laws and judicial proceedings in the former Yugoslavia
11 That's the -- that's the problem I have. And if there's no immediate
12 relevance to those -- if there's no immediate benefit that we can get
13 from going down this road of cross-examination, whereas we can get all
14 the information from other documentation in the case, then this might be
15 a way of cutting short the cross-examination.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe my learned friend missed the relevant part.
17 Actually, my dear friend, we are speaking about the year 1992, not the
18 former Yugoslavia
19 Federation Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we are covering period which is the
20 time-frame for your indictment. That's the questions that I posed to
21 Mr. Draganovic. It's the 1992 year.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just cut through here. My question was
23 related to the witness's testimony that there were mass killings that
24 were not prosecuted as war crimes, so I put that to the witness. My line
25 of questioning triggered responses which I find was very useful from the
1 witness, and Mr. Pantelic took up on some of these issues.
2 I think you have exhausted this aspect, so my suggestion is let's
3 get back on track and continue with your cross-examination, but thank you
4 to the parties.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Certainly.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, the same situation applied in
7 Republika Srpska and in the Federation in 1992. We cannot say that the
8 number of those court cases because the war and because it was difficult
9 to get in touch with witnesses because there were refugees from all over,
10 from the Federation area, from the area of Republika Srpska were leaving,
11 and only after the war ended was it possible to re-open again those
12 proceedings, which is what is being done. Isn't that correct?
13 A. Well, it's difficult for me to give you a relevant answer to this
14 particular question since I really didn't do any kind of inquiry about
15 that or investigate the proceedings being conducted in both the entities,
16 including the situation in the district of Brcko, which is a separate
18 I was precise and clear about what I know and what I can be
19 definite about, because I participated in these proceedings in a certain
20 way, and some decisions and reports that I saw also contribute to my
22 So I just have now remembered a judgement in that period. This
23 was 1992 or 1993 where the case was tried by the Sanski Most basic court
24 for an aggravated rape of an old woman. This rape was committed by a
25 member of the police reserve forces.
1 The court passed a suspended sentence of I don't know how many
2 years of imprisonment, but still it was a suspended sentence. I just
3 wanted to say that there were some extreme and unlawful decisions that
4 were made by courts at that time.
5 Q. You must have heard that your colleague, Prosecutor Delic, spoke
6 about major difficulties and pressures from members of the
7 6th Krajina Brigade and some other members of paramilitary units. Did
8 you hear of such incidents?
9 A. Well, I know that it was difficult at the time to be a prosecutor
10 or a judge. What I could see after the war when I reviewed the documents
11 in the Sanski Most Municipal Court, where I returned, I could assess that
12 the judges, for the most part, in keeping with the law actually suspended
13 all the proceedings that had been started at the time, which is in fact
14 pursuant to the law and the legal precepts, and all I can do now is
15 confirm your question.
16 I know Mr. Delic. He was a colleague and a prosecutor at the
17 time, and I know that he actually had to undergo pressure. And there was
18 pressure exerted both on him and other prosecutors.
19 Q. And of course, in view of your experience and education, you will
20 agree with me that when speaking about Sanski Most, the commander of the
21 military unit in 1992, Colonel Basara, commanded thousands of soldiers
22 who were members of his brigade, and he was the one responsible for
23 prosecuting and processing crimes, because many of those crimes had
24 actually been committed by members of the brigade; correct?
25 A. Well, since your question is specific, I can only agree with you
1 in -- in one small aspect. It is correct that Colonel Basara was the
2 commander of this brigade, the 6th Brigade, and he was replaced by
3 Commander Kajtez, if memory serves me well, but Basara did not -- was not
4 the person who decided who -- on all these crimes that were committed at
5 the time. Pursuant to the law, we both know who were the persons who
6 could actually initiate proceedings. It was the police and also a judge,
7 a prosecutor. As for military personnel, I can agree with you that the
8 authorised person was -- or the competent individual to start proceedings
9 was the commander of the brigade.
10 Q. Well, that's exactly what I was aiming at.
11 A. Well, does my reply answer your question?
12 Q. Yes. You were very specific and precise.
13 Now, could you please tell me, in 1995 when you returned to --
14 or, rather, in 1996 -- when exactly did you return to Sanski Most?
15 A. Well, returned in 1995, at the time when Sanski Most was placed
16 under the control of the Bosnia
17 authorities. This was around the 15th or 16th of October.
18 Q. And as you testified, and pursuant to other documents, you -- on
19 this occasion you actually got hold of a -- of a large number of
20 documents for the Crisis Staff and other authorities in Sanski Most;
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. You reviewed those documents in detail, of which you told the
24 Prosecutor both in this case and in the Brdjanin case. You spoke in
25 detail about a diary that was compiled by Rasula; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. For all practical purposes you, from the time when you were
3 arrested, which was, I believe, on the 25th of May -- so from that time
4 on you were not really able to have any direct knowledge about anything
5 that had to do with the work of the Crisis Staff and so on; correct?
6 This would be logical, because you were detained at the time.
7 But later on, as you investigated this, you were able to gain
8 some indirect knowledge about these things; correct?
9 A. Yes. Up until the moment when I was arrested, I was aware of
10 some of the decisions made by the Crisis Staff, and in fact, I was
11 actually dismissed from the court pursuant to one such decision by the
12 Crisis Staff. And on the 15th of May, when I left the court - this was
13 on the 15th of May, 1992 - before that day five members, five senior
14 officials of the police -- of the Sanski Most police station, visited me
15 and issued an ultimatum, as it were. They asked that I hand over certain
16 items such as money, gold and valuables that were actually in my safe
17 because they related -- they were actually evidence in some of the cases
18 that were then being investigated.
19 I refused to hand over these items and demanded that I be allowed
20 to talk with the president of the District Court in Banja Luka in order
21 to get some instructions from him. So I told them that they must bring a
22 decision in writing -- or, rather, an order in writing ordering me to do
23 so. And in fact, that's what they did, indeed. They went to the
24 police -- back to the police station, and they came back with a
25 Crisis Staff decision. However, I did not comply with that decision
1 either, and I didn't get an instruction from the prosecutor in
2 Banja Luka -- the judge in Banja Luka, Rosic, who is now late. I
3 received an order issued by Kresimir something. I forget his last name,
4 and he said the following to me: "Adil, man, please look after yourself.
5 It's a miracle that you're alive." So I understood what he was trying to
6 tell me. I realised that I was being unreasonable and doing things that
7 can actually cost me my life. So I then instructed these members of the
8 police to address the treasury of the bank, the commercial bank, to issue
9 that because I wouldn't do it. The vault in the bank.
10 Q. Which members of the police station were these that you
12 A. Well, there was an inspector in the crime department.
13 Q. Do you know his name?
14 A. Yes. Branko Sobot. He was an inspector.
15 Q. Was Vrucinic there?
16 A. Well, these were all the closest associates of Vrucinic's. I can
17 tell you what they did. They actually took me in custody and took me to
18 Vrucinic's office and ordered me to unlock this safe because I had the
19 key with me. And I had left the court building because I didn't want
20 them to find me, but they did find me. They took me to Vrucinic's office
21 and demanded that I open, that I unlock this safe, which was a metal
22 safe. And there was also Vlado Vrkic there. He was there as a member of
23 the Crisis Staff. He was actually present when I opened the safe. They
24 counted the money they found in there and also wrote down all the items
25 that had been taken, the gold and the money. And I had this receipt,
1 actually, but unfortunately, it was burned down when my house was burned
3 I recall that there was also a former police commander, one of
4 the former police commanders there. I forget his name, but I don't think
5 it's really relevant. Yeah. I think his name was Andjelko Kajtez, yes.
6 So there was Branko and there was Andjelko Kajtez there, and there were
7 three other police officers, uniformed policemen, who actually were their
8 security officers.
9 Q. When you talked about or testified about the diary that Rasula
10 actually compiled, what was your assessment? Was this a realistic -- did
11 he paint a realistic picture of these events in 1991 and 1992? Was his
12 depiction of those events true and correct?
13 A. Well, I had occasion to review and read a number of times this
14 diary and compare them with the documents produced by the Crisis Staff,
15 certain decisions made by the Municipal Assembly of Sanski Most, also
16 compared them to decisions made by the SDS, and with numerous other
17 documents, and I concluded and I actually learned that some parts of the
18 diary correctly depicted certain events and certain meetings that were
19 held at the time. He wrote down very carefully and entered all the
20 important and significant elements and discussions of certain individuals
21 in those meetings.
22 Now, in some other parts, and that was my conclusion, I found
23 that he just sort of sketched out plans for -- or agendas for Crisis
24 Staff meetings which would be discussed in a Crisis Staff meeting that is
25 to follow, because he would note that such and such items will be
1 discussed on such and such date at the Crisis Staff meeting in such and
2 such house, and he would just jot down in abbreviated form the topics
3 that will be discussed and decisions that were to be made.
4 But I also observed that some parts of the diary were part of his
5 propaganda, if you understand what I'm trying to say. They were
6 something -- they were really -- there were items that he wrote down
7 against individuals, certain parties. There was, for instance, some
8 mention of the establishment of certain Muslim units which was pure
9 propaganda, because I couldn't find any documents confirming that there
10 were actually any such units established. So what I'm trying to say is
11 that we have to bear all this in mind, and of course, based on documents
12 and other -- numerous other sources, I was able to draw such conclusions.
13 JUDGE HALL: We've reached that point in the morning where we
14 take the break, so we would resume in 20 minutes.
15 [The witness stood down]
16 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
18 JUDGE HALL: Before the usher brings the witness -- before the
19 usher escorts the witness back to the stand, could we move into private
20 session, please.
21 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, did you hear that sometime in
3 November 1992 there was a mass killing of the inhabitants of the village
4 of Skrljevita? They were ethnic Croats. Did you hear about that
5 incident? Could you please turn your microphone on.
6 A. Can you hear me now? Yes?
7 Q. Yes. Can you repeat this for the transcript.
8 A. Yes, I did hear of those killings. Actually, in the documents --
9 I found out about the killings from documents.
10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
11 document 10162 from the batch of the Prosecution documents.
