Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4923

 1                           Thursday, 17 December 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

 6     IT-08-91-T.  The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Good morning to you all.  May I have the

 8     appearances, please.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  On behalf of the Office of

10     the Prosecutor, I'm Tom Hannis joined by our Case Manager, Crispian

11     Smith, and today we have two of our interns who have been working with

12     us; Mr. Guillermo Otalora Lozano and Ms. Ana Trstenjak.

13             Thank you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

16     Slobodan Cvijetic, Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, and Tatjana Savic our Case

17     Manager appearing for Stanisic Defence this morning.  Expert has left The

18     Hague, thank you very much.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Igor Pantelic for

20     Zupljanin Defence.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Can we bring the witness in.

22             Mr. Zecevic, I think you have 582 documents still to go.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, on the list, Your Honour.  That is not the

24     factual situation.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  And what is the factual situation?

Page 4924

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I'm not sure at this point, but I think less

 2     than 150 documents we need to show to the witness.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  And where --

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Probably less than that.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Where will that take us?

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, we believe that we will need

 7     another day to deal with this witness in addition to our time, the time

 8     that we have, plus another day, I'm sorry.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  You see --

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, please.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, Mr. Nielsen's report is very dense

13     document, as you can see, and highly relevant.  It touches the very

14     issues in this case, and I think we need to in order to assist the Trial

15     Chamber and definitely shorten our Defence case, we are trying to

16     establish some of the issues with Mr. Nielsen here, if that would be

17     possible, of course.  And -- but in any case, we need to challenge his

18     report because it's the basis, as I say, to the pre-trial brief of the

19     Prosecution with which we take the issue.  Therefore, I kindly ask you to

20     give us additional time, I think this would be of assistance to the Trial

21     Chamber.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis.

23             MR. HANNIS:  In that regard may I, at the end the day, could we

24     recess two or three minutes early just to assess how much longer they

25     think they are going to need with him, because it's going to affect our

Page 4925

 1     planning for scheduling next week and maybe we can confer with the

 2     witness on the record about his availability dates as well, because it

 3     sounds like he may have to come back for three days, one more day of

 4     Mr. Zecevic, one day of Mr. Pantelic, and at least maybe one day of

 5     redirect.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Next week, Mr. Hannis?

 7             MR. HANNIS:  I'll be available, Your Honour.  I'm not sure you

 8     can get unanimity on that.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, I have two observations to put to

10     you in respect of your application for more time.  Let me start off by

11     saying that I'm not in any way opposed to giving you the time you need,

12     but first of all is there a way in which you can think of having the many

13     documents admitted without having to go through so many of them?  I'm

14     especially referring to the model that we applied with an earlier witness

15     to try to group them together which might reduce the time you need

16     actually in court to confront the witness with the many documents.

17     That's one question.

18             And the other question is that without in any way trying to

19     interfere with the way you conduct your examination -- your

20     cross-examination, sorry, I've noticed that many of the questions you put

21     could actually be saved.  Like when you ask the witnesses, not

22     particularly this witness, this doesn't go for you, it goes for the

23     Prosecution and for Mr. Pantelic as well, ascertaining from the witness

24     whether you have read out a passage correctly is perhaps not always

25     necessary.  So my quest is really are for all parties to focus their

Page 4926

 1     examination-in-chief and their cross-examination more directly and

 2     strongly to -- in order to reach the point that you wish to get to.

 3             But let me turn to my first question, if you have any idea of how

 4     you can get through the many documents in a quicker way?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours I'm thankful for your

 6     suggestion.  I think definitely the way how to proceed would be the

 7     already established practice in this trial, that we group the documents,

 8     and then I would ask the witness on one or two documents and then offer

 9     the group of the documents for admittance.

10             Your Honours, I'm perfectly willing to follow your suggestion,

11     but what I'm trying to do is basically focus, trying to assist the Trial

12     Chamber by focusing the parts of the document that in our opinion are

13     relevant and -- and are going into the heart of the matter in this case.

14     Therefore, I believe I'm assisting Trial Chamber at the very end because

15     it doesn't -- the Trial Chamber would not need to go to -- some of the

16     documents are, Your Honours, 400, 500 pages, so we -- I was actually, I'm

17     trying actually follow your suggestion that we really focus on the parts

18     of documents that are relevant to our case.  But I can follow your advice

19     which you suggested right now and just ask the witness more directly, so

20     to speak.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's try that, see how it works out.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  And bench will think on and discuss your

24     application for one day more during the break when the three of us are

25     here.  That reminds me for the record, we are sitting pursuant to Article

Page 4927

 1     15 bis, Judge Hall being absent.

 2             Mr. Hannis.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I have nothing, Your Honour it's up to Mr. Zecevic.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I've' very sorry.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 6                           WITNESS:  CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]

 7                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Nielsen.

 9        A.   [Interpretation] I cordially wish you good morning.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Just one moment, Mr. Nielsen.  I may remind you

11     that you are still under your oath.  A formality, but I have to do that.

12             THE WITNESS:  [In English] Thank you, Your Honour.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, yesterday before the end of the last session, I

15     showed you a document 1D78, a dispatch dated 1 April 1992, referring to

16     the collegium meeting of the MUP held on that day, and I've been informed

17     that the status of this document in e-court has now been clarified.  So

18     it's 1D78.  And on page 4915 you told me you had no occasion to see a

19     single document which would lead you to conclude that the division of the

20     MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina was peaceful and with the consent and approval

21     of the -- of all parties.

22             Isn't it the case that this document, 1D78, shows precisely that,

23     that the division of the MUP was peaceful and conducted with the

24     considered approval of the leadership of the MUP?

25        A.   As I noted yesterday, I cite a version of this document in my

Page 4928

 1     report, and I agree with you that this particular document indicates

 2     that - according to this document alone - that the division of the MUP

 3     was peaceful and conducted with the approval of the leadership of the

 4     MUP, again minus the minister, which I find very important.  And I also

 5     would point out that there are a host of documents which I cite in my

 6     report including documents from Bosnian Serbs after 31 March 1992 which

 7     conclusively demonstrate that the division of the MUP was not peaceful

 8     and was not conducted with the approval of the leadership of the MUP.

 9        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, in this document on page 2 it is stated that

10     attention is also accorded to the co-ordination of some joint services.

11     Doesn't that mean joint services at the level of the central MUP in

12     Sarajevo?  Isn't it consistent with the defence case and with what we

13     have shown you related it to the so-called Cutileiro plan?

14        A.   If viewed in isolation, yes, it is.  However, I again point out

15     that having been able to review this, I note that at the various time

16     that this collegium was meeting, the minister, Alija Delimustafic was

17     meeting with the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to discuss the

18     contradictory dispatches of Mr. Mandic and Mr. Delimustafic of the

19     previous day, 31 March 1992.  And I would refer you to the SRBiH MUP rule

20     book, Articles 118 to 124 which indicate quite clearly --

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. -- slow down, please.

22             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.  Thank you, Your Honour.

23             And in Articles 118 to 124 of the SRBiH MUP rule book which deal

24     with the workings of this collegium of SRBiH MUP, it emerges that the

25     minister plays a critical role.  Let's be honest, they are not discussing

Page 4929

 1     how many office supplies they want to order for the rest of 1992.  They

 2     discussing the disintegration and division of the ministry, and I think

 3     it is extraordinary that they would take this decision in the absence of

 4     the minister when is he in fact meeting with the government to discuss

 5     that very point.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, I would appreciate it very much if you could

 8     concentrate on the question I'm actually asking because you are going too

 9     much ahead and I want you to answer step by step about all these

10     important things.

11             When I showed you this document on transcript page 4916, you said

12     exactly what you've repeated now.  Could you give me a reference for that

13     document you are citing in your report because in the part that is

14     subtitled disintegration of the MUP of the Socialist Republic of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina, your paragraphs 78 through 94, I could not find that

16     reference when you say that it's a version of this document 1D78?

17        A.   Certainly, sir.  I cite a version of that document in footnote

18     196 on page 54 and I refer there to the document bearing the ERN

19     P004-4289, P004-4289A, which in large part reproduces the document that

20     you are talking about, and that we were looking at here on the screen.  I

21     agree with you and I'm very thankful to my esteemed colleague Dr. Bajagic

22     for reminding me of this document's existence, and I agree with you that

23     I should also have cited this document, but I do cite a version of it in

24     footnote 196.

25        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, you are citing that in paragraph 193, your footnote

Page 4930

 1     196, but it does not explain the so-called solemn declaration which you

 2     misinterpret and misrepresent as an oath of loyalty.  You don't make any

 3     reference in that paragraph to this document and its connection with the

 4     disintegration of the MUP; isn't that right?

 5        A.   I do not make a reference to this document in specific connection

 6     with the events of 31st March 1992 and 1 April 1992.  However, if you

 7     were to pull up that document, you will see that it is in large part a

 8     reproduction of the document that you identify as 1D78.

 9        Q.   Well, to conclude, when you were writing your report, and you

10     said the same thing right now, I think you agreed with me now that it's a

11     shortcoming of your report that this document 1D78 is not cited, and we

12     don't have your position as an expert concerning that document, yes or

13     no?

14        A.   Yes, I would agree that it is a shortcoming.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Sir, let us study now your position concerning the

16     presence of Minister Delimustafic.  You drew our attention yesterday to

17     the fact that Minister Delimustafic was not present at this collegium

18     meeting.  I asked you, isn't it true that the minister represents the

19     ministry, and you answered, not only the ministry, but also the cabinet

20     to which he belongs.  Do you remember that?

21        A.   Yes, the government to which he belongs and the ministry,

22     correct.

23        Q.   Yes, sorry.  It was interpreted as cabinet, it's about the same

24     thing.  Tell me, Mr. Nielsen, isn't it the case that the then government

25     of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a coalition government of the SDS, the SDA, and

Page 4931

 1     the HDZ?

 2        A.   To the best of my knowledge, yes.

 3        Q.   Are you aware that the SDS had appointed eight ministers, SDA

 4     eight ministers, and the HDZ four ministers?

 5        A.   I'm not aware of the exact composition of the government at that

 6     time but that's quite possible.

 7        Q.   I will now show you a chart, a schematic prepared by the Office

 8     of the Prosecutor.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's document 10138.4 in e-court.

10     If the usher could give you a copy.

11        Q.   This is an organisational chart of the Ministry of the Interior

12     of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina for the period January

13     1991 through March 1992.  It was created at the Office of the Prosecutor,

14     our learned friends on the other side, and I would like to discuss it

15     with you.

16             Isn't it true that in the ministry along with the minister there

17     is one deputy minister and nine assistant ministers?

18        A.   Yes, I believe that is true.

19        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, you are certainly aware that under the law and in

20     accordance with the nature of things, the deputy minister stands in for

21     the minister when the minister is unable to attend?

22        A.   Certainly that is the case.  That's the point of a deputy

23     minister.

24        Q.   This meeting, this collegium, in the political jargon collegium

25     meant the meeting of the most senior leaders in the ministry.  Do you

Page 4932

 1     agree?

 2        A.   That is what the SRBiH MUP rule book says; that is correct.

 3        Q.   When I asked you about political jargon, I meant to say that

 4     applied to all the other ministries, not only of the interior, the

 5     Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Justice, et cetera.  You know

 6     that, don't you?

 7        A.   Well, I don't have similar expertise on other ministries in

 8     Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, but it would not surprise me if other

 9     ministries had similar bodies.

10        Q.   Thank you.  So at this collegium on the 1st of April, 1992,

11     document 1D78, out of nine assistant ministers, seven attended.  Do you

12     recall that?

13        A.   Well, I won't second guess your math, but that's probably

14     correct.

15        Q.   Sir, out of nine assistants, seven were present; namely, two from

16     the HDZ, Mr. Bruno Stojic and Mr. Branko Kvesic; three assistant

17     ministers appointed by the SDA, Mr. Avdo Hebib, Jusuf Pusina, and

18     Akif Sabic and two from the SDS, and the deputy minister, Mr. Zepinic.

19     Aren't you going to agree with me that it is a very respectable

20     attendance for the collegium?

21        A.   I agree that it's a considerable attendance.

22        Q.   You will also agree with me that collegium meetings were also

23     held without the minister, you see many collegium meetings that you cite

24     in your report of the MUP of Republika Srpska where Mico Stanisic did not

25     attend or attended part of the time and then his deputy took over?

Page 4933

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And to conclude on this document, although this very

 3     respectable attendance, as you accepted and the discussion of the

 4     collegium you did not take this document into account and you accepted

 5     it's a shortcoming, but you will agree with me that the role of the

 6     expert in trial proceedings is to assist the Trial Chamber with his

 7     specific knowledge and information in an objective and unbiased way; is

 8     that correct?