12 Q. This is a document made by the Military Police Company of the
13 7th -- of the 6th Krajina Brigade of the 7th of December, 1992, referring
14 to that crime, including the measures taken, including ballistics and
15 forensic examinations, and stating also that the above-mentioned persons
16 were taken into custody and sent to the investigative prison in
17 Banja Luka. Can you see that in this report?
18 A. I am familiar with this document, and I can say that the
19 investigation was conducted by investigating judge of the Sanski Most
20 Municipal Court and the prosecutor. The police assisted during the
22 Q. I know that the prosecutor at the time was Milenko Delic. Who
23 was the investigating judge, if you happen to know?
24 A. The investigating judge was Mrs. Slavica Blagojevic. She made
25 the investigation report, and I found that later in the court archives.
1 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the document
2 from the same batch of documents. This is 2061. That's the number of
3 the document.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, for the purposes of the
5 record, the document that Mr. Pantelic referred to just now, 10162, is in
6 fact P411.43.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you for that.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: I only raise that, Your Honours, because at some
9 point in the future when we're researching transcripts that would be
10 really useful to have the exhibit numbers. I've been guilty of the same
11 thing myself. And wherever possible, it's best, if we can, to use the
12 exhibit numbers.
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The document that you see in front of me, what is it?
15 A. Yes. It's the document that I referred to a little bit earlier.
16 It's the report on the investigation by the investigating judge of the
17 Sanski Most lower court.
18 Q. You, as a professional, agree that everything that was necessary
19 was done at this stage, even the bringing into custody of the people from
20 the previous list and that they were all handed over into the custody of
21 the military court in Banja Luka; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. This case -- in this case all the actions provided for
23 under the law were carried out. And it is true that the persons who
24 committed this crime were captured and arrested and detained in
25 Banja Luka, where they spent some time, after which they were released.
1 And then the proceedings continued after the war.
2 MR. PANTELIC: This document, 2061, from the Prosecution set of
3 documents, is it admitted as exhibit or what is the situation?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P411.30, Your Honours.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Draganovic, can I just ask in relation to
7 this document whether this is a proof of what you told us earlier in your
8 testimony that this was done by the lower court in Sanski Most and
9 therefore could not have been a prosecution for war crimes. Is that
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a war crime, in this case,
12 and the Municipal Court in Sanski Most conducted certain investigative
13 actions that it could pursuant to the law. However, the jurisdiction for
14 criminal proceedings, or judicial proceedings in this case, lay with the
15 higher court, the District Court in Banja Luka. So the case could be --
16 could have been continued. However, as those persons were released from
17 custody, and I think -- I dealt with that particular matter as part of my
18 testimony in the Brdjanin case. I think I talked about that already. So
19 I don't know if there is any need for me to repeat that.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, that's fine. Thank you.
21 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Before the break we talked about the diary of Nedeljko Rasula,
23 and you gave some comments in relation to that. What I'm asking is
24 whether the day of the Patriotic League is being celebrated in
25 Sanski Most today as a state holiday.
1 A. I'm sorry, I really don't know what day that is. If you can just
2 remind me what day that is, the day of the Patriotic League. I don't
3 know if it's being celebrated, but can you please tell me what day that
5 Q. I'm just asking you whether you know whether the day of the
6 Patriotic League is celebrated in Sanski Most.
7 A. No, that day is not celebrated. I don't know about it. I don't
8 know that it's celebrated in Sanski Most.
9 Q. In 1992 or later, did you know that there was a certain
10 Green Berets training centre in the area that is called Golaja?
11 A. As far as I know, that was not a training centre, but some events
12 ensued in early June when the villages of Vrpolje, Hrustovo, Pljevci,
13 where the population is practically 100 or 98 per cent Muslim, were
14 attacked, surrounded by the Army of Republika Srpska and its police, and
15 I know that one group of armed Bosniaks was encircled in that area, and
16 then in the combat they captured -- well, how can I say that? Yes,
17 captured. We can use that term. Captured a number of soldiers or
18 officers of the Serbian Army and that they used them in an exchange. I
19 know that. As for some training and exercise centre, that is something
20 that I'm not aware of.
21 Q. But you found out about this event after the war probably.
22 A. That is correct . I found out about it in the Manjaca camp, when
23 I was there. This information reached me there from some inmates who
24 already knew about this incident.
25 Q. The attack by the 6th Brigade under the command of Colonel Basara
1 as part of the disarmament operation, the operation to disarm the Mahala,
2 did you hear anything about that event?
3 A. Of course I did hear about that event. I heard about all of the
4 events that ensued before I was arrested and after I was arrested, and
5 this was a so-called Crisis Staff action, action by the military, the
6 police, and the Serbian authorities to disarm people. The first armed
7 attacks were conducted against the Mahala in Sanski Most. This is the
8 part of town inhabited by the Muslim population.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: For the transcript, line -- page 32, line 11, in
10 line 10 you asked: "But you found out about this event after the war
11 probably." And then in the transcript it is said: "That is correct. I
12 found out about it in the Manjaca camp ..."
13 So that means that is incorrect, I suppose. So the transcript
14 should say that is not correct. You found out during the war. Can you
15 say yes for the record?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found out already at the Manjaca
17 camp. This has to do with the event -- if I'm not mistaken, you asked me
18 about Golaja, about that event. As for Mahala, this does not refer to
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Just for the record, it's page 34, instead of
22 Belaj, it's Golaja. Just a clarification.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Very well. Did you have information about a
24 good part of the Muslim and Croat population in Sanski Most in 1992
25 having weapons?
1 A. I know for sure that the Serbian people in Sanski Most
2 municipality had weapons. I can say that. As for the Muslim and the
3 Croat people, this was happening in such a small scale that it was not
4 that significant.
5 Q. If I were to tell you that there are official reports and notes
6 about a significant quantity of confiscated weapons, would you be
7 prepared to correct the answer that you gave now, that there is evidence
8 about it? I'm not saying that you need to have known about it, but if
9 such reports existed, would you be prepared to correct your position?
10 A. I'm not prepared to correct my position regardless of whether you
11 show me documents or not, since I knew what the circumstances were. I
12 was familiar with the situation among the Serbian people and the military
13 and the police, where all the weapons were and where weapons were
14 distributed. Each Serbian house received weapons. I also knew what
15 Muslim and Croat citizens had at their disposal.
16 Look, there were weapons that were legal and that were illegal.
17 As for documentation, I can look at those documents and I can give you my
18 opinion on them, but I state with full responsibility that I know these
19 facts and I know what the situation was, and I know that the weapons that
20 they did have, the Muslims and the Croats, that they had -- were on the
21 list of weapons to be surrendered and that these weapons were in the area
22 of armed conflict, and this was in Vrpolje and Golaja.
23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
24 Exhibit 2D21.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. Could you please just
1 enlarge this a bit? I cannot see clearly. Thank you. This is well.
2 This is very well.
3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Have you seen this document before?
5 A. Just a moment, please. Yes, I see the document now. It is
6 possible that I've already seen it earlier, but I can volunteer my
7 opinion about this document if allowed.
8 This is pure propaganda you see. This document is untrue. The
9 contents are not true.
10 You can see the signature there. It says "Milos
12 These -- this type of propaganda notes, there was a lot of them.
13 One of them even was addressed -- or actually spoke against me, and I
14 think that you can see that even this document contains my name. It
15 mentions Ismet Sarcevic, Karabeg Mirzet, Adil Draganovic. You see, this
16 information in the document is completely inaccurate. This is a
17 non-document, in fact. It served as propaganda to incite hatred of one
18 people against -- or one ethnic group against another. There are a
19 number of names mentioned there, including my own, as the president of
20 the court, claiming that I attended a meeting or gathering of citizens.
21 I, in fact, did not attend any such meeting.
22 Mention is also made of some 500 armed civilians, which is
23 completely incorrect, untrue. Because you see, had there been 500 armed
24 Muslim civilians in Sanski Most, there would have been armed clashes in
25 Sanski Most. In the town itself, not a single bullet was fired by a
1 Muslim or a Croatian people when the operation organised by the Serbian
2 Crisis Staff, a joint operation with the police, was carried out and the
3 territory of Sanski Most captured by force. And in fact, even before
4 this armed occupation, as it were, and the violence that was committed on
5 the 27th of May of 1992 there, it had already been taken over in every
7 Obviously, the goal was to actually instill fear in the non-Serb
8 population and to expel them from Sanski Most municipality, to destroy
9 some parts or some segments of the population and retain some other for
10 economic reasons. So this was a planned operation which was
12 Q. Mr. Draganovic, could you please tell us, since you mentioned
13 this joint operation, wasn't it true that the main command of the
14 6th Krajina Brigade was the one that actually conducted this entire
15 operation of disarming and taking over? Do you agree with me?
16 A. Well --
17 Q. What was this brigade doing at the time there?
18 A. Well, you see, I wouldn't agree with what you've just said. This
19 was an operation in which all the various forces participated. It
20 involved the 6th Krajina Brigade as the military unit, the police, the
21 public security station with its entire complement of reserve police. It
22 also included the Serb Territorial Defence, which had already been
23 established by then, because all the citizens of Serb nationality had
24 already been mobilised, and they had been issued certain military tasks
25 and assignments.
1 So all these different forces participated in this comprehensive
2 operation, and the operation was coordinated and commanded both by the
3 Crisis Staff, the military command of the 6th Krajina Brigade, the public
4 security station. And all these forces participated in this joint
5 operation with a joint objective, and they succeeded in it.
6 And I would like to note here that over those 15 to 20 days
7 Sanski Most -- in Sanski Most some 18.000 people of Bosniak nationality
8 were expelled from Sanski Most. This was up until the second half of
9 August, and of that number, over 4.000 men, Muslim and Croat, had already
10 been detained in camps, in detention facilities. And numerous Muslim and
11 Croatian villages had already been completely cleansed, meaning that the
12 people had been expelled, their houses burned down and their properties
13 burned down for the most part. Some villages were destroyed, were razed
14 to the ground. Vrpolje, Hrustovo, are examples of that. Pljevci. These
15 were Muslim hamlets. Then Trnova as well. All houses there were
17 Q. Thank you, but I think the Prosecutor has --
18 MR. DI FAZIO: I think something needs to be cleared up. And
19 that was the witness mentioned an operation involving the
20 6th Krajina Brigade. It's not clear to me, I don't think from the
21 evidence, which particular operation he is talking about. He may be
22 talking about an operation that occurred in Mahala, but -- and subsequent
23 evidence, I think, confirms my fear that he's talking generally. And if
24 you read the evidence, it will look as if he's talking about the
25 6th Krajina Brigade being involved in all of these matters that he
1 described, whereas he may have been talking about a specific operation.
2 It's just a clarification. In order for you to understand this portion
3 of evidence, that will have to be clarified.
4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Draganovic, the way I understood you was that the
6 6th Krajina Brigade, which numbered several thousand men, was throughout
7 1992 actually one of the participants in those operations. You didn't
8 mean all the operations -- or actually, you meant all the operations in
9 1992; correct?
10 A. Well, I was referring to the beginning of the armed attack on the
11 Sanski Most municipality which started in Mahala, and all of these
12 various forces that I mentioned a little earlier participated in this
13 operation. This was at the beginning of this attack.
14 Q. And these actions actually continued through the summer; correct?
15 A. Yes, through the summer. Some two to three months, because after
16 the summer there were no further operations of this kind, and not at this
17 scale in any case, because the authorities had already -- the Serb
18 authorities had already been in place in Sanski Most.
19 Q. Would you please take a look at the document before you. Did you
20 see these Green Berets in March 1992 before the conflict broke out? Were
21 there any Green Berets in Sanski Most? Yes or no, just briefly.
22 A. No, there were no Green Berets in Sanski Most.
23 Q. All right. Now, are you aware that there were some
24 3.000 citizens of Muslim ethnicity who were armed at this time? As the
25 president of the court, did you have any information in that respect?
1 A. Well, first of all, that -- such information I did not have in my
2 possession, and they're untrue, incorrect.
3 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, tell me next, did you have any
4 knowledge, any personal knowledge, about certain officials that are named
5 in this document that -- including yourself, that you were active or part
6 of some activities in the SDA of Sanski Most in preparation of certain
7 actions against the Serbian people in Sanski Most?
8 A. No. That is incorrect.
9 Q. Were there any activities organised by the SDA headquarters in
11 A. I had no such information, and I don't know of any case except
12 one that people actually managed to obtain some automatic rifles, but
13 there was -- there were a few such instances, and I did have one occasion
14 when I learnt of that.
15 Q. Could you tell us when this was?
16 A. Well, this was already sometime -- well, it's hard to say right
17 now, but --
18 Q. Was this in early 1992?
19 A. Yes, in early 1992, but this had to do with the arming of the
20 reserve force, the reserve police force.
21 Q. And who actually conducted this arming of the reserve forces of
22 the police?
23 A. I believe that the Federal Ministry of the Interior -- or,
24 rather, the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina was involved
25 in this, because as far as I know, after some of these political
1 agreements reached, after political negotiations, there were supposed to
2 be certain ethnic quotas in these various departments, and there was to
3 be certain parity between the various ethnic groups, and this is what
4 these weapons were for. So these were some ten or so automatic rifles
5 that we're talking about here.
6 Q. Was this legal or illegal arming?
7 A. This was legal.
8 Q. And, Mr. Draganovic, are you now telling us that the author of
9 this document is a liar, that he is not speaking the truth, that what he
10 says here in the document is untrue?
11 A. Well, I'm not saying that he's a liar. I think that's a very
12 harsh word. But I've already said what I think about this document. I
13 think its purpose is propaganda.
14 Q. Is anything correct in this document?
15 A. Well, this document is really not correct. It's not accurate.
16 Q. Is it completely inaccurate or is there anything that's accurate
18 A. Well, I don't know that anything in this document is accurate. I
19 couldn't find anything that is accurate.
20 Q. All right. But would you agree with me that, regardless of the
21 fact that you were a president of the court and, as such, you had more
22 information at your disposal than a regular Joe, but would you agree with
23 me that even you could not find out or know all the information that was
24 in the possession of the state security or the Military Intelligence
25 Service? So would you agree with me that it is possible that you did not
1 have all the information at your disposal as to what was going on then?
2 A. Well, this is a very general question. It's quite possible --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: That is a Donald Rumsfeld-type question. It's
4 a -- known/unknowns. How can he say if -- comment on what he didn't
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you allow for the possibility that certain security circles
8 regarding certain issues such as arming of the Muslim people in
9 Sanski Most had more information at their disposal than you did about
11 A. Well, of course it's possible. For instance, how could I know
12 when the Serb armed forces will attack Mahala and arrest me? I couldn't
13 have known that, because had I known, I would have fled and hidden, taken
14 refuge somewhere. This is intelligence information that I learnt of
15 later on when I found Rasula's diary. You understand what I'm saying.
16 Q. Well, that is exactly my point.
17 A. Well, I just answered your question. So I could not have any
18 knowledge of some intelligence information that certain intelligence
19 services actually gathered. How could I know of them?
20 Q. Well, if Serb intelligence services had some information,
21 intelligence information, about a large number of people being armed,
22 wouldn't this be -- wouldn't this information be the grounds for
23 conducting a provisional attack -- a preventive attack against these
25 A. Well, please don't misunderstand me. I'm trying to be very fair
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, didn't the witness answer your
3 question about this document, and do you have eventually another document
4 to show him with this information you say he should have known of or
5 didn't know of? He answered about this -- this document, so why insist?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, my intention is just to, if possible,
7 elicit the answer from this witness regarding the -- first of all, the
8 possibility that, personally, he wasn't able to know all intelligence
9 informations, number one. And number two, if this informations --
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: What intelligence information?
11 MR. PANTELIC: About the armaments of Muslim and Croat forces.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: You put a document to him in that respect?
13 MR. PANTELIC: Just in front of him, Your Honour. That's
14 document which explains the activities in the beginning of 1992 of
15 Muslim-Croat forces in Sanski Most.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: But if it's this document, he says -- he already
17 said twice what he thinks about this document. He says it's propaganda.
18 In his view, it's propaganda. So it's not intelligence.
19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 Q. Mr. Draganovic, can you please tell me now if you knew
21 Mr. Suad Sabic, who was a lawyer in 1992 in Sanski Most?
22 A. Yes, I did know him. I still know him.
23 Q. What was his position in the SDA party structures in Sanski Most
24 in 1991 and 1992?
25 A. From what I can remember, Mr. Sabic was a member of the party,
1 the Municipal Board of the party of the Sanski Most municipality, and was
2 elected to the Main Board of the party in Sarajevo. So this, then, is
3 the answer to that question of yours. But he also, as a member of the
4 party, after the multi-party elections, he was elected as a deputy to the
5 Assembly of the municipality of Sanski Most
6 negotiate on behalf of the party with the other parties about the
7 division of power, appointments of certain people, cadres to certain
8 posts, and he conducted those talks following the multi-party elections.
9 There were these criteria established or parities in certain segments
10 using those talks.
11 Q. Did you have information about how the SDA in Sanski Most formed
12 its Crisis Staff? Did you have that information?
13 A. I did not have that information, but there were certain organs in
14 the party. You had the Municipal Board, and it had all the political
15 powers in the Sanski Most municipality, including the Crisis Staff. I
16 don't know if it was the Crisis Staff or not, but believe me, I didn't
17 know that there was a Crisis Staff, and I don't know, but on one occasion
18 a colleague of mine who is of Serb ethnicity, Djuro Copic, who was in the
19 SDS - he was the vice-president or something - I spoke to him because I
20 received a threatening letter. This was shortly before my arrest. This
21 was sometime in April. Perhaps the 11th of April. I think that's when
22 it happened. Anyway, I received a letter threatening me to leave the
23 municipality peacefully with my family if I will want to stay alive.
24 Otherwise, me and my family would be killed.
25 So I took this letter to him. He said, "What can I do? You're
1 in the Crisis Staff." "What Crisis Staff?" I asked. And that was my
2 conversation about that, because I could see how far this propaganda
3 machinery went.
4 When my colleague, in the same building, who at the time was the
5 municipal state attorney with whom I was practically every day, and we
6 were members of the electoral committee of the municipality, well, if he
7 could say something like that, I was simply speechless after that.
8 So now you're asking me in the same way if -- whether there was a
9 Crisis Staff. I really don't know if there was a Crisis Staff, and that
10 would be my answer.
11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we now show the witness
12 document 2D09-0021.
13 [In English] And may I ask Mr. Usher to -- for the benefit of
14 this witness, to handle this hard copy of document that we have on the
15 screen, and he can have a comment on that.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honours may recall this is the document that
17 was shown to the witness, whose number I forget, who was in closed
18 session, and I think His Honour Judge Delvoie asked where part one of the
19 article was, and I don't know that we've ever had a response, and we
20 certainly haven't been provided with part one.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yeah. This is article from newspaper "Walter."
22 MS. KORNER: I know that. But if you look at it, it says it's
23 part two. Where is part one?
24 MR. PANTELIC: That's all that we have in our process of
25 disclosure and location of the document, so unfortunately, this is how it
1 works. Sometimes we have all documents. Sometimes we have a part of
2 documents. Certain parts are missing. Not to mention, Your Honours,
3 3.000 documents that we are -- still don't have that we filed the motion.
4 So probably some are there.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: So this is the second part not only of an article
6 but of the statement of this Sabic.
7 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the statement made when and where?
9 MR. PANTELIC: It's on the top of the English translation. It's
10 on the 25th of August, 1992, in Sanski Most police.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. So a statement to the police.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I don't want to speculate, Your Honour, but
13 I truly believe, and one day we shall be in situation to know where are
14 these 3.000 documents from Banja Luka seizure. One day we shall know.
15 Maybe certain important documents are inside.
16 So at this stage would I like to reserve, for the record, a right
17 of Zupljanin Defence, and I believe that I am speaking on behalf of the
18 Stanisic Defence, too, that at certain stage, if in the process of
19 disclosure, and I'm now make -- I'm making a reference to 3.000 documents
20 which were still held by the Prosecution, that if at certain stage for
21 the interest of our defence the situation will arrive, we reserve our
22 right to call again for additional cross-examination all witnesses from
23 the beginning of the trial, if that would be the case. Just for the
24 record, Your Honour. Because we still don't know what is in these
25 3.000 documents. But I don't want to waste the time for this
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure I fully understand the allegation
3 that you're making. Are you saying that the Prosecution is hiding
4 3.000 documents from you?