 9        A.   That conforms to my understanding of the role of the expert, yes.

10        Q.   And you will agree with me that omitting this document from an

11     expert report could not really be considered as an expression of

12     objectivity?

13             MR. HANNIS:  Objection, it's argumentative.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'll withdraw.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] When you said yesterday on page 4921 and

16     confirmed the same thing this morning, that if this document would have

17     to be looked in isolation, you would understand how I reached a

18     conclusion that I presented to you yesterday, namely that the division of

19     the MUP was carried out with the consent of all the relevant bodies and

20     individuals in the ministry, but then you said looking from the point of

21     view of all the documents that you had an occasion to see, you cannot

22     agree with my conclusion.  Do you primarily mean all the letters written

23     by minister Delimustafic when you say that?

24        A.   No, sir, not at all.  I primarily mean that this document is

25     fully and richly contradicted by the RS MUP's officials themselves who

Page 4934

 1     subsequently refer to the, and I stress once again this is their own

 2     word, the illegal organisation of Serbian personnel in the seat of SRBiH

 3     MUP, the illegal arming of Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina by employees of

 4     SRBiH MUP, and they state very clearly in their own 1992 draft annual

 5     report that this culminated -- this illegal - and again for the umpteenth

 6     time, I stress that this is their word - in the illegal -- it's just that

 7     this culminated in the -- this illegal action culminated in the sending

 8     of Mr. Mandic's 31 March dispatch.

 9             I also would note that in a television programme in January 1993,

10     Tomislav Kovac who was intimately involved in this business, referred to

11     the fact that the Bosnian Serbs had, and I quote, destroyed SRBiH MUP.

12     And I also would finally refer at this stage to Mr. Mandic himself who on

13     5th May 1992, told his former colleague Brana Kvesic, and I will here for

14     the sake of accuracy please quote it directly in B/C/S, he said to

15     Mr. Kvesic, and I'm now shifting to B/C/S [Interpretation] "When I sent

16     that dispatch, I fucked up the whole MUP."  [In English] End of quote.

17        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.  Tell me, isn't it true

18     that all your sources are actually secondary sources, as it were?  Let me

19     just explain.  Did you ever come across a single statement by

20     Mr. Mico Stanisic or one of his assistant, a statement about the division

21     of the MUP in 1992 having been an illegal act?  When you quoted a

22     conversation between Kvesic and Mandic, it doesn't tell us anything about

23     legality or illegality of this occurrence.  Did you hear directly from

24     any of the players word to the effect of such a qualification when it

25     comes to the division of the MUP in April 1992?

Page 4935

 1        A.   I will state very clearly that I have not come across such a

 2     statement by Mr. Mico Stanisic.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4        A.   However, I have come across a large number of such statements

 5     from key participants other than Mr. Stanisic and as a historian, I

 6     clearly consider the RS MUP report produced by the RS MUP itself a

 7     primary source, not a secondary source.

 8        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, you spent a certain time in the territory of the

 9     former Yugoslavia, you speak the language, you will agree with me, won't

10     you, that among the population of the former Yugoslavia there is a trend

11     of blowing things out of proportion after a certain lapse of time and

12     that they tend to give things a different connotation than the one that

13     is actually attached to them and actually exists?

14        A.   I don't think that I would like to engage in such stereotyping.

15        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.

16             Mr. Nielsen, isn't it true that the agreement was reached at the

17     level of all the three ethnically based parties within the MUP about the

18     MUP division, and that the division was in keeping with that agreement

19     and that it was also done in -- bearing in mind the Cutileiro agreement

20     and that only after that Mr. Alija Delimustafic and the SDA because of

21     their own reasons, reasons known to them, gave up on that agreement, will

22     you agree with that?

23             MR. HANNIS:  I have to object, Your Honour.  That's a compound

24     question, there's at least three parts to it.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] I'll try to break the question

Page 4936

 1     down.

 2        Q.   Do you agree that the division of the Bosnia and Herzegovina MUP

 3     was based on the document that I showed to you and the facts that you are

 4     aware of, will you agree that that division received the consent of all

 5     the three parties, yes or no?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Will you agree with me that the agreement existed with the SDA

 8     but that subsequently because of some other reasons, this SDA withdrew

 9     from that agreement and gave up on it?

10        A.   Could we please be specific about which agreement we are

11     referring to, because we are talking about several different agreements

12     here.

13        Q.   We are talking about the agreement on the division of the MUP.

14        A.   To my mind, if you are referring to the -- such an agreement as

15     it was previewed in the Cutileiro framework of principles or statement of

16     principles, then my answer is that, yes, I am aware that the SDA signed

17     it.  I'm also aware that the SDA representatives subsequently withdrew

18     from that agreement, and, therefore, it was no longer valid from their

19     point of view.

20        Q.   We have already clarified that, we did it yesterday.  But now I'm

21     asking you this:  Do you agree that the SDA first gave its consent to the

22     division of the MUP as can be seen in 1D78, or rather, as we can conclude

23     based on that document, and that subsequently the SDA gave up on that

24     agreement, yes or no?

25             MR. HANNIS:  I have to object.  I think that assumes facts that

Page 4937

 1     aren't in evidence yet.  We have this document listing some MUP employees

 2     who were candidates that were proposed by the SDA, but we haven't

 3     established that when they are meeting in the collegium that they are

 4     representing the SDA.  I think we need to establish something further

 5     before that question can be asked.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that we

 7     have already established that and that there's no need for us to waste

 8     anymore time on that.  I've shown the organisational scheme of the

 9     ministry and within that scheme you can see who among the assistants

10     belonged to what party, and I believe that that fact is not in dispute at

11     that moment between the party to these proceedings.  The three ethnically

12     based parties are made up of all the relevant bodies in Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina, including the Republican Ministry of the Interior.

14             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  It's my understanding of the chart that

15     where it lists an individual, for example, Mr. Hebib, and it says SDA

16     under his name, that means that he was a candidate that was proposed for

17     that position by the SDA.  It does not necessarily means he is a member

18     of the SDA.  I see your client is named on this chart as SDS, and I think

19     he's taken the position he was not a member of the SDS so that's the

20     point I want to raise.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] I never said that they belonged to

22     the SDA.  I just -- I'm just stating that they pursued the SDA policies.

23             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I am sorry, I understood your earlier question

24     to suggest that the SDA had agreed to this split based on the presence of

25     Mr. Hebib and the others who were candidates of the SDA for those

Page 4938

 1     positions.  And I don't think we've heard any evidence to establish that

 2     they were representing the SDA in these discussions.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Okay.  [Interpretation] In order to avoid wasting

 4     time, I believe that the matter is clear enough and there's no need for

 5     us to go over the same grounds again and again.

 6        Q.   Sir, Mr. Nielsen, in paragraph 93, your footnote 139, you state

 7     that Mr. Ganic, a Presidency member, stated at the beginning of April

 8     1992 that all MUP employees who joined the MUP of Republika Srpska would

 9     be summarily dismissed; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes, I say that he said that they should consider themselves

11     permanently fired.

12        Q.   I'd like to show you 65 ter 77, but before that, let me show you

13     65 ter 67.  This is a document which you offer as the only reference with

14     regard to the collegium.  This is your footnote 196, I believe we have

15     just spoken about that.

16        A.   That is correct, sir.

17        Q.   This document was issued by the Banja Luka Security Services

18     Centre on the 3rd of April, 1992.  And the collegium is quoted in the

19     document and it is also stated that the Banja Luka Security Services

20     Centre undertook measures in order to divide the MUP in keeping with the

21     letter sent by the MUP of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina dated the

22     1st of April, and in keeping with the laws and constitution of Republika

23     Srpska.  Am I correct?

24        A.   That is what the document says.  The laws -- in keeping with the

25     laws and constitution of Republika Srpska and not of interpretation.

Page 4939

 1        Q.   Also it is stated in here that the employees will voluntarily opt

 2     for either staying in the Republika Srpska MUP or not, and in that the

 3     new Law on the Establishment the Ministry of the Interior Republika

 4     Srpska, they were left with an option to stay performing the same duties

 5     as they did at the moment when that division became topical; is that

 6     correct?

 7        A.   That is what the document says and that is why I cite it in

 8     footnote 196.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  At the very end of that document, a reference is made

10     to the fact that all employees, I underline all employees, will be

11     duty-bound to take solemn declaration and in this document, Chief

12     Zupljanin remind everybody that the solemn declaration is identical to

13     the one that was taken under the former Law on Internal Affairs?

14        A.   That is again an accurate rereading of the document, yes.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

16     document for admission, if there are no objections to that on the part

17     of --

18             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D137, Your Honours.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Let's look at 65 ter 77.  This is your footnote 161.  I believe

23     that it is document 52 under tab 52 in your binder.  This is a letter

24     sent by Minister Alija Delimustafic on the 10th of April, 1992.  And in

25     this letter, he informs all the addressees in the MUP of the Republic of

Page 4940

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina about the organisation of the Serbian MUP units, and

 2     he says that there has been pressure and blackmail on non-Serbs to sign

 3     some declaration of loyalty otherwise their posts will be terminated.  It

 4     is true that that's what the document says and that is why you are

 5     quoting this document in your footnote 161, am I right?

 6        A.   Correct.

 7        Q.   Sir, in your report you mostly use the term "loyalty pledge"

 8     rather than "solemn declaration," and the latter has been referred to in

 9     the law and that's how Mr. Zupljanin calls that statement in his letter;

10     am I right?

11        A.   The term I use certainly, I believe, most in the report is the

12     English word "oath" which I believe is translated into B/C/S in the

13     version you have as "zakletva."

14        Q.   Sir, you have also introduced a new, a third term, "zakletvo" or

15     oath.  Under the law that you have analysed in great detail and from all

16     the documents, we can see that the document is actually a solemn

17     declaration, what you call "zakletva" is a solemn declaration, so there

18     is no way we can talk about a pledge or an oath and that's why I'm asking

19     you why do you insist on using the term which does not have any

20     foundation either in the law or in any other document, save for the

21     document -- the contents of which are dubious and provide false

22     characterisation of some indisputable facts?

23        A.   I don't have a thesaurus handy, but I believe that a pledge,

24     oath, and solemn declaration - at least in English, which is the language

25     I wrote my report in - are all synonyms.

Page 4941

 1        Q.   I know, however you speak the Serbian language and it should be

 2     absolutely clear to you that there is a major difference in the Serbian

 3     language between what the Serbs call "zakletva" or "pledge" and

 4     "svecana izjava" or solemn declaration, am I right?

 5        A.   I certainly agree.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I would like to tender this document for admission,

 7     65 ter 77?

 8             MR. DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic --

 9             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  -- could we know what the difference is then

11     in ... because you -- obviously you know what the difference is in your

12     language and the expert knows, but do we know?

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, 18, 21, does not

14     reflect the witness's answer, so I'm going to use this moment and clarify

15     the situation.

16        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, I know that you speak the Serbian language, that's

17     what I referred to, and I suggested that you were aware of the terms

18     "svecana izjava" and "zakletva" in the Serbian language and you answered

19     the question, and now the Judge has kindly asked you to clarify the

20     difference.  Could you please first answer the question again, I believe

21     that your answer was yes, and then could you please provide an

22     explanation as to what the difference between the two terms is in the

23     Serbian language in your opinion.

24        A.   Yes.  Sorry for overlapping with you.  I would agree that there

25     is a difference, I don't know that I would call it a major difference,

Page 4942

 1     but the term that you refer to as solemn oath is the term, the very

 2     specific term that is consistently used in the laws on internal affairs

 3     of both SRBiH MUP and RS MUP.

 4        Q.   [In English] Just -- I would just like to, because so far in this

 5     case we use the proper -- as the proper translation "solemn declaration,"

 6     not the "solemn oath."  So in order to distinct them to keep it in line

 7     with what we have, I ask you, please, to refer to solemn declaration as

 8     translation for "svecana izjava."

 9        A.   And I take note of that and I agree that that is the most precise

10     translation of the Serbian term.

11        Q.   His Honour Judge Delvoie kindly asked you to try to explain the

12     difference between the term "svecana izjava" and the term "oath," or

13     "zakletva" in the Serbian language?

14        A.   Well, I would certainly defer to a native speaker on this point,

15     but my understanding is that the term "svecana izjava," solemn

16     declaration is consistently used in the law where law enforcement and,

17     for example, military officials swear duty allegiance to the organisation

18     in which they will be employed.  Whereas "zakletva" is used much more

19     loosely and often outside official context.  But I would, again, defer to

20     a native speaker on the fine points of those two which often end up

21     becoming pseudonyms in English.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I don't think it would be proper for

23     me to give evidence on that, so we will provide the explanation with some

24     other witnesses, but I will make sure that this is clarified to the point

25     where Your Honours will be able to understand the distinction.