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, he's referring to -- he's referring to
6 the Rule 66(C) motion filed a long, long time ago, and regrettably it's
7 still not dealt with. But I can assure Mr. Pantelic that a document such
8 as an alleged confession made by Mr. Sabic to the Sanski Most police
9 would not be amongst the documents that were being withheld. But,
10 Your Honour, that's what he's referring to.
11 MR. PANTELIC: I cannot speculate, Your Honour, what is in
12 this -- all this documents, but -- okay. Let's leave this topic for a
13 moment and then we shall come at the appropriate moment.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic.
15 A. Yes, go ahead.
16 Q. Can you please tell me, did you ever see this article before,
17 this document?
18 A. Yes, I have read this article. I read it in the local paper
20 Q. And now, we can see here that under number 11-14/02-2, on the
21 12th of August, 1992, Mr. Sabic gave a certain statement to organs of the
22 Sanski Most police. And now that we are on this matter, can you please
23 tell me whether you provided some statements when you were detained at
24 the Sanski Most police station? Did you give any statement to the
25 inspectors there?
1 A. Yes, I did give statements, several statements, in fact, to some
2 inspectors who I know from the Sanski Most police.
3 Q. Who are those inspectors?
4 A. Once it was Dobrijevic, Mile Dobrijevic, aka Mima, and Zoran,
5 Zoran Despot, criminal investigations inspector. Both of them were CID
6 inspectors. Once -- actually, twice I think I did give a statement of
7 some sort. Branko, Branko Sobot. I mentioned him, I think, already. He
8 was the CID chief at the time in that, let me say, period, May 1992. He
9 was the chief of -- actually, Mile Dobrijevic was the CID chief but he
10 never appeared anywhere. Sobot Brane appeared, who was carrying out the
11 interrogations with these other inspectors. And I do remember giving
12 statements but I did not sign those statements. I did not see what was
13 written, and I don't know what was written down.
14 Q. Was anyone from the state security there when you were giving a
16 A. Yes. On one occasion, yes, together with Sobot Branko there was
17 an inspector present. His name was Jugoslav Rodic. He was from the
18 state security.
19 Q. When you were in Manjaca did you provide statements there?
20 A. I was taken away a few times, and I did give statements.
21 Q. Who took your statement? Did they introduce themselves?
22 A. After I was transferred to Manjaca, I was in isolation with that
23 group of people who were brought with me, in the horse stables for
24 several days.
25 Q. Well, just to be efficient, can you just give us the name,
2 A. I don't know the first and last name. It was some officer whom I
3 didn't see after that. I don't know his name. I think that he is from
4 Banja Luka. He was wearing a military uniform. I gave a statement to
5 him which was probably the same as what I had already said in
6 Sanski Most, so I just repeated what I said then.
7 Q. How many times did you provide a statement in Manjaca?
8 A. Well, I really don't know how many times it was.
9 Q. More than once; is that correct?
10 A. More than once. I was taken out frequently and made to stand
11 there the whole day. Then they would bring me in. They seemed to have
12 some special sympathies for me. I don't know.
13 Q. Let us go back to Sanski Most. What did they ask you during that
15 A. Well, it's hard to go back, believe me. I don't know what they
16 asked me. It's -- these are very difficult questions to which I am not
17 sure I can give answers. I do recall some questions, but these questions
18 were shocking to me. Believe me when I say that, because all of these
19 people knew me well. They knew me well. Up until yesterday I was the
20 president of the court.
21 Q. What did they ask you, sir?
22 A. Well, they would ask me -- let's say Mr. Branko Sobot took me out
23 one day and asked me about 20 automatic rifles. I was shocked. I froze
24 up. What rifles? Please. I only said, "What are you doing to me,
25 Branko? You know everything. Why are you asking me that?"
1 Q. Did they ask you something about party -- the party arming
2 itself? Did they ask you anything like that?
3 A. I don't remember questions like that being put. Mostly they had
4 to do about me, certain charges against me. I practically had the
5 impression at the time that I was already sentenced to death, and now it
6 was up to me to defend myself. And this is specifically about me. There
7 were no questions that had to do with the arming or politics or policies.
8 I had a question, for example that, there were trenches found
9 around my home. Or that, after my arrest, heavy weaponry was found in my
10 home, for example. Or that I preferred in court to deal with cases of
11 Muslims, Bosniaks, rather than Serbs.
12 These questions were really shocking to me, and I saw where all
13 of this was leading, and I knew that the death sentence is unavoidable in
14 my case. And I'm really telling you, at no point was I asked about
15 arming, because all I could have said that there was no arming at all,
16 especially not in the Mahala. I know that there was no arming in the
17 Mahala because that's where I lived.
18 Q. All right. Can you please turn to the second page of this
19 document in front of you.
20 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we also look at the next page
21 on the screen.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but this document that
23 you gave me deserves attention. This is also a statement that was given
24 in prison. It's a statement by Mr. Sabic Suad. I don't know if it's a
25 complete statement or not. This is something that only Mr. Sabic can
1 talk about.
2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I understand you, absolutely, Mr. Draganovic. Can you please
4 turn the page and you can see at the top, on the third line marked by the
5 number 20 by hand, and then underneath the photograph we can see the
6 number 20.
7 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And then we can scroll up, scroll
8 up. Scroll down. Scroll down.
9 Q. Did you see in Sarajevo
10 independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Did you travel to Sarajevo
11 Sabic and the others? Just answer yes or no.
12 A. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. That is correct from that report that we
13 travelled together, because I was supposed to hand over the referendum
14 material because I was the president of the referendum commission.
15 Q. All right. We need to go faster. I do understand. Please, I
16 just need short answers, yes or no.
17 A. Yes, yes, that is correct.
18 Q. And these individuals that are listed there travelled with you.
19 Some of them travelled in police vehicles. That was you, and Buric Enver
20 who was the police station commander, and then Ismet Sarcevic?
21 A. Yes, that's --
22 Q. And the -- in the other vehicle -- the other vehicle contained
23 these other individuals; correct?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Is it correct that Ismet Sarcevic, and now, that's under 22,
1 item 22, actually established contact with our people? I assume that
2 this "our people" refers to SDS people in Visoko and that they resumed
3 with arming people there. Do you know anything about that?
4 A. Well, I don't know anything about that.
5 Q. Thank you. Let's move on. Now, tell me this: On page 3 of this
6 document, that is the statement of Mr. Sabic continues there, and he
7 speaks about -- and that's under item 33 and then 38A and 39, he speaks
8 about the position of the Main Staff of the SDA in Sarajevo were to
9 actually drag out the negotiations about the three coalition parties.
10 And also, as we can see under 38A, there was a rift within the police
11 station in Sanski Most and in the Territorial Defence so that the SDA
12 then decided that they would establish their own organs and police in the
13 NTO in the municipality.
14 Would you agree with what is stated there?
15 A. Well, I couldn't agree with this part, because I can tell you
16 about the rift. What I can tell you is that this man was arrested at the
17 same time that I was arrested, and I can really not speak about how and
18 where he was interviewed, but I could not agree with this position of
20 Q. And do you agree with what he states under number 40, where he
21 says that all police officers or -- or, rather, all employees of the
22 police of Muslim or Croat ethnicity who did not remain in the Serbian
23 part of the police, that they were invited by the SDA to establish a
24 Muslim police station? Do you agree with the words and the statement of
25 Mr. Sabic there?
1 A. Well, I can tell you this: I did not take part in the work of
2 the party, and I don't know what the party position was, but I can just
3 briefly comment on what had led to the rift in the police.
4 The policemen of Muslim nationality or Muslim ethnicity were
5 expelled from the police station, and I'm sure there were testimonies to
6 that effect, and evidence as well, and documents. So people just left,
7 or they went to the Sanski Most municipality after consulting the SDA
8 officials and had a meeting there. They barricaded themselves in there,
9 and probably they had that intention.
10 On the 17th of that month -- what month was that? I believe that
11 was April, in April 1992. They had to leave that building, and they just
12 disappeared. Practically they left the building under duress because
13 some shells were fired at them from a -- from an APC. The shells were
14 fired at the building. They threatened that they would destroy the --
15 pull down the municipal building, so they left the building on their own.
16 Q. All right. So you don't know of any political arrangements about
17 the division within Sanski Most municipality. Was there any mention of
18 such things?
19 A. Well, you see, there were a lot of things being discussed.
20 Certainly there were people negotiating, because people wanted to avoid
21 armed conflict. And the SDA officials had the very best intention. They
22 offered, if necessary, to divide the territory of Sanski Most
23 municipality, and in that sense such things were discussed.
24 Q. Well, that's what I wanted to know. Now, tell me --
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, it's time for the break.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, for, I suppose the nth time, we've got
3 Mr. Trbojevic waiting. It's the second time he's back. He's not very
4 happy altogether, but can I ask whether -- how long Mr. Pantelic is going
5 to be now and whether Mr. Cvijetic, who is not really -- whose client is
6 not affected by this witness at all, has any questions.
7 JUDGE HALL: Well, before Mr. Pantelic answers the question about
8 time, would I bring to his attention that at this point you would have
9 spent two hours.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour, for the information. I
11 must say not more than ten minutes, maybe 11, something like that.
12 JUDGE HALL: So, Ms. Korner, it would appear that we would to get
13 your witness today --
14 MS. KORNER: Well, no. I don't know that -- I'm hoping that
15 Mr. Cvijetic has no questions, but I don't imagine that's the case.
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course I have
18 some questions, and I need at least one session to question this witness,
19 and I believe that I will probably also need a part of the next session.
20 And if Ms. Korner is asking because of the next witness, I believe that
21 the next witness can only be brought in tomorrow, because the questioning
22 by Mr. Pantelic and the replies provided by this witness actually broach
23 certain topics that are relevant to Mr. Stanisic.
24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I'm sorry, we're going to object
25 to this now. We are -- we've asked over and over again for realistic
1 estimates of time. We have at the moment, therefore, two witnesses
2 waiting to give evidence on the basis that this witness would be
3 concluded in at least halfway through the second session today.
4 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we requested two
6 hours, if I'm not mistaken.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour --
8 JUDGE HALL: That is our information.
9 MS. KORNER: The request may be so, but, Your Honour, this
10 witness was one hour in chief. Your general ruling was that the Defence
11 would get roughly the same time to cross-examine. Now, I certainly
12 appreciate that this witness is relevant to the case of Mr. Zupljanin. I
13 do not see in what conceivable way this witness can be relevant to the
14 case of Mr. Stanisic.
15 MR. PANTELIC: I must object. I must object, Your Honour.
16 Approach 92 ter is absolutely unbearable for the Defence, so, you know,
17 it's very easy for the Prosecution to say one hour, let's say, and let's
18 have thousands of transcript pages and documents. So we are in that
19 situation, Your Honour. Please understand our position.
20 JUDGE HALL: Mrs. Korner, the -- Mr. Pantelic may have expressed
21 the observation I was about to make in a more agitated manner than I
22 would have chosen, but the point is that with 92 ter witnesses, in terms
23 of time, clearly the time is the -- the sharing of time favours the
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I see that. Well, all I can say is
1 that if Mr. Cvijetic insists on cross-examining for more than one
2 session, then we're -- we're backing up all over again with witnesses.
3 JUDGE HALL: Anyway, we rise.
4 [The witness stood down]
5 --- Recess taken at 12.10 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Draganovic, just to wrap up this part of questioning, the
10 magazine or the newspaper "Walter" that we see before us on the screens,
11 this is a federation newspaper; is that correct? The Muslim-Croat
13 A. I believe it is published in Sarajevo, and of course I don't know
14 how many readers it has and who buys it.
15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
16 document. Can I get the number, please?
17 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour, I object to it -- or I don't think
18 it was -- an application wasn't made to tender it last time because the
19 witness didn't know anything about it. So it just stayed in abeyance.
20 MR. PANTELIC: This is new witness.
21 MS. KORNER: No, I'm not objecting, Mr. Pantelic.
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Exhibit 2D28.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, I forget the date of the article.
25 Could you refresh my mind?
1 MR. PANTELIC: It's 15 May 2001
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Draganovic, could you agree with me that the part relating to
5 the pre-trial proceedings and the investigating phase of a trial contains
6 such activities as information interviews? Correct?
7 A. Yes, these information interviews can be characterised as the
8 pre-trial phase of a proceeding.
9 Q. So when a public prosecutor in -- at a certain stage, or the
10 investigating judge at the next stage, assesses that it is necessary to
11 complete this procedure with some additional statements and information,
12 then they issue or instruct the police to conduct an interview to collect
13 information; correct?
14 A. Well, you see, the -- the very fact that a statement is
15 produced -- and this phase of the investigation is actually initiated by
16 the prosecutor, because the police is not authorised to take any action
17 without instructions from the prosecutor, except in emergency situations
18 where it concerns detection of crimes and apprehension of perpetrators.
19 We can agree on that.
20 Q. I agree with you, and what I'm putting to you is that on the
21 basis of what you said, you have provided a number of such statements
22 both in Manjaca and to the police, which means that there was -- that
23 some procedure was initiated against you; correct?
24 A. No, that's not correct. There were no criminal proceedings
25 initiated against me.
1 Q. Well -- but if you say that your statements were provided as part
2 of these interviews to collect information, then there must have been
3 some kind of prosecution initiated, I assume before military organs.
4 A. No. I did not -- I was not interviewed by military organs in
5 Sanski Most. I was interviewed, and I made these statements which were
6 not written, nor did I sign anything in Sanski Most, but I provided these
7 statements to the police. I was interviewed by the police.
8 Q. What about in Manjaca?
9 A. Well, in Manjaca, I was taken out for questioning by military
10 policemen, and I assume that I was questioned by some kind of military
11 investigator, because I saw that this person was wearing a uniform. But
12 who this person was, whether he was a military person or a security man,
13 I don't know, because I had never seen the man before, nor did I ever see
14 him after that. But I have to say that he was quite -- he treated me
15 quite fairly.
16 Q. Mr. Draganovic, you're an experienced judge, and you spent many
17 years working as an investigating judge as well. Once -- so tell us,
18 once an order is issued to the police to conduct an interview to collect
19 information or to prepare an official note regarding a certain event,
20 this then initiates proceedings, and there are no limits, really. This
21 can go on up until the moment when the crime itself actually enjoys the
22 statute of limitations; correct?
23 A. Well, you're asking questions that I can't really answer. I have
24 to react to this.
25 Q. Mr. Draganovic, please allow me --
1 A. Well, I agree with you, but I have to interfere here, intervene.
2 Q. Well, I'm just asking you to answer me. If there is a certain
3 investigating procedure initiated and if a statement is taken from a
4 person, there is no limit to this. This can go on for as long as an
5 investigation is ongoing; correct? There is no other limitation except
6 when the crime actually expires.
7 A. Well, I have to reply. It's not a simple question.
8 Q. Well, please answer my question. As the president and
9 investigating judge, please tell me -- I'm just asking you to comment the
10 legal provisions. So I'm asking you, an informative -- information
11 interview is conducted based on an order from an investigating judge or
12 from a prosecutor; correct? But there is one -- one proceeding is
13 instituted; correct?
14 A. Well, I was in a cell for 44 days. I never -- I was never issued
15 any written statement regarding my detention.
16 Q. Well, please answer my questions. I'm asking you as the
17 president of the court, a professional, an attorney, an investigating
18 judge. If there is a -- if criminal proceedings have been instituted,
19 there may be one, two, five, ten, or a hundred interviews conducted with
20 the accused; correct? Or the suspect; correct?
21 A. Yes. The interview can be carried out, but you're limited as to
22 the time, for how long I can be in detention. There must be a request by
23 the prosecutor. If there is no request by the prosecutor you have to
24 release me. That's my answer.
25 Q. I'm telling you now and I'm asking you, what was the deadline for
1 detention according to the law from 1992? How long could a state be -- a
2 person be held in detention for a maximum period?
3 A. If I'm not mistaken, there was a maximum period of time for up to
4 three days. This is police custody.
5 Q. And what about the prosecutor's custody?
6 A. The prosecutor's custody is for a period of one month. It can be
7 extended after that, but the person must have an attorney and must have
8 everyone -- everything according to regulations.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to repeat his
10 answer because the Defence attorney and the witness are overlapping.
11 JUDGE HALL: You're overlapping. The interpreters are having
12 difficulty keeping up.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.
14 JUDGE HALL: And the -- Mr. Draganovic, the -- Mr. Draganovic,
15 I'm sorry, the interpreters need you to repeat the answer, your last
16 answer. Perhaps Mr. Pantelic could assist with repeating the question.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Don't worry.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, it's a short and clear question.
19 According to the criminal law of 1992 that was in force then, how long
20 could judicial detention last for a maximum period of time? Let me help
21 you there a little bit. You had the Trial Chamber, the right of appeal.
22 So what was the maximum period of time that it could last?
23 A. Up to six months.
24 Q. Let me tell you now -- all right, just wait. I'm speaking now.
25 You can speak later with the Prosecutor, but what I'm telling you now is
1 this: There was a requisite procedure conducted against you before the
2 investigative organs in Manjaca and because of the -- and before the
3 military court in Banja Luka for illegal actions and for possession of
4 weapons; is that right?
5 A. This is the first time that I'm hearing this, and it's good that
6 you told me that so that I know. I never heard that before, nor was I
7 ever informed, nor did I ever receive a single document in which what you
8 are saying now was stated, and if I had received that, then I would have
9 known that.
10 Q. All right. Tell me this: In 1995, when you came to Sanski Most,
11 how long -- how many members of the Serb ethnicity were in Sanski Most?
12 If you have the number, you can please tell me. If you don't know, just
13 say so.
14 A. I don't know. I really don't know.
15 Q. Do you know how many Serbs there are in Sanski Most right now?
16 A. I don't know that either.
17 Q. When you mentioned that 18.000 non-Serbs left from Sanski Most,
18 on what basis did you state that piece of information? Do you have any
19 evidence of that? Is there some sort of calculation that you were able
20 to do?
21 A. Yes, there is evidence about that.
22 Q. Just tell me where this evidence can be found.
23 A. This evidence can be found in reports of the Serbian Assembly or
24 the Executive Board of the Serbian Assembly of the municipality of
25 Sanski Most, because they looked at the numbers at their meeting in 1992.
1 They monitored the numbers of non-Serbs who were still living in the
2 territory of the Sanski Most municipality. And that's there. I also
3 know on the basis of some data that I established after the war. This is
4 information by the International Red Cross and other information that I
5 researched from statements by witnesses and certain people.
6 Q. All right, Mr. Draganovic, but you're not a demographics expert,
7 so you can't really help us much in that area.
8 A. Yes, yes, that is correct. I agree.
9 Q. Very well. In 1995, when you came and then when you initiated
10 investigations, you mentioned that you found in the vault of the
11 Police Chief Vrucinic a green folder with some documents in it; is that
13 A. Yes. I did give that statement in the Brdjanin case.
14 Q. This file was found with documents.
15 A. Yes, it was. There were several files actually.
16 Q. Did you personally keep any of those documents for your own
17 purposes perhaps?
18 A. I don't think that I kept any of the documents for my own
19 purposes, no.
20 Q. Did you hand over the entire documentation to the Secret Service,
21 the AID, then or later?
22 A. I handed over a part of some of that documentation to the AID,
23 the Agency for Investigations and Protection. I handed over some of the
24 documents to the investigators of The Hague Tribunal. There are about
25 4.000 documents here that I handed over. These documents were taken from
1 Sanski Most, and they were listed in an official record. The
2 investigator Ms. or Mrs. Paczulla, I think that was her name, from
4 prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But there were copies of all
5 the documents, so there was a trail of where each document went so that
6 all relevant organs were informed about the documents, and the originals
7 were kept at a certain location until they were officially handed over.
8 Q. Did you sign those receipts and certificates about the hand-over
9 the documents?
10 A. I think so, yes. I did sign some reports about submission of
11 documents, sending out of documents. The ones that I handed over I
12 signed for, definitely.
13 Q. And you don't have anything in your own possession of those
14 documents from Sanski Most?
15 A. Other than some copies, no. No.
16 Q. What copies?
17 A. Perhaps that diary and maybe some other documents which were --
18 well, these were perhaps some decisions by the Crisis Staff regarding my
19 arrest -- or at the time of my arrest.