Page 4943

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Can I perhaps assist with the Oxford English

 2     dictionary on pledge, which is a solemn commitment to do or refrain from

 3     doing something, a promise.  So I don't really see what your problem is

 4     when -- if in the report Mr. Nielsen uses the term "pledge" because I do

 5     think what your problem is with oath.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But pledge does not have that --

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I referred to the distinction

 9     between loyalty, statement of loyalty or loyalty oath that the witness

10     uses in his report, which I say is not correct.  The second thing I take

11     issue with the oath, declaration of oath, which I think is not right

12     also.  And that is the -- we say it's a solemn declaration like it says

13     in the law and in all statements of the officials of RS MUP.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I think when I looked at my Oxford

15     dictionary, I look for oath and one of the definitions was solemn

16     declaration, so it seems like we go in a circle whichever point we start

17     from.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Isn't in the word "oath" also the fact that one

19     invokes God with it, would that be the ...

20             MR. HANNIS:  I think that may have been one of the alternative

21     definitions was that sometimes there was a reference to God.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, in any case, the referential language here is

23     Serbian or Serbo-Croat language and --

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  That's why I asked what it meant --

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, yes.  I understand fully, Your Honours.  And

Page 4944

 1     we will make sure that this is explained to Your Honours properly at a

 2     certain point in time.

 3             Can we have this document exhibited, please.  65 ter 77.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D138, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   After that document on the same date Mr. Zupljanin, the chief of

 9     the Banja Luka security services, responded to Minister Delimustafic in

10     65 ter 76, I believe that the document number is P34, and he repeats or

11     that the allegations from the dispatch of the minister are not correct.

12     Again, you will find that in your footnote 161.  He says that the

13     allegations are incorrect and that it was not about a loyalty pledge but

14     just a solemn declaration, but let's not go over that again.  This is

15     just for everybody's reference.  P34 is the document number.

16             Sir, Mr. Nielsen, in your report you say that after that dispatch

17     was sent and received and your position is that there was never an

18     agreement between the political factors which composed the bodies of

19     power at the time in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in --

20     and the MUP on the other hand, about the division of MUP.  And you state

21     in one of the paragraphs of your expert report that because of the

22     dispatch, amongst other things, on the 5th of April, Mr. Mandic was fired

23     from the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Do you

24     remember that?

25        A.   I think that my position on that issue is slightly misquoted, but

Page 4945

 1     I'm happy to agree with you that Mr. Mandic was indeed fired from the MUP

 2     of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 5th of April.

 3        Q.   Sir, you know that Mr. Mico Stanisic was appointed and assigned

 4     to perform tasks and duties as an advisor in the office of Minister

 5     Delimustafic as of February 1992?  Do you know that?

 6        A.   I don't remember the exact date of that appointment, but that's

 7     entirely possible, yes.

 8        Q.   I'm going to show you 1D00-2733.  Just a moment.  It's 47 in your

 9     tabs.

10        A.   Thank you.

11        Q.   It's a decision on appointment, assignment should I say, of

12     Mr. Mico Stanisic as advisor in the minister's cabinet in the Ministry of

13     the Interior signed by Minister Alija Delimustafic.  It's dated 14

14     February, but it relates to the period as of 10 February 1992; correct?

15        A.   That's correct, yes.

16        Q.   After that, Mico Stanisic was appointed minister in the Ministry

17     of the Interior of Republika Srpska; correct?

18        A.   That is correct.

19        Q.   Are you aware that Mr. Stanisic was never dismissed from the

20     Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

21        A.   I'm not aware of that, but then I also hope that he is getting

22     his pension.

23        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, if we were to consider that Mr. Stanisic has done

24     something that is contrary to the law and the regulations of the Ministry

25     of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I'm sure that some measures would

Page 4946

 1     have been taken under the law to discipline him?

 2        A.   I think that there was an attempt at the beginning of April 1992

 3     to, as you put it, discipline those officers or officials of Serbian

 4     nationality who had left the ministry and formed RS MUP.  However, I

 5     think in light of the difficult situation and the reality that such

 6     disciplinary measures could not be carried out, the Bosnian Muslim

 7     officials and Bosnian Croat officials who remained in MUP quickly stopped

 8     pursuing such matters.  So it's entirely possible that Mr. Stanisic and

 9     others who went to RS MUP were never the formal subjects of disciplinary

10     procedures.

11        Q.   Well, Mr. Nielsen, how do you then explain that they found the

12     time to write a decision to dismiss Mr. Mandic and not the others,

13     especially Mr. Stanisic?

14        A.   I think it's quite clear that they probably prioritised the

15     dismissal of Mr. Mandic because he is the one who sent that dispatch.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation] May I tender this document as

18     well, if there is no objection.

19             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D139.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, to support your claims about the non-existence of

24     agreement to divide the MUP, you cite in footnote 135 and paragraph 92

25     some reaction on the ground, specifically the dispatch from the public

Page 4947

 1     security station of Zvornik.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's 65 ter 326.  I believe it

 3     has also a number in e-court, but I'm told there is a problem with

 4     uploading.  It's document P179.18.  The title was not put in correctly or

 5     something.

 6        Q.   You cite this document in support of your theory; do you recall

 7     that?

 8        A.   I cite the document as a relevant document and I recall that we

 9     dealt with this on direct examination, yes.

10        Q.   Sir, since you worked in the research section of the Office of

11     the Prosecutor you are aware that the division of the public security

12     station of Zvornik happened on the 6th of April?

13        A.   I don't recall the precise date but I think that's quite correct,

14     yes.

15        Q.   Are you aware that on the 28th and 29th March there occurred a

16     problem in the public security station of Zvornik when the assistant

17     commander invited members of the public security station of Tuzla to come

18     and provide security in the public security station of Zvornik.  His name

19     was Adnan Karovic; do you know that?

20        A.   I think I know that, and I know that there were a tremendous

21     amount of problems at SJB Zvornik during this period.

22        Q.   This document, the second signatory is one Dragan Spasojevic.

23     You will see his name under Osman Mustafic and that was the chief of SJB?

24        A.   If the document could be scrolled down just a little bit.  Yes,

25     that is correct.

Page 4948

 1        Q.   Do you know that already on the 6th of April, the Crisis Staff of

 2     Zvornik or the provisional government, as it was called, he was --

 3     appointed him the commander of the Serbian MUP?

 4        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  How do you then explain his signature on this

 6     document?

 7        A.   I should think that's a question that's more appropriate for

 8     Mr. Spasojevic than for me.

 9        Q.   I agree.  Mr. Nielsen, would you cast your mind back to the

10     document 1D78.  Isn't it the case that you were present and even actively

11     involved in taking the statement from Mr. Cedo Kljajic, assistant

12     minister of the interior of Republika Srpska in 1992 for public security?

13        A.   It is correct that I participated in taking a statement from

14     Mr. Cedo Kljajic.

15        Q.   And that interview, I suppose, since it was held in The Hague, as

16     indicated on the document, must have been conducted in this building, I

17     suppose, and it took three days?

18        A.   I think that's correct.

19        Q.   Tell me, sir, you put a certain number of questions to

20     Mr. Cedo Kljajic.  Isn't it the case that more than 50 per cent of that

21     document is devoted to the issue of the division of the MUP of Bosnia and

22     Herzegovina?

23        A.   I know that we discussed that topic.  I don't know that that

24     constitutes more than 50 per cent of that document.

25        Q.   Isn't it the case, Mr. Nielsen, that in the course of that

Page 4949

 1     interview, Mr. Cedo Kljajic more than once not only confirmed that it was

 2     done with the agreement of all the relevant organs and individuals in the

 3     MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but pointed

 4     specifically to this document from the MUP collegium of the 1st of April

 5     1992?

 6        A.   A number of years has passed since I spoke with Mr. Kljajic, but

 7     I believe that that is probably quite accurate, yes.

 8        Q.   In that case, I have to ask you again, why --

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, just one moment.  Is it correct that

10     in your question you said that in the course of that interview,

11     Mr. Kljajic, more than once not only confirmed that it was done with

12     agreement of all the relevant organs and individuals in the MUP of the

13     Serbian republic?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, no, no.  Thank you, Your Honour.  What I said

15     is [Interpretation] MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16     That was the real name at the time.

17        Q.   I was saying, Mr. Nielsen, bearing all that in mind including

18     these facts, don't you find, or rather, wouldn't you agree with me that

19     in the light of all that has been said a moment ago, and in the light of

20     this document, your failure to include that document in your report, or

21     comment upon it in any way, or refer to it in any way, constitutes a

22     rather serious omission in your report?

23             MR. HANNIS:  Objection, that's argumentative.  He has already

24     said he should have included it in his report.  It's up to you judges to

25     decide at the end of the case how much weight to give that.

Page 4950

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Okay.  Fair enough.  Thank you very much.

 2             [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed this part of my

 3     cross-examination of Mr. Nielsen.  I thank you, Mr. Nielsen, I will

 4     continue later, and now my colleague Mr. Cvijetic will pick up the next

 5     topic.  Thank you.

 6             Perhaps, Your Honour, we could take the break now.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  20 minutes.

 8                           [The witness stands down]

 9                           --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, just one administrative matter before

12     the witness is ushered into the courtroom.  There was two days ago a

13     document which was marked for identification, 1D116.  If you remember,

14     Your Honours, the point of the matter was that the third page of the

15     document did not correspond to the previous two pages.  Now, we have --

16     what we did is we filed a third page as 1D01-1052 document, and we would

17     like that this document be connected with 1D116 as a number of exhibit

18     and the document be admitted now if there's no objection, fully admitted.

19             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So admitted and marked.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Cvijetic.  Thank you, Your Honour.

24                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

25        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Nielsen, my name is

Page 4951

 1     Slobodan Cvijetic.  I'm a co-counsel on the Defence team of Mr. Stanisic.

 2     In this cross-examination I will deal with one particular topic from your

 3     report, the one you called the Law on the Interior of Republika Srpska.

 4     Within that topic, willy-nilly, we'll have to run through a couple of

 5     systemic regulations in order to be able to understand the character, the

 6     place, the role, and the jurisdiction of such an important organ of state

 7     administration, and of course we'll devote the bulk of our time to the

 8     Law on Internal Affairs.  And finally, to internal regulatory documents

 9     of the Ministry of the Interior, that the minister of the interior was

10     duty-bound under the law to enact in order to regulate everything that

11     the law objectively is not able to.  So let us take things in order.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Cvijetic, just one moment.  Could I state for

13     the record that I'm not Judge Hall.  Go ahead.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We can all see that.

15        Q.   Like you did, I'll start with the constitution of the Republic of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina, your footnote 148, 150, 151, that's where you

17     mentioned these so-called systemic regulations, and I will start

18     immediately with the constitution to see how the constitution defines the

19     role in the place of the Ministry of the Interior within the system of

20     state administration.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 65 ter 49,

22     exhibited as P181.

23        Q.   While we are waiting to see it on the screen, it's the

24     constitution of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina which, as I

25     suppose you know, the Assembly of Republika Srpska adopted on the 28th of

Page 4952

 1     February 1992.  The relevant article we need is 69, and for the Registry,

 2     in B/C/S it's page 6, in English it's page 11.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour, I had

 4     forgotten the binder, can I ask the usher to give it to the witness?  I

 5     put for him all the documents in order.

 6        Q.   Number 5.  Article 69.  As you can see, the constitution defines

 7     this well known division of power.  You know that in parliamentary

 8     systems, there is a division into the judiciary, legislative, and

 9     executive power.  We see that executive power is given to the government,

10     therefore we'll not waste time on that and we'll look instead at

11     Article 90 to see what the constitution says about the government.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That's page 7 in B/C/S and 15 in

13     English.

14        Q.   I suppose, Mr. Nielsen, you have already found it.  And you can

15     look also at 92 if they can fit on the screen at the same time.  90 and

16     even better 92, and 92 in English.  You will agree with me that the

17     constitution deals with the government very tersely and practically

18     enumerates only in this article who constitutes the government, the prime

19     minister, deputy prime ministers, and ministers.  We are not going to

20     deal with it much, just to invoke the law as you did.

21             Let's move to Article 97 for my first question.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Page 8 in B/C/S and 16 in English.

23     Can we perhaps zoom in on Article 97.

24        Q.   This is what we need.  Here we see that the constitution placed

25     the ministries of the government within republic organs of

Page 4953

 1     administration.  Ministries, including Ministry of the Interior are state

 2     agencies and they are executive power.  The state administration.

 3        A.   Yes, I agree with you, and good morning to you, sir.

 4        Q.   You are right, I didn't give you a chance to say that before.

 5     This is all we need about the definition from the constitution.  Let us

 6     now look at the next regulation, which you refer to in footnote 150,

 7     that's the Law on the Government.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I need now 1D01-1017.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, you are on the border-line of the

10     expertise of this witness by invoking the constitution and the laws, and

11     when I suggested this morning that counsels should endeavour to get

12     straight to the point, it was -- it was incidents just such as this that

13     I had in mind.  I do not believe that it will be beneficial to the

14     Chamber to have this witness explain much about the law to us, so my

15     question to you here and now is if you would be so kind as to tell us

16     where do you want to go with this in relation to Mr. Nielsen.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for

18     failing to say this in my introduction to the witness.  I am aware that

19     this witness is not a lawyer, but in his 30 or 40 pages of his report, he

20     deals with legal issues.  I forgot to stress to him that I will deal with

21     legal issues only up to the level up to which he dealt with them in his

22     report.  I'm not going to ask for expert opinion from the field of

23     constitutional law and law in general.  The purpose of this line of

24     questioning is only to establish the proper place of the Ministry of the

25     Interior among organs of state administration under the laws and

Page 4954

 1     regulations.  The witness himself dealt with these regulations in his

 2     report.  We will only go into detail about the Law on Internal Affairs,

 3     which the witness did himself.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  But my question would be is this a

 5     contested matter between the parties?  Is that something that we need to

 6     address at all?

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] There is one regulation that

 8     Mr. Nielsen did not refer to, whereas it is the regulation which best

 9     defines the scope and especially the jurisdiction of the Ministry of

10     Interior.  I think he omitted one regulation and that's the one I want to

11     put to him.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes, I understand, but I'm curious as to what you

13     want to show by drawing the witness's attention to the fact that he may

14     have omitted one particular regulation.  What is the significance of

15     this?

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, immediately after

17     that I will put to him a question asking him to agree with my conclusion

18     about the definition of organs, their role, and the form of leadership.

19     In order to put that question, I have to go through this a bit.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's get on with it.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, we will develop on the Law on Government for no more

23     than 15 seconds, just enough to look at Article 6, and you will agree

24     with me that there's nothing there but the fact that that article lists

25     the ministries within the government starting with the Ministry of the

Page 4955

 1     Interior, as you will certainly agree with me.  Am I right in saying all

 2     this?

 3        A.   Yes, I agree with you, and I would add that I think it is very

 4     interesting that Internal Affairs is listed first on the list of

 5     ministries.

 6        Q.   Well, very well.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  We'll have to break for two minutes just to

 8     permit Judge Hall to come in.

 9                           --- Break taken at 11.00 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning, I apologise for the interruption but

12     let the record show that we are now fully constituted.  Thank you.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honours?

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please, continue Mr. Cvijetic.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, could you please be shown Exhibit 1D01-1024.

17             Mr. Nielsen, it will be number 7 in your binder.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page number 1

19     in B/C/S.  There's no English version.  This is one of the documents

20     which entered the library of legal documents that has to be agreed upon

21     with the OTP.  It has been long in the offing.  Since the witness speaks

22     our language we are going to using article just one article from this

23     law, we should be done with this law very quickly.  This is the law on

24     ministers.  Mr. Nielsen, you will agree with me that you omitted to take

25     a look at that regulation, but it's neither here nor there.

Page 4956

 1             Could you please look at Roman II dealing with republican

 2     administration bodies, and you will see a list of all the different

 3     ministries, and then in Article 8 which starts on this page and goes

 4     on -- continues on the following page, you will assist us as well as the

 5     Trial Chamber -- you will agree with me when I say that this is the first

 6     law that describes in detail the authorities, tasks, and duties of these

 7     particular ministries and what it is supposed to do within its purview.

 8     Could you please look at that article, I believe that it's quite

 9     elaborate, and will you agree with me in all that I've just said?

10        A.   I agree with you that it is relevant for Internal Affairs.  I

11     agree with you that I should have cited it because it is relevant for

12     Internal Affairs.  I agree with that you Article 8 deals with the remit

13     and ambit of the Ministry of the Interior, and I would point out -- now

14     whether it's the first or second matter issued, it's certainly issued on

15     the same day that the Law on Internal Affairs is issued, so ...

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.  Can I just summarise all the

17     regulations.  I'm not going to deal with the Law on State Administration

18     that you studied.  Can we then agree that the Ministry of the Interior

19     was one of the administration bodies headed by the minister in charge of

20     that body.  Would that be the shortest possible definition of this

21     particular body?

22        A.   I agree.  And I believe it's the Law on State Administration that

23     says that minister is in charge of the ministry, which is a logical

24     point.

25        Q.   And that it manages that body as one of the administrative

Page 4957

 1     bodies?

 2        A.   I agree with you, sir.

 3        Q.   As I have already promised the Trial Chamber, I will move on to

 4     your report now without any further ado.  I will move on to paragraphs

 5     95, 96, 97, and 98 of your report.  And I will also move on to --

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  With all due respect, I apologise for

 7     interrupting you again, but may I ask if the whole point of this exercise

 8     was just to show that the ministry is a part of the administration and it

 9     is headed by a minister?

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Not only that.  I also wanted to

11     demonstrate the way that body was managed, how it was administered.  That

12     part is also relevant to us.  And later on we will elaborate that issue

13     further, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm not sure if we have learned much about how it

15     was administered other than the fact at that it was administered

16     according to the law, and I suppose that the law will not provide any

17     different provisions from what is normally applicable to a ministry in a

18     modern state.

19             So, so far I have seen no surprise.  And, again, my question is

20     if this is not a contested matter between the parties, then I really

21     think that we should not have used and spent any time on this.  So my

22     advice again to parties on both sides is to focus on the point that are

23     contested, that are at issue here otherwise we'll never get to the end.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I just wanted to indicate with regard

25     to whether it's a contested issue or not, the constitution and the Law on

Page 4958

 1     Internal Affairs and the Law on Ministries and State Administration are

 2     all part of the law library that we put together that have stipulation,

 3     but we don't contest the contents of these laws, so I don't think it's

 4     necessary to ask the witness about what it says.  It says what it says.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the parties do not

 6     agree on the way that body was administered and managed.  This will be

 7     the point of my cross-examination when I come to that part, and you will

 8     understand why it was very important for me to clarify that matter with

 9     the witness and how things were positioned at the time.  May I proceed

10     with the Law on Internal Affairs, Your Honours?

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Please proceed.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, I have already referred to the relevant paragraphs

14     in your report.  I would like to focus on paragraph 97 first of all.  In

15     this paragraph you claim, as we can all read, or you provide a comment on

16     the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, rather, and you say that

17     it's provisions are in keeping with the remarks of Goran Zugic, the

18     Bosnian Serb who worked at the security services in Tuzla, and you quote

19     things from his letter.

20             Mr. Nielsen, when it comes to this letter by Mr. Zugic do you

21     consider it a serious source for the wording and the provisions of the

22     Law on Internal Affairs?

23        A.   I would specify so that we are clear that I don't cite a letter

24     of Mr. Zugic, rather I cite his comment at the meeting of Bosnian Serb

25     police officials at a meeting that we previously discussed on the 11 of

Page 4959

 1     February 1992, which is, of course, prior to the promulgation of the RS

 2     Law on Internal Affairs.

 3        Q.   No, no, no, I apologise.  Well, yes, yes, but look at your own

 4     text, it says that the provisions of the Law on Internal Affairs are in

 5     accordance or in keeping with Mr. Zugic's remark.  This is the part that

 6     I was referring to in my question, and if you want me to be more

 7     specific, let me ask you this:  Did Goran Zugic's words have an impact on

 8     the wording and the text of certain provisions in this law, that's my

 9     specific question to you?

10             MR. HANNIS:  That calls for speculation on the part of this

11     witness to know what the drafters of the law knew about what Mr. Zugic

12     said.  I think that's beyond his knowledge.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The witness can express this by himself.

14             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, Mr. Cvijetic, when I write that

15     comment what I mean is that there are indications that certain elements

16     in the Law on Internal Affairs, by no means all of the Law on Internal

17     Affairs of the Republika Srpska but certain elements in it, bear traces

18     from an analytical point of view of having stemmed from previously

19     expressed concerns and dissatisfactions of Bosnian Serbs in SRBiH MUP as

20     regards the previous Law on Internal Affairs that stem from 1990, and I

21     can give a very specific example of that:  The Bosnian Serbs, as I state

22     in my report, were actively seeking the establishment of a new Security

23     Services Centre in Trebinje, in Eastern Herzegovina.  Such a Security

24     Services Centre was not provided for in the 1990 law, but was provided

25     for in the 1992 law which the Bosnian Serb Assembly drafted and passed.

Page 4960

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Nielsen, I apologise.  My question was very

 3     specific and could you provide a specific answer to it.  Did it and to

 4     what extent did Mr. Zugic's words have any impact on the drafting of this

 5     law and the text of this law, yes or no?

 6        A.   Whether his words personally had any effect, I do not know.  I do

 7     know that the thoughts that he expressed are evident in the new law.

 8        Q.   Well, I cannot but ask you that, would you say that the complete

 9     procedure proceeding the passing of this law and what you told us

10     yesterday and the day before yesterday on examination-in-chief and on

11     cross-examination when you are talking about the transformation of the

12     MUP, the [indiscernible] that was under the influence of the positions of

13     the aforementioned gentleman?

14        A.   My answer to your question is I believe that the drafting -- the

15     transformation of the MUP and the drafting of the new Law on Internal

16     Affairs of the RS was under the influence of the persons who participated

17     at the 11 February 1992 meeting and that Goran Zugic was one of the

18     participants at that meeting.

19        Q.   Very well, we have to go back to paragraphs 96 and 98 in your

20     report.  One before and one after 97 where you say openly that a new Law

21     on Internal Affairs is mostly based on the extricated text of the Law on

22     Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this is

23     what you say in 1998.  My very specific question to you - and I'm calling

24     for a yes or no answer:  When you look at paragraphs 96 and 98, would you

25     say that your paragraph 97 contradicts what you say in paragraphs 96 and

Page 4961

 1     98?

 2        A.   I do not at this point see a contradiction, no.

 3        Q.   Very well.  Well, I will take that as a valid answer.  We can't

 4     agree on everything, can we.  I will now move on to paragraph 99 in your

 5     report.  We'll stay with it very briefly.  You state in this paragraph,

 6     Mr. Nielsen, that one of the main and most obvious differences between

 7     the two laws concerns terminology.  Will you agree with me when I say

 8     that it is the least important of all differences?

 9        A.   I don't agree.  I think it's significant and that they change

10     these terms given that they were so closely leaning up against the 1990

11     law, I don't see anything specifically related to the RS in doing this.

12     They are actually doing the same thing that lawyers all across eastern

13     Europe are doing at that point; namely, removing references to, for

14     example, working peoples' and replacing them with citizens which reflects

15     a transition from a socialist political system, a party state system, to

16     a multi-party system in which the old socialist provisions are no longer

17     present.

18        Q.   Well, that was the essence of my suggestion when I said that only

19     that terminological difference had its basis in the title of the former

20     republican secretariat which resounds with socialist connotations in the

21     law.  And would you go to that issue, could you please tell me, I'm sure

22     you know because you peruse so many documents, on all the documents

23     issued by the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina Mr. Delimustafic signs his name and precedes it with

25     the title of minister; isn't that correct?

Page 4962

 1        A.   Yes, that's correct, and that reflects a de facto change because

 2     he should have signed as secretary according to the 1990 law.

 3        Q.   The essence of my remark is that that terminology should not be

 4     given that much importance and significance; am I right in saying that?

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] He can say yes or no.

 6             MR.  HANNIS:  Your Honour, it's argumentative.  He's the expert,

 7     he wrote the report, he decides how much weight to give it.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, you have made the minister

 9     title next to Mr. Delimustafic's name a very relative term, although the

10     law is explicit.

11             THE WITNESS:  Well, I think it's a -- it's certainly a

12     difference.  Let us agree that it is a difference between the 1990 and

13     1992 laws, and then you and I may disagree about whether it's a

14     significant difference or a less significant difference, but I think we

15     both agree that it's a difference in the letter of the law.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Very well.  In my view, it is not very significant, particularly

18     in terms of terminology --

19             MR. HANNIS:  Objection.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But we can agree to disagree can't

21     we.

22             MR. HANNIS:  That's something for submission at the end of the

23     case.  It's not appropriate for him to make those kind of comments when

24     he's addressing the witness.  His opinion he keeps to himself until it's

25     time to make presentations to you.

Page 4963

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, let's go on.  Move on, next

 2     question.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I accept Your Honours and I will

 4     move on indeed.