20 Q. But you don't have the originals?
21 A. No, I don't have the originals now.
22 Q. And that representative of the Tribunal, was her name
23 Jutta Paczulla?
24 A. Yes, that is correct.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it's spelled P-a-c-z-u-l-l-a. I think
1 Your Honours may have seen that name.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Can you please tell me, Mr. Draganovic, since
5 you testified quite a lot before this Tribunal and the courts in Bosnia
6 and Herzegovina
7 AID Secret Service? How many times did you have conversations with them?
8 A. Let me tell you. I was an investigating judge and the president
9 of the court. When I needed to check certain things or to get some
10 information, I would then call those people to service me in that aspect
11 and to assist me.
12 Q. During your preparations for your testimony, you had meetings
13 with AID representatives regarding the circumstances about which you
14 would certify; is that correct?
15 A. That is not correct, and you can be sure that I did not have any
16 contacts or talks for the purposes of any testimony that I gave. As I
17 said, I just used those certain people that were handy to help me about
18 matters that I was investigating as an investigating judge, in order to
19 gather certain information, knowledge, so on. I did not submit any
20 reports to the AID. I used them as a service to help me in my work as an
21 investigating judge.
22 Q. But, my colleague, Mr. Draganovic, I think that you exaggerated
23 when testifying and responding to answers by my learned friend
24 Mr. Di Fazio here. I think that you exaggerated with your assessment.
25 It was sort of literal for purposes of creating a certain effect.
1 How can you compare Manjaca and describe it as a death camp?
2 Isn't that a little excessive?
3 Let me just tell you one thing, Mr. Draganovic. I myself, as
4 your colleague, do not dispute in any way that you had very, very
5 distressing experiences, and let us hope something like that is never
6 repeated. That is my opinion. But I really believe that you're adding
7 salt to the wound here. How could you say for Manjaca that it was a
8 death camp, that people were killed there, burned there? Was that set up
9 so that people would be destroyed? Please, Mr. Draganovic.
10 A. First of all, I respect you as a colleague, and I respect and
11 appreciate the work that you are doing.
12 At no point was I was a poet here. I was really testifying about
13 what I think and what I experienced. The time doesn't permit for me now
14 to talk to you about that, you understand. You would all have goose
15 bumps. You have my testimony. I stand by it, I believe that it was
16 clear, and I swear by my all that the first two or three months, it was a
17 death camp. And the conditions in which we were staying there, I simply
18 did not believe that I would survive them. None of us believed that we
19 would survive that: Beatings, mistreatment, lack of food, conditions
20 that were in -- what else was that than an attempt to destroy all of us
21 who were there? And you can be sure I would not wish something like that
22 upon anyone.
23 That is all. You have everything in my testimony, and I stand by
24 my words that it was precisely like that, and I'm sure all the inmates
25 who passed through Manjaca would say the same thing. That is why I said
1 initially it was like that. Later, the conditions were more bearable.
2 But the way a man felt was important.
3 Q. All right, Mr. Draganovic. Let us finish this question. I would
4 just like to say one thing to you. I personally cannot understand. As I
5 said, there were incidents there, and ultimately people were brought to
6 trial because of that in Banja Luka, but what I'm saying is that it is
7 impossible that Manjaca was a death camp, because in that case you would
8 have mass killings there, executions. I understand a death camp to be
9 something that the Nazis committed to people they conquered in
10 World War II. You cannot make that parallel in that way. That is a
11 death camp. This is what I wanted to say.
12 I think that you are exaggerating. I think it would be fair for
13 you to qualify your assessment, to tone down your assessment.
14 A. Well, I would like to say that this was not the same as the
15 Omarska camp, that the conditions there were much worse. People were
16 getting killed there en masse in Omarska, and Keraterm in Prijedor.
17 Here we didn't have physical liquidations in the same numbers
18 as -- or in proportion to the number of people who were being detained
19 there. But a death camp -- look, at that time, during the first two or
20 three months, the way it was, had it continued that way, we would all
21 have died or have been killed. None of us would have remained alive.
22 Let me just give you one example. Two days ago I was speaking to
23 my wife who said, "Ilijaz, Professor Ilijaz Avdic, inmate, died." He was
24 an inmate together with me. There is no day that passes without somebody
25 dying. Professor Ilijaz Pasic is 54 years old. Last year
1 Dr. Mehmed Derviskadic died, who treated all of us inmates. And he was
2 only 50 years old. I said that more than 500 people have died. Not a
3 single day passes without a person dying in Bosnia-Herzegovina of the
4 people who had been in Manjaca. They could be abroad as well. It
5 doesn't matter. This is why I'm saying that this is a death camp because
6 it has caused so much death and suffering for all the people who passed
7 through that camp. During the time that the camp was operating,
8 5 to 6.000 people passed through that camp. Please.
9 Q. Really, with all due respect to those who were victims who died,
10 but, please, are you a medical expert? How do you know what the reason
11 is for all of that? How can you talk about that as well? Just tell me,
12 are you a medical expert or not?
13 A. No, I'm not.
14 Q. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I begin, Your Honours?
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Please proceed.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Draganovic, good day.
20 A. Good day.
21 Q. I am Slobodan Cvijetic. I'm in the Defence team of
22 Mr. Mico Stanisic.
23 A. I'm happy to hear that.
24 Q. You said that you returned to Sanski Most on the
25 15th of October, 1995. You said that in the Brdjanin case, if I'm not
2 A. Yes, that is correct.
3 Q. So this is an accurate fact.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Not right away, but you began to carry out investigations -
6 that's what you said - about possible war crimes which occurred in the
7 Sanski Most municipality during 1992. And later, I assume. Is that
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. I got the impression that you didn't form an official formal body
11 or a commission that would deal with these matters. I think that you
12 responded to one question that you had received a verbal suggestion from
13 the Sanski Most War Presidency to begin such work. Am I correct?
14 A. It was a written note from the Sanski Most War Presidency, but I
15 also worked pursuant to the authority of the Cantonal Court and the
16 cantonal prosecutor's office.
17 Q. I would like to know if you have those written documents.
18 A. Those documents exist.
20 A. Yes, I think those documents do exist. I don't recall whether I
21 showed them to anyone or not. These are just investigative actions
22 pursuant to the criminal law. I was authorised to do that. I don't
23 remember if I provided those documents to the court.
24 Q. And those investigating activities also involved research into
25 the mass graves that were discovered; is that correct?
1 A. Yes. And these are precisely the investigations that I carried
2 out pursuant to instructions or the authority issued by the president of
3 the Bihac Cantonal Court.
4 Q. When I put a question to you, just make a short break. We have
5 already been warned not to overlap.
6 However, in your statement you said that on return from such an
7 investigation, you frequently of your own initiative would stop by at
8 Mr. Rasula's house or to the apartment of the representative of the
9 national security service. I don't remember his name right now. And in
10 that way, you would look for documents which you would consider to be
11 relevant; is that correct?
12 A. Well, that is not completely correct, the way you formulated your
13 question. What I can say is that on those first days when I came back, I
14 had an assignment, and I also base this on my discussion with the
15 Prosecutor, that I should establish the locations where I could find some
16 documents about the war crimes.
17 Now, I was informed -- I had been informed that
18 Mr. Nedeljko Rasula's house in Caplje [phoen] village had already been
19 occupied by someone. A man of Bosniak ethnicity had moved into his
20 house, and so I gained entry into that house with a number of witnesses,
21 because this man was already living there, and I obtained those
22 documents. I got them there in that house. This was in keeping or in
23 accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure, and I gained entry legally
24 and lawfully and seized those documents. They would have been burned,
25 probably, because many of those documents had already been thrown out as
2 Q. So at the moment when you actually entered the house, you did not
3 actually have a legal document that would allow you to do so?
4 A. Well, as an investigating judge, I didn't need any such -- any
5 such formal document other than the approval of the prosecutor, and I had
6 obtained that.
7 Q. What kind of approval did you obtain from the prosecutor?
8 A. Well, we had a conversation over the phone, so the approval of
9 the prosecutor could be either before the fact or after the fact.
10 Q. And this is the manner in which you then proceeded to obtain the
11 documents that we've seen here before us?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. In the course of 1995, when Sanski Most was captured or, as you
14 would say, liberated by the BH Army, Serbian civilians left Sanski Most
15 in large numbers, and some of the buildings that were the property of
16 Serbs were destroyed; correct?
17 A. Unfortunately, that is correct.
18 Q. There were also a number of killings of Serb civilians; correct?
19 And in the case -- in the Brdjanin case, there was a list of such
20 civilians put to you.
21 Now, if I can ask you, then, did you make any progress regarding
22 this document, because at that time you were not willing to comment it.
23 A. Well, could you remind me what I said then about it?
24 Q. Well, looking at the list, you said - and you weren't even sure
25 of that - that you had only conducted one investigation regarding one man
1 who had been killed; correct?
2 A. Well, I really can't remember, because during the proofing
3 session I did not have occasion to read through this list again, and if I
4 was shown -- and to read through my statement, my earlier testimony.
5 Now, if I was shown a statement and I said that, that's probably
6 true. And I probably conducted investigations --
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Do we have a transcript notation for this, for
8 this testimony? It would make it easier for the Prosecution and all the
9 parties to follow the evidence if we could get the transcript from the
10 Brdjanin case where this -- this material was put. A page number, yeah.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am putting this to
12 the witness directly and asking him if he can recall this fact. I don't
13 want to go back and revisit the entire Brdjanin case. I'm just asking
14 the witness whether he remembers this fact whether he had conducted any
15 investigation into the death of that civilian.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that's what I stated, and I
17 stay by what I said then.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And what is your answer to this Trial Chamber?
20 A. Well, my answer is the same, but do put my answer to me, please.
21 Remind me of what I said. I can't recall it now, because a lot of time
22 has passed. I haven't seen the document since, and I can't really recall
24 Q. I agree with you, and here's the list --
25 MR. DI FAZIO: That's precisely the problem I was talking about,
1 and that's why we need the transcript reference.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I do have a list of dead
3 individuals in hard copy, and only -- all I can do is perhaps put this
4 list to the witness, ask him if he remembers it, and then perhaps he can
5 give us his opinion.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we've been through this with
7 Mr. Cvijetic over and over again. If he wants to say that the witness
8 said something in the previous trial, he must come armed with a copy of
9 the transcript, a copy of the answer, and the page number. I know he
10 can't read English and therefore he has to listen to the tape, but if
11 there's something he wants to put to the witness, then he must be able to
12 sort it out with one of his team who speaks English as to what the page
13 number is. I hope Mr. Cvijetic understand that.
14 The witness is now asked to have his answer put to him. If he
15 can't put the answer to him, then he cannot continue with this line of
17 JUDGE HALL: If I may assist, Mr. Cvijetic. The distinction
18 which apparently the -- is being lost and the point that Ms. Korner is
19 making is that there is a distinction between what you understand the
20 facts to be and putting to the witness what he said on a previous
21 occasion; and if you are, in fact, seeking to do the latter, then, as
22 Ms. Korner said, you have to be in a position to put what he said, not
23 rely on what you understand the background facts to be. So that's the
24 distinction that is necessary for you to keep in mind.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I do have that, Your Honour. This
1 is the transcript of the 22nd of May --
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the year.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But I'm trying to help the witness
4 by showing him the list of individuals. This was --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: 22nd of May of what year, Mr. Cvijetic?
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 2002. I apologise. I made an
7 error. I said 1992.
8 Q. Mr. Ackerman asked you whether you had conducted an investigation
9 into the death of this individual, and then he showed you this document.
10 And what I would like to do now is show you that same list.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please assist me.
12 So this was put to the witness during the cross-examination conducted by
13 Mr. Ackerman.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: The witness asked you, "What was my answer?" You
15 now said what Mr. Ackerman asked him. What was his answer?
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, not all of it.
17 Just the last page. Could you please give me the document back so I can
18 find that portion.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Not all the documents, just this
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I know Mr. Di Fazio is
23 taking the witness, but this is really important. It hasn't still sunk
24 into Mr. Cvijetic. He must have in front of him the transcript in
25 English and read out in English the answer that Mr. Draganovic gave to
1 Mr. Ackerman, not show him the document. And we would like the page
2 number of the transcript on which this answer is said to occur.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: If I can get the page number it will solve a lot
4 of things and then I will be able to follow the evidence. It's just the
5 page number that would assist. I've got the transcript here and I've got
6 the 22nd out, but I just don't have -- and I've got Mr. Ackerman's
7 portion of that transcript. I still just need that little extra bit of
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this was on the
10 23rd of May, 2002. The question was:
11 "After the Serbs left, did you assist in conducting an
12 investigation into the killings of these individuals, the list of which
13 I'm going to show you?"
14 And I will -- I promise that I will have the exact page number
15 and everything tomorrow morning when we continue with this witness, but
16 I'm just asking this witness, when he was answering this question, the
17 question was did he conduct an investigation into the killing of this
18 Serbs. That was my question.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I did conduct ...
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, when you have the page number, then
22 you can put the question to the witness. At this point, no -- this
23 simply isn't going to work.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right, Your Honours. So I
25 will leave this aside for now.
1 Q. But, Mr. Draganovic, my question was specific. Did you conduct
2 any investigations?
3 A. I did conduct investigations -- or, rather, certain procedures in
4 these investigations, and I would like to point out that there is a
5 difference between an investigation and investigative procedures. So
6 when I was -- when I received information from the police that a body was
7 found, then would I conduct an on-site investigation. I would put
8 together a team and we would go to the site, the crime site, and find --
9 and conduct an investigation. I would do that when informed, when such a
10 body was found and reported to me. If not, I couldn't go out.
11 Q. All right. Could you tell us how many such investigations you
13 A. Well, it's hard to actually recall that. It's hard to specify
14 anything without a detailed analysis, because after all, there is no
15 indication when you find a body whether that body belonged to a Muslim,
16 Serb, or Croat. You will agree with me that it's impossible to determine
17 the identity of a person, and especially so as some of those bodies were
18 in a very advanced state of decomposition. Sometimes we would even just
19 find bones and clothes on them. They would be a couple of years old.
20 Q. All right. Now, this -- the documents that you found, you
21 mentioned in respect of those documents that you co-operated with the
22 investigation and information agency; correct?
23 A. Well, this was an agency for investigations and protection.
24 Their task was to investigate crimes. I've already testified about this
25 in the Brdjanin case, and also during my evidence here I mentioned that
2 Q. All right. Now, we have that batch of documents here with us. I
3 will try to classify them in groups of documents, and I would appreciate
4 it if you could help me with that classification, because there are over
5 100 documents in there.
6 Some of the documents, the only -- there are some documents that
7 you said you only knew about because you had found them, but you didn't
8 know anything about the content itself. You said that there were some
9 orders there from the police or military that you wouldn't even have
10 known about because -- you couldn't have known about because at the time
11 you were in detention; correct?
12 A. Yes, you could put it that way.
13 Q. For another group of documents you said that you had read them
14 and then drawn certain conclusions based on them. Am I correct?
15 A. Well, you see, I cannot really answer your question, because
16 without a specific document being put to me and my opinion or conclusion
17 that I offered at the time being put to me, I cannot really confirm
18 whether that was so or not.
19 Q. All right. I will put a very specific example to you. For
20 instance, on the 19th of April, 1992, there was a meeting attended by
21 representatives of the army, the representatives of the SDA, the SDS, and
22 the purpose of the meeting was to try and overcome the problems that were
23 then in evidence in Sanski Most municipality.
24 A. Could you please repeat the first part of the question? I didn't
25 get it quite.
1 Q. Well, there was a meeting. There was an attempt at the time.
2 There was a meeting held at the time?
3 A. Yes, there was such a meeting.
4 Q. And you learned about what went on in that meeting by reading the
5 relevant portions relating to that meeting in the entries or in the diary
6 by Mr. Rasula; correct?
7 A. Well, no. I learned about what went on in that meeting already
8 on the same day or the next day after the meeting, but I also confirmed
9 some of the knowledge by reading through the diary. But I learned from
10 some of the people who had attended the meeting about the meeting itself.
11 Q. All right. But you did not attend it?
12 A. No, I didn't. I was on the premises at the time. I was in the
13 municipal building. I could see that the hall where the meeting was held
14 was guarded.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, where are we going with this?
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'm leading to the fact that
17 there were numerous conclusions made by this witness, both in the
18 Brdjanin case and here, that are second-hand facts, as it were. They are
19 not first-hand information. And I also want to put to him some other
20 statements that he made that weren't direct knowledge of his.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could I suggest that you confront the witness
22 exactly with the facts that you wish him to confirm or to deny rather
23 than having to go through all his previous statements to see if there's
24 any inconsistencies in the -- in the possible explanations that he has
25 given to this. I mean, go for it head on. By that approach we might
1 save some time.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, that is my purpose,
3 Your Honour. I am going to be direct now.
4 Q. So we've already concluded that you did not attend this very
5 important meeting.
6 A. That's correct. I didn't.
7 Q. Thank you. I've heard your answer. So you did not attend it.
8 You then said that in many cases concerning various events you
9 actually put it together or reconstructed the events, as it were, later
10 on because you were in Manjaca at the time; is that correct?
11 A. Well, again I have to say that I cannot actually give you an
12 affirmative answer to this, because the knowledge that I had was derived
13 from various documents, but also some information actually came through
14 to me even while I was in Manjaca, in the camp, or at the time when these
15 events were actually occurring. And there was also knowledge that I
16 obtained after interviews with witnesses who actually participated in the
17 events. So that is why I have to answer your question in this way.
18 Q. All right. Now, to be specific, could you please tell us
19 specifically what is your knowledge? How many victims were there
20 actually in Manjaca camp? How many people died there?
21 A. Well, I know, myself, of the victims that were in the vicinity of
22 the camp and in the camp itself. For instance, Muhamed Filipovic was
23 killed in the camp. There was a boy whose name was Bender who died
24 there. Then there was a young man, Esad Delalovic, a policeman from
25 Sanski Most, Emir -- I forget his last name. So as far as I can recall
1 now, these were the people who were killed in the camp itself.
2 There was also a member of the HOS who was killed there, but I
3 don't know of this. We didn't see this killing. We could only hear it.
4 He was killed in the stable. We could only see when he was taken to the
5 stable, and we heard shots.
6 But, for instance, there were these eight instances where people
7 were killed, people who had been brought from Omarska camp. And on the
8 morning when these people were supposed to come to -- or enter the camp
9 itself they were killed, and I could see this myself. Later on I
10 learnt -- or, rather, I learned -- while I was still at the camp I
11 learned from Dr. Derviskadic, on that same evening, that 24 men from
12 Sanski Most, from Sanski Most, had been killed while they were
13 transported from Manjaca -- from Sanski Most to Manjaca. They had
14 suffocated. I learned of that that same evening.
15 Q. Sir, please. I -- my question was: What is your certain
16 knowledge? How many men were killed in Manjaca itself, or died in
18 A. Well, my assessment is that about 60 people died there. I cannot
19 really confirm and claim with certainty whether this is correct or not,
20 but after I analysed the numbers and the cases that I had learned about
21 and that I also saw myself, and also taking into account a number of
22 bodies that had been thrown into a pit, bodies that had been brought
23 there from Kljuc, and I only learned about it later on. They were found
24 in the vicinity of Manjaca. So based on all this information, I assessed
25 that about 60 people were killed, or maybe even more.
1 Q. All right. Mr. Draganovic, that is taking into account the men
2 who had suffocated and those who you heard of later on and so on, but
3 directly in Manjaca, how many men do you know were killed there?
4 A. Well, eight plus four plus one directly. That's my direct
6 Q. Well, yes. So it is the number that I mentioned to you, 12 plus
7 1; correct?
8 A. Yes. And I apologise to the victims if I omitted anyone.
9 Q. All right. Now -- Manjaca was visited by Lord Ashdown; correct?
10 A. Yes, Mr. Paddy Ashdown came to the camp. Of course, at the time
11 I didn't know who the gentleman was or what his name was.
12 Q. Manjaca was also visited by members of a Muslim charity,
13 Merhamet; right?
14 A. Yes, they came from Banja Luka. They visited the camp once a
16 Q. Members of the International Red Cross also came, as well as
17 journalists; correct?