 5        Q.   Let's move on to paragraph 101.  In this paragraph you deal with

 6     the links that the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska

 7     establishes.  Have you found it?  Oh, you are looking for the law.  And

 8     you deal with the same matter in Articles 2, 22, 23, you deal with the

 9     same matter in all those articles, and the matter at hand are the way you

10     define or the, rather, the way the law defines links between the Ministry

11     of the Interior and federal bodies in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

12             Let me remind you that at the moment when this law was passed,

13     Yugoslavia was still in existence; am I right?

14        A.   Yes, sir, I agree with you.  I would just like to ask if you

15     could tell me which tab the law is at?

16        Q.   Just briefly, please.  Just briefly.  Are you looking for the Law

17     on Internal Affairs?  I apologise, I thought that you already had it

18     before you.  It's number 1.  That's what you should be looking for.

19             Look at Article 2 and this is where you mention that link.  Look

20     also at Article 22.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I'm rushing, I have

22     neglected to inform the Trial Chamber of the document number.  It is

23     1D01-1112.  No, that's not the document.  It is the former 65 ter 1D01---

24     yes, yes, it's coming.  Yes, very well.  Excellent.

25             Now we are where we should be.  And for the time being in both

Page 4964

 1     versions, we will need the same page, page number 1.  And we are looking

 2     at Article number 1, paragraph number 1 in that article.  That's it.

 3     Thank you.  I apologise, I only need to look at Article 2 which is

 4     already on the screen.  In Article 2 you are dealing with the link, there

 5     is just one question in respect of all the three articles.

 6             Can we now look at Articles 22 and 23, which are both on page 3

 7     in both the English and the B/C/S versions of the text.  That's it.

 8     Thank you.

 9        Q.   These are the relevant provisions.  And you are pointing to the

10     fact that there is a link between the ministry and federal bodies.  My

11     question to you was whether at that moment Yugoslavia still existed and

12     you will agree with me that Bosnia and Herzegovina were still not an

13     internationally recognised state, that it was still an integral part of

14     Yugoslavia, and if that is true, then these provisions should not

15     constitute something that would point to something that is not in keeping

16     with the regulations, as it were?

17        A.   I agree with you, and I do not say that these provisions are in

18     violation with other regulations.  I point out in paragraph 101 that this

19     was a logical provision given the public claims of the RS leadership that

20     they wished to maintain relations with the Yugoslav state and federal

21     officials based in Belgrade.

22        Q.   You also agree with me that we could also look at the

23     constitution and conclude that this is within the remit of the

24     constitution.  I don't know whether it is necessary for us to look at

25     Article 3 in the constitution, Your Honours, where it says that the

Page 4965

 1     republic is an integral part of the federal state of Yugoslavia.  Is that

 2     correct?  You have the constitution before you.  Maybe we should actually

 3     open the constitution and look at Article 3, that will confirm that the

 4     link between the republican ministry and the federal institution is not

 5     against the constitution.  The document number is P181, and in your

 6     binder it's tab 5, I believe, Mr. Nielsen.

 7        A.   I agree with you that that is what Article 3 of the constitution

 8     says.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And also can we look at Article

10     143 in the constitution which is on page 10 in the B/C/S version and in

11     English it is on page 23.  We are looking at transitional or final

12     provisions in paragraph 143.  Yes.

13        Q.   You will agree with me -- let's just see whether that page is on

14     the screen, you will agree with me that the constitution and so on and so

15     forth -- you will agree with me that the provisions of the constitution

16     are reflected on the Law on the Interior allowing for all sorts of

17     options in the political resolution to the crisis in the territory of the

18     former Yugoslavia.  All options are open for Yugoslavia to remain as it

19     was, for Bosnia to be a new state.  These final provisions allow for all

20     those options and those options, possible options, are reflected on the

21     Law on Internal Affairs, will you agree with me?

22        A.   Yes, sir, I agree with you that that is what Article 143 of the

23     constitution says.

24        Q.   Very well.  Would you then agree with me that all these

25     provisions concerning links with federal organs of the Socialist Federal

Page 4966

 1     Republic of Yugoslavia continued to exist in the laws of the Socialist

 2     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and their application continued in the

 3     territory that was not under the control of Serbia?

 4        A.   I would agree with you that the officials of the RS regarded the

 5     federal organs of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its

 6     laws to continue to exist on the territory under their control.

 7        Q.   No, Mr. Nielsen, my question had do with the provisions of the

 8     Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 9     They also kept these provisions on links with federal organs; they have

10     been copied.  Do you agree with me?

11        A.   Yes, sir, and I believe that's what I state in my report.

12        Q.   Very well.  Let us now move to your report.  Paragraph 151.  Have

13     you found it?

14        A.   Yes, sir.

15        Q.   You deal with Articles 37 and 38.  Have you located of paragraph

16     121 of your report?

17        A.   121, not 151?

18        Q.   That's what I said, 121.  It may have been misinterpreted.  121.

19        A.   I'm at 121.

20        Q.   Okay.  So we'll focus on Article 37 of the law from 1990, and

21     that's also Article 38 of the Law on Internal Affairs.  You'll have to

22     look at them in parallel.  It's your number 1 and in tab 2 you have the

23     other law.  We want to focus on Article 38.  The Law on Internal Affairs

24     of Republika Srpska --

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's see if we have it on the

Page 4967

 1     screen.  It's 1D01-1112.  And in B/C/S we need page 5.  And in English

 2     page 6.  The Law on Internal Affairs.  Very good.  Thirty-eight, and in

 3     B/C/S it's on page 5.  Could we just see 38 in B/C/S.  That's it.

 4        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, since the Trial Chamber cannot follow both the laws

 5     at the same time, we'll have to see this provision in the Law on

 6     Republika Srpska and then go back to the law on the -- of the socialist

 7     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and detect the differences.  It concerns

 8     certain restrictions envisaged by this article with the onset of

 9     extraordinary circumstances endangering the law and order.  It says that

10     minister may ban the assembly of people and movements of people in public

11     places, or in a public place?

12        A.   Yes, sir, I agree with you that that is what Article 38 says.

13        Q.   And in your comment on this provision you say that the difference

14     between these two provisions is that the Law of Republika Srpska does not

15     envisage the possibility of appeal by citizens whose movement and

16     assembly is limited in this way, whereas appeal is possible in the law,

17     in the 1990 law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  This

18     comment is towards the end of paragraph 121 in your report.  So the

19     difference is that the Republika Srpska law does not provide for any

20     possibility of appeal.

21        A.   I believe that I state that that is a difference in the two

22     versions of Article 38, that those portions to which you referred,

23     Article 38 in the 1990 law, are excised from the 1992 law Article 38.

24        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, that's precisely the purpose of my

25     cross-examination.  If one reads only your comment, one gets one

Page 4968

 1     impression, and when we compare with the 1990 law, a completely different

 2     impression is created about this right to appeal.  To this particular

 3     section, neither law envisages the right to appeal, but there was a right

 4     to appeal a certain part that was deleted from the Republika Srpska law;

 5     therefore, we have to look at the law 1D01-1054, that's the law of the

 6     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We'll need page 5 in B/C/S and 11

 8     in English.  Should I repeat?  We need the same article, 38.  No, this is

 9     not the right place.  1D01-1054.  I think we are still on the

10     Republika Srpska law.  We need the Law of the socialist republic.

11     Article 38, page 5.  Yes, that's where it begins.  We are actually more

12     interested in the second part.  That's right.

13        Q.   In this first part, both laws deal with the restrictions on

14     assembly of an unidentified number of people.  However, the law of the

15     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina contains a certain type of

16     restriction that was later deleted, and that's the right of organs of the

17     interior, that certain persons by name and surname may be detained or

18     restrict their movement by keeping them at the police station.  They may

19     be prohibited interest leaving a certain place and having to report

20     regularly, so-called house arrest, in order to bar them from public

21     places.  The Republika Srpska law does not contain this provision.  You

22     have noticed that and you just said so a moment ago, didn't you?

23        A.   Yes, and I'm happy to agree with you again.

24        Q.   Those persons, because they are identified, had to be given under

25     the old law a formal decision and because of that they had to be given

Page 4969

 1     the right to appeal; correct?

 2        A.   I'm failing to see the passage - perhaps you could assist me -

 3     that refers to certain persons by name.  I see at certain public places,

 4     but I'm looking for the passage with certain persons by name to which you

 5     refer.

 6        Q.   I'll try to be of assistance.  In the first paragraph where it

 7     says:

 8             "To impose the decision on persons who are already known to the

 9     organs as a risk, and these persons can have their movement limited by

10     being issued a decision and given the right to appeal."

11        A.   Yes, agree with you.  I was looking for the term

12     "odraca lanica" [phoen] but as you pointed out, I see how you reach your

13     conclusion.

14        Q.   And quite simply because you are a historian specialising in the

15     history of eastern countries, I wonder if you will agree with me, or,

16     rather, do you know that in practice it was mostly applied against

17     political dissidence in the former regime.  During public events they had

18     to be either on house arrest or kept at the police station, or they had

19     to report regularly, do you know about that fact?

20        A.   Yes, and that certainly conforms to my knowledge about the way

21     socialist Yugoslavia operated.

22        Q.   Then you will agree with me that by deleting that clause in the

23     Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, certain democratic changes

24     took effect after multi-party elections because there were no longer any

25     dissidence, so this provision wasn't needed anymore and it was omitted

Page 4970

 1     therefore?

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Could we have some clarification on what counsel is

 3     referring to when he says deleting clause, is he referring to deleting a

 4     section on the right to an appeal or something else?

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, the entire passage regarding

 6     restrictions of movement, the obligation to report to the station, and

 7     all the other restrictions, all that was omitted from the Republika

 8     Srpska law.  So there is no issuing of decisions and no right to appeal

 9     because it's no longer needed.  I think Mr. Nielsen already agreed with

10     me.

11             THE WITNESS:  Well, I agree with you that on that particular

12     point it is one of the aspects of the 1992 law that reflects a transition

13     from socialism to a multi-party system.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.

15             That's all about this paragraph in your report.  We can move to

16     the next one, 122.  Again in this paragraph, you deal with a similar

17     provision in both laws and this leads us to a topic that's very relevant

18     us and other proceedings before this Tribunal.  A very sensitive issue.

19     The right of organs of Internal Affairs to violate the privacy and

20     inviolability of letters and other forms of communications between

21     citizens, telephone and other types of communication, that is what you

22     deal with here; right?  And you identify certain differences.

23             The Law on Internal Affairs, we have the old Bosnia-Herzegovina

24     law.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We could look at Article 39 while

Page 4971

 1     we have it on the screen.

 2        Q.   It's number 2 in your binder.  We'll have to look at both laws at

 3     the same time for awhile.  Article 39 of the Law of the Socialist

 4     Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina says that the republic secretary is the one

 5     who decides that Internal Affairs organs can have a look at somebody's

 6     letters, wire-tap their conversations, et cetera.  And it also specifies

 7     in which way and under what circumstances.  We'll have to compare it to

 8     Article 39 of the Republika Srpska law to see how wire-tapping is

 9     regulated there.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have that law back, the

11     one that ends with 1112.  1D01-1112.  Page 5 in B/C/S, page 6 in English.

12        Q.   You identified the differences.  Here the decision to go against

13     the privacy is made by the supreme court and only then can the republic

14     organ of Internal Affairs act, that's the difference you identified;

15     correct?

16        A.   Yes, sir, I agree that's an accurate summary of Article 39 and

17     it's an accurate summary of my report's paragraph 122 to which you refer.

18        Q.   Very well.  Now, we cannot but go into both constitutions

19     regarding the application of this article to see whether the provisions

20     of both laws are consistent with the constitution of the Socialist

21     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the constitution of Republika Srpska.

22     Therefore, let us go back to the constitution.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] First, of the Serbian Republic of

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina, P181.  We need page 2 in B/C/S and 4 in English to

25     look at Article 22.  We need to -- okay, we see both versions.

Page 4972

 1        Q.   So if you compare the constitutional provision regulating the

 2     privacy and the protection of privacy of correspondence and telephone

 3     communication, you see that this right to restrict the freedoms concerned

 4     are transferred to the supreme court and the corresponding provision in

 5     the Law on Internal Affairs is consistent with the provisions of

 6     Article 22 of the constitution.  Do you agree?

 7        A.   I agree with that, yes, sir.

 8        Q.   Then it remains for us to see how it's regulated in the

 9     constitution of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D01-0942.

11        Q.   In your binder it's number 8.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, if your point is to prove that the

13     intercepts were made illegally, then I believe that this witness is not

14     the right source to confirm your point.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm dealing with

16     differences in provisions that the witness himself dealt with only to the

17     extent that he dealt with them.  And that's what I have been doing all

18     this time, comparing the two laws as he did.

19             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, but as to this particular provision,

20     we don't have any dispute, I don't think there's any disagreement.  It

21     says what it says, and we pointed to no -- nothing in the changes that we

22     say is reflective of something that relates to the crimes charged in this

23     event, in this indictment.  I don't know, I feel like I'm saying the

24     emperor has no clothes, but I don't understand what is this is relevant

25     to.  It's not something we are arguing about, not on this provision.

Page 4973

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That would have been my next question,

 2     Mr. Cvijetic.  If it is not contested, then leave it and move on to

 3     something else.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only want to

 5     establish the time when the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 6     changed the way in which this right can be restricted.  So far evidence

 7     has not been led before this court about that.  Amendments from a certain

 8     year have not been put.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  But we don't need this witness to do that, Your

10     Honour.  That will appear in the documents.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's point one.  And point two would be, why is

12     that relevant?

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] To explain the differences in

14     arrangements made in the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska as

15     compared with the same provisions in the law of the Socialist Republic of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina and to see where the source of the difference is.

17     That's my purpose.  The witness deals with differences all the time, and,

18     therefore, we should study them and leave nothing unclear.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Unless you can persuade me as just being one of

20     the Judges on the Bench, that this is material to your case, then my

21     suggestion would be that you round this up very quickly and move on to

22     something else.

23             JUDGE HALL:  And I concur fully with Judge Harhoff.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree completely.  I don't need

25     more than five minutes.

Page 4974

 1             Please, we need Article 195.  That's page 35.

 2        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, would you agree with me that this provision, the way

 3     it is, in the Law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina is

 4     consistent with the Article 195 of the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 5     where it says that the right to privacy can be restricted by the republic

 6     organ, the republic secretary, not the court?  The constitution does not

 7     say the court.

 8        A.   Yes, sir, I agree with you.

 9        Q.   And let us just open the amendment, Your Honours, to see when

10     this was changed.  We need 1D01 --

11             JUDGE HALL:  Why, Mr. Cvijetic?

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] To establish the time when the

13     change occurred.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Does it matter?  What turns on that?

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is important to pin-point the

16     moment from which differences existed and whether this provision is in

17     keeping with the constitutional amendments.  This is all I want to

18     clarify.  And I don't understand why you are preventing me from dealing

19     with the constitutional amendment which would need no more than a minute

20     to deal with.

21             JUDGE HALL:  One minute.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Unless the technical services

23     extend that time, can you please open document on page 2.  This is in

24     B/C/S only.  The amendments have never been translated.  I am going to

25     ask the witness to confirm all that.

Page 4975

 1        Q.   It's in your binder 9.  You've got it.  Yes, this will bring me

 2     right to the break.  Yes.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And then now can you scroll down,

 4     please.  Let's see if we've got the right document.  1D01-1006.  Page 2.

 5     I believe that we don't have the right document at all.  Please, can you

 6     take that time off my time.  1D01 -- yes, that's the document, thank you.

 7     Page 2, please.  We need page 2 on the left-hand side at the bottom of

 8     the page, those of you who understand Roman figures, it's 69.

 9        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, bullet point 4, it says here that in the Socialist

10     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the constitutional provisions were

11     changed in the sense as stated herein, and a consent is sought from the

12     constitutional court, is that correct, or rather, it is not the

13     constitutional court but rather the relevant court based on the court's

14     solution.  Do you agree with me?  My question to you is this:  Since you

15     are familiar with the Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic

16     of Bosnia-Herzegovina, do you know if that law in this part was ever

17     aligned with the constitutional amendments?

18        A.   I'm not in possession of knowledge to be able to answer that

19     question, sir.

20        Q.   Very well.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I believe

22     that we should already have been in the break time and I'm ready to

23     continue after the break, and I have also finished with this particular

24     question.  There is nothing else I wish to elicit from the witness in

25     that respect.

Page 4976

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Well, this is a convenient point.  So 20

 2     minutes.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  While the witness is being escorted back to the

 6     stand, we understand that Mr. Hannis has asked for a few minutes at the

 7     end of today's session to deal with certain matters, so the witness would

 8     be -- although he said 5 minutes, experience has indicated that perhaps

 9     we should stand the witness down at 1.30, so, Mr. Cvijetic, you would

10     keep an eye on the time in LiveNote.  As I say, I prefer the LiveNote

11     clock rather than the clock on the wall.

12             MR. HANNIS:  And one of those matters we'll deal with the return

13     date for Mr. Nielsen, and it may be good to have him in the courtroom

14     that we can inquire of him of availability dates.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Cvijetic, the Trial Chamber is very upset

16     about the way you are conducting until now the cross-examination and the

17     way you deal with the time management problem.  And this seriously

18     affects the Chamber's willingness to grant the Defence's application for

19     one more day of cross-examination.

20             So I would strongly suggest to you to adapt your way of

21     cross-examination, to stop asking the witness whether he agrees with

22     paragraphs of the law, et cetera, and to go straight to the point and, as

23     I said, we will take into consideration the application for an extra day

24     after having seen where we are going with this cross-examination.  Thank

25     you.

Page 4977

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I'll bear

 2     that in mind.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honours?

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, we have arrived at paragraph 124 in your expert

 8     report.  Have you found it?  You provide a comment in this paragraph, a

 9     comment on the provision 49 of both the laws in question.  The issue was

10     already discussed by you and Mr. Zecevic, and the issue at hand is the

11     text of the solemn declaration.  Have you got it?

12             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter is not sure whether it is

13     paragraph 49 or 41.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Have you got the law?

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic --

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   41.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  There was a question about whether it

20     was number 41 or 49.  But it's been clarified.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That has been clarified.  Very

22     well.

23        Q.   Have you got it?  Yes.  You have already discussed that with

24     Mr. Zecevic.  I don't want to go over the same grounds again.  I believe

25     that everybody is [indiscernible] when we start talking about this, but I

Page 4978

 1     wouldn't agree that this should be left for some later time.

 2             Judge Harhoff asked Mr. Zecevic and yourself to talk about the

 3     differences and to be aware of them, and I believe that Judge Delvoie

 4     also contributed to the discussion, and you who speak the local language

 5     will agree with me that this should be clarified once for all in just one

 6     sentence.

 7             Mr. Nielsen, you don't have to read any regulations, just listen

 8     to me.  The solemn declaration has an official nature when it comes to

 9     the appearance of individuals before official bodies such as courts, the

10     military, and the police.  As an expert, you also provided a solemn

11     declaration.  You have pointed to the Official Note of the solemn

12     declaration.  Does this arise from our language and from the text of the

13     law?

14        A.   I am sorry, sir, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean

15     when you say:  "Does this arise from our language ..."?

16        Q.   The text of the solemn declaration or, rather, the title solemn

17     declaration points to the official tone or note of that statement, would

18     you agree with me?

19        A.   Yes, sir, I agree with you.

20        Q.   And you said that already.  Judge Delvoie provided a certain

21     character to the declaration [as interpreted] and let me say that it has

22     wider significance.  It is often used in private situations and even more

23     so it has a religious component which means that is it is also used in

24     unofficial situations?

25        A.   Yes, I agree with you, sir.

Page 4979

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] My attention has just been drawn

 2     to the fact that the word in the transcript is "declaration" whereas it

 3     has to be the word "oath."

 4        Q.   Okay.  Now we have arrived at the shortest possible definition of

 5     the word "oath," and now we have to deal with another term which is the

 6     term "loyalty."  Please listen carefully, I'll try to do it in one

 7     sentence.  In our language, loyalty implies allegiance to a certain idea,

 8     political or any other type of idea or a group of people; can you agree

 9     with that?

10        A.   I would certainly agree with you.  You are the native speaker.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And I promise to the honourable

13     judges that neither I nor Mr. Zecevic will raise this issue again unless

14     absolutely necessary.

15        Q.   I would like to go back to your paragraph 124, and I would like

16     to establish and see whether you know when this obligation entered the

17     law.  I will explain and I will provide the Trial Chamber with the

18     relevant reference.  Can you please find Law on Internal Affairs of the

19     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in your binder 2.  We will be looking at

20     the Law on Amendments to that law which is document 1D01-0746.  I believe

21     that that is in binder 3.  It does not have a translation.

22             Have you got it?  It is The Law on Amendments to the

23     aforementioned law.  Very well.  Thank you.  And could you please go to

24     the following page.  We should be looking at Article 14, which is on the

25     following page.  Article 14 is on the following page.  There we have it.

Page 4980

 1     Article 14, have you got it, Mr. Nielsen?  Could you please look at the

 2     heading on the first page to see when that Law on the Amendments to Law

 3     on Internal Affairs came into effect?

 4        A.   I see that this is, I believe, from 1985, yes.

 5        Q.   Excellent.  That was what I wanted to hear from you.  So these

 6     amendments to the law and the solemn declaration entered the provisions

 7     of the law in the year 1985, do you agree?

 8        A.   I agree with you, yes, that's what Article 14 of the amendments

 9     states.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will explain why

12     this is important.  My colleague Zecevic and I still owe an explanation

13     to the Trial Chamber.  The Trial Chamber noticed in the testimonies of

14     experienced policemen who acquired the status of officials before 1985,

15     when they are asked whether they ever signed a solemn declaration, their

16     answer was always negative and they claim that at their time that was not

17     an obligation on their a part.

18             I shall refer to protected witness ST-121.  On page 3755 in this

19     case he provided his testimony on the 24th November 2009, and his -- the

20     relevant part starts with line 10 when my learned friend Mr. Zecevic

21     asked him whether he signed a solemn declaration and he said he didn't,

22     suffice for them to give me my badge and pistol and from then onwards I

23     was considered an official.  After that, Mr. Zecevic asked that person

24     when did you become an official, and he answered in 1976, as long back.

25             So, Your Honours, I just wanted you to understand the differences

Page 4981

 1     between the statements of older and younger policemen, between those who

 2     became officials before 1985 and those who became officials after 1985,

 3     that's the explanation that we owed to you with regard to the solemn

 4     declaration and I will leave it at that.  I will not come back to the

 5     issue again.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  But before we leave, Your Honour, I have a problem.

 7     We only have apparently a B/C/S version of this.  I can't read what's in

 8     paragraph 14 or Article 14.  Is that the oath as it read in 1985?  And we

 9     waited two months to put Mr. Nielsen on because we were supposed to be

10     getting English translations of the documents that are to be used in

11     cross-examination, and here we still don't have them.  It makes it

12     difficult for me to follow and be able to make informed objections.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we cannot deal with

14     the problem but since we just wanted to look at one provision in this

15     particular article and since Mr. Nielsen speaks the language, Mr. Nielsen

16     can tell us whether Article 14 contains the same wording of the solemn

17     declaration as appears in the extricated text of the same law dating back

18     to the year 1990.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Very well.  But you appreciate Mr. Hannis's point

20     that that is a second best solution to the problem.

21             THE WITNESS:  I confirm that the language in Article 14 of the

22     1985 amendments conforms to that in the 1990 Law on Internal Affairs.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So there's no difference?

24             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honour.  The texts appear to be identical.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

Page 4982

 1        Q.   We move on to paragraph 125 in your expert report, Mr. Nielsen.

 2     I apologise and I would like to come back to the previous point, in your

 3     footnote 239, which is Exhibit 1D01-1005.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the number.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This is in your binder 10,

 6     Mr. Nielsen, or rather this is tab 10 in your binder.  Let me read the

 7     exhibit number.  Okay.  I don't have to.

 8        Q.   Have you got it, Mr. Nielsen?  Have you got the document?  Yes.

 9     You dealt with this document in your footnote and my question is really

10     very simple, the text of the declaration which was obviously signed by a

11     Muslim, does it correspond to the text as we find it in the Law on

12     Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska as you see in the brackets?  Could

13     you please compare the two texts, you speak the language, I'm sure you

14     will be able to assist us with this.

15        A.   I don't think I need to go and compare it, I'm quite content to

16     recognise that this is the language that is present in the RS Law on

17     the -- on Internal Affairs.  I would note that it of course refers to --

18     when it refers to republic it is referring to the RS and not to the

19     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]  Thank you.  This document might

21     be marked for identification or perhaps it could also be admitted into

22     evidence because the witness has used this document in writing his

23     report, so I would like to tender this document into evidence, please.

24             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

Page 4983

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   We now arrive at paragraph 1 to 5, Mr. Nielsen --

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D140, Your Honours.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, in this paragraph you are dealing with the issue of

 7     an order issued by the minister of the interior and its fate or, rather,

 8     its execution; isn't that correct?