18 A. Well, you could put it that way.
19 Q. However, you do not agree with the statement by Mr. Ashdown or
20 the reports of the charity Merhamet, the Muslim charity, when they speak
21 about the situation in Manjaca camp; correct?
22 A. Well, there was only one statement of Mr. Ashdown's that I did
23 not agree with. I agreed with everything else he said, but there was one
24 thing where I actually did not agree with what he said, and that is when
25 he mentioned that there was -- or, rather, that life in the camp had the
1 semblance of order and organisation. So that is the aspect I could not
2 agree with. I agreed with everything else. This was an interview
3 conducted by a BBC journalist with Mr. Ashdown.
4 As for the report by Merhamet, I did not agree with that report
5 because I don't think it was given in the way that I gave it, because
6 those people were under observation and monitoring, and they were
7 unable -- probably wouldn't have been able to come had it had not been
8 so. But the fact that they came meant a lot to us.
9 Q. Very well. Very well. So specifically, did
10 Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki also come to the camp?
11 A. I think that he did come to the camp on one occasion,
12 Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He did come to the Manjaca camp, yes.
13 Q. Did he enter the camp?
14 A. Yes, he did, from what I can recall, but this was late at night,
15 perhaps around midnight
16 there were no lights or nothing, he couldn't see anything except us like
17 monsters being held in those stables.
18 Q. All right.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the meantime I
20 have received from the service relating to Mr. Ackerman's service, this
21 is page 5952, line 8. Mr. Di Fazio asked for a specific, and that
22 reference is there for my question. However, I'm going to show that
23 exactly to the witness tomorrow.
24 I'm going to show and would ask to have the witness, please,
25 shown a document.
1 Q. Mr. Draganovic, if it is correct that eight -- or, rather,
2 14 people died in the camp, you would agree with me that on the basis of
3 the total number of persons who were there, the conclusion cannot be
4 drawn that it was, in fact, a death camp, don't you think?
5 A. I stand by my position.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: There's a lot of
7 background noise.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A number of persons were taken from
9 the Manjaca camp to the Kljuc municipality area where some ten people
10 were killed there. Then a number of persons were taken to the
11 Batkovic camp, about 500 of them, when this camp was disbanded, and at
12 least two people were killed there. So that it is hard to say.
13 I don't know what happened to people who were taken out of the
14 camp who were from the Kotor Varos municipality, specifically from the
15 Vecici village, who were also captured in forests and who spent a certain
16 period of time in the camp. I don't know what happened to them
18 Some groups were also taken for exchange to the military
19 investigative gaol in Banja Luka, to a small camp, Mali Logor. I cannot
20 know the exact number of those who died of the people who passed through
21 that camp.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please show
23 one document to the witness that is on the 65 ter list, 3037.
24 Q. Mr. Draganovic, do you see this document? And in the top
25 left-hand corner you can see who it's by.
1 A. I see the first page of that document. I don't see the rest.
2 And I can see that it's the 1st Krajina Corps Command, and I see that the
3 date is the 23rd of August, 1992. I can also see that it's a strictly
4 confidential document, number 600.
5 Q. Could you please look at the title of the document,
6 Mr. Draganovic.
7 A. The title of the document is: "The visit by UN representative
8 Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki," and it's a report to the Government of Republika
9 Srpska, the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska and the forward
10 command post of the 1st Krajina Corps.
11 Q. Can we look at page 2 of this document now, please. Can you look
12 at the last paragraph there, please.
13 A. Yes, I can see that the document was signed by the assistant
14 commander of the 1st Krajina Corps, colonel --
15 Q. No, no. Look at the last paragraph of the text.
16 A. All right.
17 "Regardless of the consequences of the cancellation of
18 Mr. Mazowiecki's visit to the prisoner-of-war camp, we declare with full
19 responsibility that the purpose of his visit was not inspecting of the
20 state of the human rights, but on the contrary, intelligence,
21 reconnaissance which can be confirmed by those requesting the government
22 of the AR," and so forth.
23 Q. I concluded on this document and from other documents that you
24 can see that the visit to -- by Mr. Mazowiecki was cancelled or forbidden
25 and that he did not enter the camp.
1 A. Well, if you see that, then I correct my statement. And this is
2 possible, because I couldn't have known, believe me. I know that many
3 groups did come, but I did not prepare myself to know whether he was
4 there or not. I know that there was quite a fiery debate about that, and
5 I think that he submitted his irreversible resignation to his duties at
6 the United Nations.
7 Q. Mr. Draganovic, the essence of my question is consistent with the
8 suggestion by His Honour Judge Harhoff to submit evidence on the basis of
9 which we can conclude that you sometimes draw conclusions indirectly. In
10 response to my question, you categorically stated that Tadeusz Mazowiecki
11 did visit the camp, but now you're withdrawing that part your statement
12 after I've showed you this document.
13 A. I apologise, but my learned friend, you are behaving a little bit
14 sneakily. I guess that is part of your job.
15 I said that there were many international representatives, and I
16 have already said that I didn't know Mr. Ashdown, what his name was when
17 he was up there, but I, of course, found that out later. But I did know
18 that Mr. Elie Wiesel was there.
19 Q. Mr. Draganovic, I didn't ask about Mr. Elie Wiesel. All right.
20 Just -- just be patient.
21 A. Just one moment. I apologise, but one more time. It's possible
22 that I made --
23 Q. A mistake here.
24 A. Yes. Was brought into a confusing situation, and I accept that
25 it is possible that Mr. Mazowiecki did not enter, was not in the camp,
1 because you must know how much time has passed and that my recollection
2 and memory is beginning to pale slowly.
3 Q. Well, that's my question. I'm not taking that against you, but I
4 would like you to answer me sincerely. Is it true that many
5 information -- much information on which you testified about was
6 information you acquired indirectly, without personal knowledge of the
7 relevant facts?
8 A. I --
9 Q. Just answer me with a yes or no. Well, I will be happy --
10 A. I cannot answer with a yes or no. I am responding to your
11 question by saying that I already spoke about that when I testified in
12 the Brdjanin and Galic cases, how and in what way I acquired information
13 and I am repeating that position and response of mine right now. These
14 are several ways in which I got that information and from several
16 Q. All right. How did you find out that the civilian police -
17 specifically you said from Kljuc - was entering the camp and was
18 mistreating the inmates there? Did you personally observe any such
19 incident? Briefly, if you can.
20 A. My cousins, or my relatives, whose last name is also Draganovic,
21 are from Kljuc. I'm also from Kljuc. And my information comes from
22 them, that these were policemen from Kljuc whom they personally know. I
23 didn't know those people personally. So I could see it that those people
24 were beaten up. They were lying there beaten up every night. We were
25 concerned that they would be called out. I was most afraid also that I
1 would also be called out also because my last name was Draganovic, that
2 we shared the same last name, that I'm also born in Kljuc. But thank
3 God, they did not call me out.
4 Q. All right I'm satisfied with the answer. You said you didn't
5 personally see that abuse. Do you agree with me?
6 A. Just one moment. All of those things, when we're talking about
7 mistreatment and the beatings, not only did I find out about that from
8 the stories of those who actually experienced that, I heard that with my
9 own ears. Do you understand? And I saw some beatings. So --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are overlapping. It's very
11 difficult for the interpreters to follow.
12 JUDGE HALL: Again, Counsel and Witness, the interpreters are
13 having a difficulty.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Okay.
15 Q. We mustn't overlap. You must wait for me to interrupt you at
17 Mr. Draganovic, Mr. Draganovic, when you -- did you say anything
18 about the arrival or coming in of the police from Sanski Most?
19 A. Where?
20 Q. To Manjaca.
21 A. Yes, I did talk about that in my testimony.
22 Q. And how did they behave?
23 A. I said that in my statement.
24 Q. Well, I would like to hear that.
25 A. I said the police from Sanski Most behaved more correctly than
1 the police from Kljuc because they did not take people out. They did not
2 participate in the beatings of people. And I think that is quite clear
3 what I said.
4 Q. Let us continue. You also testified about the death of --
5 A. Just one moment. I do remember one thing. One police officer,
6 reserve police officer, only one, beat up one of his professors.
7 Q. All right. You talked about the death of Mr. Omer Filipovic
8 also; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I notice it's almost time
11 and --
12 JUDGE HALL: It's time.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: It's time, but perhaps may I just ask for one
14 indulgence and that's this: A few minutes ago counsel for the Defence
15 referred to a document involved -- concerning the visit of Mazowiecki,
16 Tadeusz Mazowiecki, to the area, and that document was 65 ter 3037. It
17 should -- it should be exhibited or at the very least marked for
18 identification. The Prosecution application is to admit it fully into
19 evidence, unless, of course, the Defence want to tender it into evidence
20 fully, in which case the Prosecution would have no objection to that
21 course of action. But, one way or another, it should go into evidence.
22 And if not, if you're not with me on that, it should be marked for
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Di Fazio.
25 Mr. Cvijetic, what is your position on this?
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know how much
2 the witness knows about this document, but I can propose it for
3 admission. That is not something that the Defence would be against, no.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will explain why. Witnesses
6 will come who know about this document directly, and I tried to avoid
7 criticism in that sense, but if the Prosecutor would like to have it
8 admitted, I tender it, then. I'm not opposed to that.
9 JUDGE HALL: We'll mark it for identification at this stage.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I mention one other matter in
11 relation to Mr. Cvijetic's cross-examination and that's this --
12 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated].
13 MS. KORNER: Oh, I'm so sorry.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 1D87, marked for
15 identification, Your Honours.
16 MS. KORNER: It's just this: It's the matter I raised earlier
17 on. Everything he's asking about is actually covered in the nine days
18 that Mr. Draganovic testified in the Brdjanin case, which I'm afraid to
19 say I take some responsibility; but nonetheless, we are literally
20 rehashing this, as he keeps saying what is in the transcript, and I'm
21 just wondering whether Your Honours might suggest to Mr. Cvijetic that
22 repeating what's already in evidence, through the transcript, is not very
24 JUDGE HALL: Well, he will have overnight to reflect on your
25 observation, your helpful observation, Mrs. Korner. Thank you. We
1 resume in this Chamber tomorrow morning at 9.00.
2 And, Mr. Draganovic, I am obliged to repeat the usual warning
3 about not contacting or not speak with the lawyers or discussing your
4 testimony with anybody.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day
7 of December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.