 9        A.   Yes, that is correct.

10        Q.   My question again is very simple.  What would have been the

11     punishment for a failure to comply with an order of this nature?  And if

12     there was a punishment, how would it have been executed and where?

13        A.   I first wish to clarify that in my response when I say "yes, that

14     is correct," I mean this is an article that pertains to orders issued by

15     the minister of Internal Affairs, not a particular order that he had or

16     could issue.

17             And I believe that the answer to your question is that the

18     penalties set out -- potential penalty set out for disobeying ministerial

19     orders are set out in a separate documents of the ministry; namely, the

20     ministry's own internal regulations on disciplinary punishment and

21     proceedings.

22        Q.   In other words, you agree that disobedience implies a

23     disciplinary measure, there was a range of disciplinary measures that

24     could have been applied, the strictest of them being the termination of

25     employment.  Do you agree?

Page 4984

 1        A.   With the caveat that I don't actually have the regulations on

 2     disciplinary proceedings on front of me to confirm that, I would agree

 3     with your characterisation of it.

 4        Q.   I can open it and I can provide it to you.  This is one of the

 5     topics that I would like to deal with.  I believe that in your binder you

 6     will find the regulation on disciplinary responsibility.  Could you take

 7     a moment to find it and open it.  Very well.  We will refer to it when we

 8     talk about bylaws and other regulations that the minister was supposed to

 9     pass.  But you are right, this is regulated by the Law on Disciplinary

10     Responsibility of Civil Servants and other bylaws.

11             Let's go to your paragraph 130.  Have you got it?  In this

12     paragraph you are dealing with the issue of keeping individuals in

13     custody for reasons regulated by Article 49 in both laws.  And here you

14     find a major difference and you say that the 1990 law -- anybody could be

15     kept for up to three days if their identity was not known until the

16     moment their identity was established.  The 1992 law, however, that

17     custody can last for an undetermined period of time, do you see that in

18     your report?

19        A.   Yes, sir, and I would note that in November 1992, that the

20     steering council of the RS MUP, there were discussions about extending

21     the periods envisaged for detention in the RS MUP law.

22        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, however the problem rises from the fact that we are

23     not talking about custody but merely holding individuals whose identity

24     cannot be determined.  This is what we are talking about.  Could you

25     please go to Article 49 of the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika

Page 4985

 1     Srpska.

 2             And could you please read that article very carefully, read the

 3     whole lot.  1D01-1112 is the document that we are looking at.  Have you

 4     got it?

 5        A.   Yes, sir.

 6        Q.   You will certainly notice that in this law, in it's preamble, let

 7     me see if we are on the following page, 49, you'll see an explanation.

 8     49.  Where it says in paragraph 1:

 9             "In the Security Services Centre or in a public security

10     station," -- and I apologise, a person can be kept for up to three days.

11     And then further down it says a person whose identity is being

12     determined.

13             You will agree that you have made a mistake and that a person

14     could not be kept for any longer than three days?  This is in favour of

15     the person being held.  If the identity of such a person is established

16     within the -- within five hours, that person has to be released after

17     that time, after the five hours?  Am I right, Mr. Nielsen?  The

18     time-period is identical as in the 1990 law.

19        A.   Well, I'm happy to agree with you on that point.

20        Q.   Then you will also agree that the conclusion you arrived at in

21     130 is not sustainable and that the comment to that effect should be

22     deleted from that paragraph, from paragraph 130?

23             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, can we see in the English where he is

24     referring to.  I don't see any five hours on the English page that I'm

25     looking at.

Page 4986

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, no, five hours.  Where did you

 2     find five hours?  You have to look at Article 49.  I don't know if this

 3     has been interpreted properly.  Number 7 in the English version.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  I'm looking at page 62 of the transcript, line 11,

 5     where you said:

 6             "If the identity of such a person is established within the --

 7     within five hours, that person has to be released after that time, after

 8     the five hours.  Am I right, Mr. Nielsen?"

 9             So perhaps that was a mistranslation but that's what's in the

10     transcript and that's what I am looking for in the document.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I believe that was mentioned as an example.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Correct, correct, Your Honour.

13        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, I think we have agreed, there's no need to waste

14     more time on this.  I think we can agree that your specific conclusion

15     here is inaccurate?

16        A.   Well, I agree with you again.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But Mr. Cvijetic, let's get this right.  I mean,

19     I suppose the idea is that a person whose identity was unknown could be

20     detained or held in custody until his identity was established.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But not longer than three days.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Understood.  Thanks.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, we can now move to the next passage in your report,

25     stating with paragraph 150.  That's one line of your interpretation of

Page 4987

 1     the provisions of both laws with which you end and finalise your comments

 2     on the differences between the two laws of Republika Srpska and the

 3     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Since we'll have to continue

 4     looking at both laws, I'll first go through your report, through all the

 5     of paragraphs where you deal with this issue, and that's in several

 6     places.  Let's start with paragraph 150, where you quote Article 102 of

 7     the 1990 law, the law of the socialist republic, where it says that

 8     workers, employees of the republic secretariat may not engage in

 9     activities that are incompatible with their service.  And these duties

10     and activities are defined by the republic secretary.  That is to say,

11     workers, it says here, but in fact it applies to all the employees of the

12     republic secretariat, may not engage in activities incompatible with

13     their service, that's the passage you quote from the law here; right?

14        A.   Yes, that is point 12 in Article 120 of the -- excuse me, you are

15     referring to 102 because I also refer to that.  Yes, you're correct.

16     Yes, I agree with you.

17        Q.   That's how you started.  In the same paragraph 150, you comment

18     on the Law of Republika Srpska and you say that by deleting this -- the

19     deletion of this article as well as the corresponding clause in

20     Article 120 of the 1990 law, and - to assist the Trial Chamber - we'll

21     say that in this Article 120, point 12 envisages that engaging in

22     activities incompatible with service is a serious violation.  You say

23     that this point 12 and Article 120 both have been deleted, and could you

24     now compare this with the English version of your report.  I don't think

25     you meant it exactly that way, please.  Let's look at your English

Page 4988

 1     version.  Because it seems to me that this is much too harsh.

 2             You say the deletion of this article as well as the corresponding

 3     clause, et cetera, removed any sanctions against actions that would have

 4     been considered incompatible with policing in the SRBH MUP.  Just

 5     linguistically, is this correct?  Because it implies that by deleting

 6     this article, policemen have been amnestied from sanction against

 7     anything they do because what we are dealing here are with actions

 8     incompatible with service.  Do you agree that that this not quite right,

 9     linguistically speaking?

10        A.   Well, I agree that "actions" is a broader word than the term

11     "poslovi," affairs, and what I was referring to, specifically, is of

12     course the absence of point 12 in the 1992 law which refers to the word

13     "poslovi" which I would have translated as affairs that are incompatible

14     with official duty.

15        Q.   Very well.  So affairs incompatible with police service, we've

16     clarified that.

17             You have a footnote below where you explain that this

18     Article 102, that prohibited engaging in affairs incompatible with police

19     service was subject to amendments, amendments, I always mean when I say

20     amendments the old law from 1990, and in these draft amendments it is

21     itemised what such affairs may be.  Mainly, involvement in politics, but

22     you remark upon the fact that in this draft amendment to the law of the

23     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this point 12 was deleted;

24     namely, the point 12 that says it's a serious violation of discipline.

25        A.   Well, I think that the point of my footnote 163 and a point that

Page 4989

 1     I think that we can quickly agree on is that this change is to be seen in

 2     the context again of what we referred to earlier; namely, the transition

 3     of the country, whatever that country's name may have been at that time,

 4     from a socialist party state system to a multi-party state system and we

 5     see an ongoing discussion.  As I note, there's no indication that the

 6     draft law was ever adopted.  Given the fact that it was, as we have

 7     discussed in previous days in the interest -- may I finish my answer?

 8        Q.   Yes, if you are going to be brief.

 9        A.   Yes, I will try to be very brief.  And my point was that in the

10     atmosphere from November 1990 to April 1992 an atmosphere of increasing

11     politicisation of Internal Affairs, I think they -- it was in the

12     interest of all parties to allow a backdoor for political involvement of

13     police personnel.

14        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, I'm dealing with a specific issue that you deal with

15     extensively, the point of the serious violation, so we have gone too far.

16     I'm dealing with point 12.  In paragraph 158 you quote the provisions of

17     an article of the law, 120 and 114, where serious violations of

18     discipline are enumerated and specified.  Could you please read that

19     paragraph.  Conduct that shall be considered as violation of official

20     duty, and then it says, in addition to gross misconduct or serious

21     violation of official duty, do you think there's anything missing here?

22     You can open the provision of the law concerned, we'll do that later.  It

23     says specified in the law on state administration, which you did not put

24     here.

25        A.   Well, if it had been my intention to reproduce the law verbatim,

Page 4990

 1     then I would have just cut and pasted the law into my report.  My

 2     assumption is that whoever reads this would do so with a copy of the law

 3     beside him or her so that I don't need to reproduce every single word

 4     that's reproduced in the report, but I -- I -- certainly, it says it does

 5     refer to the Law on State Administration.  Correct.

 6        Q.   Yes, but that is precisely what created confusion.  Now, when we

 7     open the law we'll see where your omission lies.  In the Law on Internal

 8     Affairs, you enumerate these 11 instances of serious violations and you

 9     say that this item 12 is missing.  And in the end, in a passage called

10     "Conclusions on the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska,"

11     paragraph 174, you quote as the most important difference precisely this

12     one, your last sentence.  I quote:

13             "However, the 1992 RS law systematically removed all references

14     from the 1990 law that characterised engagement in inappropriate

15     activities as misconduct."

16             That is your final sentence on the law.  I suggest now that we

17     open the provisions of both laws to see whether you have omitted anything

18     and whether even in the law of Republika Srpska, engagement in activities

19     incompatible with service is also considered as misconduct.  Therefore we

20     need the Law on Internal Affairs, first of the Socialist Republic of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Sorry, my colleague tells me that it's better to

22     move immediately to the law of Republika Srpska.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D01-1112.  Let's see which page

24     this is.  Article 114.  Now, I don't have the page reference.  We need

25     Article 114 to which Mr. Nielsen refers.  There it is.  Do we have 114 in

Page 4991

 1     English.  It's page 16 in English.

 2        Q.   Mr. Nielsen, shall we focus now on the preamble that says:

 3             "In addition to acts of gross misconduct determined by the law

 4     and state administration, the following shall be considered misconduct:"

 5             You will agree, obviously, that this law and the 1992 law as well

 6     copies these instances of misconduct from the Law on State Administration

 7     and then adds more acts of misconduct that are specific to the field of

 8     Internal Affairs, and indeed there is no item 12, as you remarked

 9     correctly.

10             We should now open the Law on State Administration and see

11     whether among its provisions of misconduct this one is included.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we briefly look at 1D01 -

13     it's your number 12 - 0692.  And we need paragraph 296.  It's almost at

14     the end of this law.  Could we turn to the page where 296 is.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, I'm not sure I follow you on this

16     one.  Do you -- are you not confirming what the witness wrote in

17     paragraph 174 of his report, namely, that the 92 RS law systematically

18     removed all references that characterised engagement in inappropriate

19     activities?

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm trying to prove the

21     opposite, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But in the paragraph that we just saw, was there

23     such a provision?  Because I was just trying to read through it and I

24     didn't come across it.  Paragraph 12 to which you referred was indeed

25     missing from the text and that would seem to confirm the witness's point.

Page 4992

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Hannis is on his feet.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  I defer to having your question answered first, but

 3     I have a question about whether or not there's an English version of this

 4     and whether or not this is the 1990 Law on State Administration or a 1992

 5     Law on State Administration.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Article 114 of the law of

 7     Republika Srpska in its introduction as well as the Article 120 on the

 8     Law on Internal Affairs say that in addition to instances of serious

 9     misconduct established by the Law on State Administration; that is to

10     say, both laws take over examples of misconduct from the Law on State

11     Administration and then adds some more that are specific to the MUP.  So

12     now we opened the Law on State Administration, that is a point of

13     reference for both other laws.  This is a revised text, and we'll see

14     what the examples of misconduct are.

15             To answer Mr. Hannis, we don't have the English version

16     unfortunately.  Can we just scroll up to see the rest, the top of the

17     page.  That's it.

18             MR. HANNIS:  And can we clarify that this is the 1990 Law on

19     State Administration, not a 1992 law?

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is written at the top of the

21     page that it's 1990.

22        Q.   Right, Mr. Nielsen?  It says at the top of the page that it's

23     1990?

24        A.   I don't think you have to speak B/C/S to see that.

25        Q.   Okay.  On that page in point 2 can you find this particular point

Page 4993

 1     engaging in activity or work that is contrary to the interests of the

 2     administration organs service?

 3        A.   I see that what you just read accurately in Article 296 of the

 4     law.  I don't see it as point 2, but it is in Article 296.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  Since we don't have an English translation, could we

 6     indicate specifically where in paragraph 296.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The right column, the second

 8     bullet point.  That's it.

 9        Q.   You can translate what I'm saying:  Engagement in activity or

10     work that is contrary to the interests of serving with organs of

11     administration.  Do you agree with me?

12        A.   As always, I agree that you are reading accurately from the

13     document.

14        Q.   Well, Mr. Nielsen, you will agree with me then that if both laws

15     copied this itemised list of various forms of misconduct, they are

16     incorporated in both laws, and both these laws add to this list new ones.

17     If the RS law included point 12, it would just be a repetition of

18     something that is already envisaged as misconduct.  Do you agree with

19     that?

20        A.   I agree with you that based on this observation point 12 has been

21     excised because it is repetitive.  However, I would withhold any final

22     conclusion on that point until I saw and could ascertain that the 1992

23     Law on State Administration was identical with the 1990 law.

24        Q.   Very well.  Would you agree with me that listing forms of

25     misconduct one by one, carries with it the danger that something is

Page 4994

 1     omitted and a policeman can go scot-free on a technicality, if engaging

 2     in conduct which is actually a violation of discipline?  Do you agree?

 3     If you can't give me a brief answer then ...

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   You mention in report the decision of the constitutional court of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina, right, which considered this issue and envisaged a

 7     revision of these provisions of the law; correct?  Try to find a

 8     reference.

 9             You stated this in paragraph 163.

10        A.   Correct.

11        Q.   Did you have occasion to see that decision of the constitutional

12     court?

13        A.   No, I have not seen the decision of the constitutional court.

14        Q.   I'm afraid I won't have time to show it to you.  The

15     constitutional court decided, and we can call up the decision if it's not

16     too much trouble, we need 1D00-6688.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, I thought you said just less than a

18     minute ago that you would not have time to show it, and I think you have

19     made your point in relation to the issue of whether or not the new law

20     included punishment for engagement in inappropriate activities.  Again, I

21     don't think it's a fact that is contested by the Prosecution and I still

22     fail to see just how it's relevant.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, if the expert can agree that

24     engaging in affairs inappropriate to employees in Internal Affairs or

25     state administration is included in the law of Republika Srpska, I can

Page 4995

 1     finish here.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I believe he has done so.  Maybe the witness can

 3     confirm.

 4             THE WITNESS:  I think I have agreed several times, yes.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as far as the Law on

 6     Internal Affairs is concerned, I have completed my cross-examination and

 7     I believe this is the time when you said we should stop for today to

 8     leave time for administrative issues.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.  Yes, Mr. Hannis.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Just one -- I'm sorry, Your Honours, and I'm sorry

11     for interrupting Mr. Hannis, just one issue which I would like to raise

12     with Your Honours.  It's page 59.  It refers to document 1D140, and I was

13     notified by the Registrar that that in the transcript the -- our 1D

14     number was not read correctly, so I will reread it again for the purposes

15     of clarifications in the transcript.  So the Exhibit 1D140 should be

16     1D01-1015.  Thank you very much.  I am sorry, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

18             Yes, Mr. Hannis.

19             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  The two matters I had.

20     One relates to witness ST-187.  He is scheduled currently to testify the

21     last week in January.  He is a witness who has -- is apparently on a list

22     of those banned from travel within the EU.  So the Prosecution will be

23     filing a motion requesting that the court order that he be allowed safe

24     conduct to come here and testify and then return to the point from which

25     he departed.  We've spoken with both Defence counsel to ask them if they

Page 4996

 1     intend to oppose that request, and I just wanted to confirm on the record

 2     that they've indicate that they will not so that once we file the motion,

 3     you won't need to wait for a response from the Defence; is that correct,

 4     gentlemen?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honours.

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  After careful consideration, that is correct.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.  Thank you.  And then the second matter,

 8     Your Honour, concerns this witness, Mr. Nielsen.  He will have to come

 9     back in the new year, depending on your decision about whether or not you

10     are going to grant another full day for cross-examination to the Stanisic

11     team, I anticipate he will have to be here either two or three days.

12     We've tentatively slotted him either for February 8, 9, and 10 or

13     February 22, 23, and 24 if either of those dates are convenient for him.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  January or?

15             MR. HANNIS:  No, February, Your Honours.  We have Dr. Donja, I

16     think, as our first witness.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We have an e-mail correspondence from your camp

18     to suggest that Mr. Nielsen comes on 18, 19th, and 20th of January.

19             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, that's not -- that doesn't correspond

20     to my most recent e-mail and Excel spreadsheet from Ms. Pidwell.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sorry.

22             MR. HANNIS:  It partly related to the uncertainty about the

23     videolink.  We understand we may not be able to get confirmation until

24     January about whether or not we can have the videolink witnesses the

25     first week in February.  But one thing I wanted to try and do is confirm

Page 4997

 1     with Mr. Nielsen what dates might be available for him and we'll try and

 2     work around that.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Dr. Nielsen, could you assist us in at that

 4     regard?

 5             THE WITNESS:  I think that the dates of 8, 9, and 10 February are

 6     a possibility.  However, I will and have already planned travel to the

 7     United States in February 2010 anticipating that I thought I would finish

 8     by January.  So -- but I don't have -- obviously, I didn't bring my

 9     calendar to court, Your Honours, so I would have to defer until I could

10     consult my calendar in detail.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Well, then, if we can communicate through Victim

12     Witness and Mr. Nielsen about that, we'll try and work that out.  And

13     switch him with somebody in January if need be.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Could we perhaps see what is effectively needed.

15     Defence 1, until now seven hours and 30 minutes, so that leaves one

16     session.  And what are you applying for extra?  A whole hearing?

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, we applied for one whole day

18     because, Your Honours, the contents of the -- of Mr. Nielsen's report are

19     divided into four specific parts, and we have been able, I am sorry to

20     say, inefficiently to only comment the first two parts of the report of

21     Mr. Nielsen.  What I can promise to the Trial Chamber is that we will do

22     our utmost to stream-line our cross-examination in order to use as little

23     time as possible in order to shorten that, but I'm almost positive that

24     we cannot finish within one session.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, redirect, any idea?

Page 4998

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Well, I have no idea about Mr. Pantelic so far,

 2     but -- but I --

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I forgot about Mr. Pantelic.  I am very sorry,

 4     Mr. Pantelic.

 5             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, don't be sorry.  I'm working quietly,

 6     you know, and consistently so that's why you sometimes cannot see me in

 7     the courtroom, because I focus on the case.

 8             To be honest, we asked for four hours and I believe that I'll do

 9     my best to cut this time, but to be honest, it's very hard now to

10     predict.  I have to see at least first hour or first session in

11     cross-examination to see whether it fits with my dynamic and predictions,

12     but I believe that if I would be in a situation to more control witness,

13     that will be fine.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So, Mr. Hannis.

15             MR. HANNIS:  I'm hoping that I wouldn't require more than four

16     hours total in any event for -- to deal with both based on what I've

17     heard so far.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  If we could -- if we could make the time allotted

19     to Defence 1, there will be less time.  And say the day -- the day we'll

20     have one more hearing instead of one hearing and one session.  Then you

21     can more or less hope that we can finish in three hearings, in three

22     days.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, definitely, yes, Your Honour.  Yes.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So you'll restrict yourself to one hearing.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  One full day, thank you very much.  Appreciate it.

Page 4999

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And one day for Mr. Pantelic and one day for the

 2     redirect.  If the Chamber agrees with that.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  So Mr. Nielsen, Dr. Nielsen, that would be

 5     three days then.

 6             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honours.  I do need to know

 7     whether I'm permitted to communicate with the Stanisic Simatovic trial

 8     team since they intend to see me in January.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  That was an additional request I had to make in

10     connection with him, whether or not he could be permitted to speak with

11     that team that anticipates calling him sometime early next year.

12     Hopefully not before he's finished in this case, but they did want to

13     communicate with him.  And the Karadzic team also has him listed as a

14     Prosecution witness and may wish to speak with him before he finishes his

15     testimony here.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE HALL:  I think we have previously referred to what I

18     describe as a presumption of integrity, so all the persons who are

19     involved would know what they can and cannot properly do.  So do I

20     understand that the order that is being made now is that the witness is

21     stood down to a date to be confirmed to him through VWS?

22             MR. HANNIS:  That's what I'm proposing, Your Honour.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I just have one maybe even better suggestion

24     because I see Ms. Pidwell is here.  Maybe we can -- I think the most --

25     the most appropriate would be -- the most appropriate.  I wanted to say

Page 5000

 1     the best solution would be that the witness comes as the first witness on

 2     the 18th, 19th and 20th of January, and it is my understanding that the

 3     witness has the January free, that he is having a trip to the States

 4     somewhere in February and he doesn't know the date, so I think maybe if

 5     Ms. Pidwell can help us with that, maybe we can resolve this situation

 6     now, which I hope would be in the interest of all the parties.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, thank you, Mr. Zecevic.  I think I may have

 8     misunderstood the last thing that the witness said when he was talking

 9     about February.  Do I understand that in fact those earlier dates that we

10     got, that you are available on the 18th, 19th, and -- of January?  Could

11     you -- is that the position?

12             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I'm available on those three dates.  I

13     have to return to Denmark on the 21st of January to administer exams.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, we got that.

15             Ms. Pidwell, are you able to tell us at shortness notice whether

16     that works.

17             MS. PIDWELL:  Well, if I just throw my spreadsheet away, sir, and

18     start again it would work.  We have been directed to file today the

19     list -- or before the recess, anyway, the list of witnesses for

20     January/February in accordance with your direction last week.  We have

21     already organised the witnesses for January and we have organised for Dr.

22     Donja to come back on the 18th of January, so that he can basically be

23     the first witness up and come in and out again very quickly in between

24     his commitments because that date is a fixed date and there won't be any

25     delays or anything at that point.  He is confirmed.  We also have three

Page 5001

 1     witnesses from the region who are confirmed to come on that week.  They

 2     were subsequently --(redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11             If we slot Mr. Nielsen in before them all, that will all have to

12     be rearranged, including the subpoena date.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Well, without taxing our imagination anymore than is

14     absolutely necessary, wouldn't the simpler course to be - as Mr. Zecevic

15     has proposed - that the witness be excused to return on the 18th of

16     January and that, of course, is subject to, for instance, when he would

17     have reconsulted his diary, if there is a problem then the Chamber would

18     be notified and counsel will be notified through VWS.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, if I may be of --

21             JUDGE HALL:  Just a moment, Mr. Zecevic.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Pidwell, is there a possibility of Mr. -- of

24     Donja and Dr. Nielsen swapping places?

25             MS. PIDWELL:  Yes, there is.  I'm sure we could rearrange

Page 5002

 1     Dr. Donja.  It's the subsequent witness whose arrangements have been

 2     changed that I would be reluctant to move, but -- and Donja is only

 3     really scheduled to come back for another, I think, just over two hours

 4     of cross-examination and re-examination; whereas, Mr. Nielsen --

 5     Dr. Nielsen has three more days.  So the time slots aren't going to match

 6     up, but we can -- I can understand that it would be preferable for

 7     Dr. Nielsen to come back at that time, and we can possibly move another

 8     witness so that shuffle them along a little bit.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  We have to wrap this up in 90 seconds.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours I just wanted to say that I just

11     wanted to propose the very same thing, because it is my understanding

12     that it is important for Mr. Donja that he comes on a day specific date

13     when he will be conducted the cross-examination, redirect, so he can fly

14     back.  So as we know this witness has to be in Denmark on the 21st,

15     Robert Donja can be heard on the 21st of January and then that is how we

16     can deal with the problem.  And I believe Ms. Pidwell has exactly stated

17     that.  Thank you very much.

18             JUDGE HALL:  I believe everybody knows where we are, persons

19     reading the transcript might not have it, but I believe we all understand

20     where the position is.  So it only leaves for me to -- I assume there are

21     no other matters Mr. Hannis?

22             MR. HANNIS:  Only regarding English translations.  I am hoping

23     that these documents that haven't been translated and there is a pending

24     request from CLSS, so I'll have English translations to work with on

25     redirect.

Page 5003

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  Yes, I can confirm that.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the adjournment now so resume this

 3     hearing on the 18th of January and I wish everyone, counsel, the usher,

 4     the interpreters, the accused, anyone I missed, the court transcribers,

 5     and everyone a safe and happy Christmas holidays.

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  And also, Your Honours, on behalf of all Defence

 7     team, same to you and everybody here.  Thank you.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.

 9                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of

10                           January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.