1 Wednesday, 27 January 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T,
7 The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 manner by taking the appearances for today, please.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning. Tom Hannis
11 with Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic and
13 Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin,
16 Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, and Ms. Katarina Danicic Case Manager.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 stand, when we adjourned yesterday, Mr. Pantelic had asked for an
19 additional 45 minutes. The Chamber rules that he has an additional
20 30 minutes to complete his cross-examination of Dr. Nielsen.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]
24 Q. [No interpretation]
25 A. Good morning, Mr. Pantelic. And please given that we are here on
1 the 27th of January, allow me to wish you, all members of the Defence
2 team, and your clients a very happy day of Saint Sava.
3 Q. Thank you for your wishes. Yesterday when we adjourned we are
4 discussed of the structure of CSB
5 rule book. Would you agree with me if I put to you the proposition that
6 Mr. Zupljanin in his capacity of chief of CSB was not in a narrow sense
7 commander, but rather the co-ordinator who under his authority has
8 several departments not only strictly related to the police issues, but
9 and administrative, et cetera. So that we have to have a difference
10 between the commander of the police and the chief of CSB, which is more
11 administrative -- administrative and co-ordinative function?
12 A. Yes, I would agree with that.
13 Q. And in CSB
14 national security and sector for public security commanded by -- and
15 headed by, actually, the chiefs, respective chiefs. Would you agree with
16 me if I put to you that chief of sector for public security was actually
17 commander of the police units within the jurisdiction of CSB Banja Luka?
18 A. Yes, I agree that at the operational control level on a
19 day-to-day basis, command was within the jurisdiction of the public
20 security service.
21 Q. And would you agree with me that also under the command of chief
22 of sector for public security service were also Special Police units in
23 this structure?
24 A. I agree that the Special Police units were at the CSB level.
25 Obviously this changed, as we've discussed, after August 1992, but during
1 the early period under public security which again was subordinate to the
2 chief of the CSB
3 Q. And speaking of the special unit of CSB Banja Luka, would you
4 agree with me if I can tell you that several forms of this unit in
5 accordance with the regulations were -- one of these is joint police unit
6 which actually was combined of all active and reserve police forces
7 within the area of competence of CSB Banja Luka, and the amount, the
8 numbers were around 900?
9 A. I know that there were contingency plans, for example, in cases
10 of riots and such, for reserve police forces and active police personnel
11 to join in a larger force. However, I'm most familiar with a smaller
12 unit of approximately, I think, 160 or 170 persons that was commonly
13 known to be the Special Police unit of CSB Banja Luka.
14 Q. Yes, this is a third form of the units. And in between these two
15 there is a third one, actually, which is manoeuvring unit of police which
16 has a number around 700. Were you aware about this unit also which was
17 in the structure of CSB
18 A. I agree that there were several different forms of the unit. The
19 one that is visible most prominently in the documentation is the smaller
20 unit to which I referred.
21 Q. And speaking of this smaller unit were you aware or did you find
22 when you were reviewing all these documents in your work that the
23 commander of this unit was Mr. Mirko Lukic?
24 A. Yes, I'm familiar with Mr. Lukic.
25 Q. Were you familiar with the fact that Mr. Lukic was active army
1 officer at that time?
2 A. I'm not familiar with the status of Mr. Lukic. I know that he
3 together with Ljuban Ecim were the two most prominent figures in the
4 Special Police unit of CSB
5 Q. But Mr. Lukic was in fact commander of that unit; am I right?
6 A. It is sometimes the case that Mr. Lukic appears as the commander
7 of the unit, that is correct. There are other periods during which, at
8 least at an operational level, it appears from the documentation that it
9 is Mr. Ecim who is conducting certain operations.
10 Q. And would you agree with me that the many chiefs of SJB which we
11 know that these are local police organisations, many chiefs were not
12 professionalists, but rather people and persons with the other education
13 like machine engineers, jewelists, former police -- former army officer,
14 even teachers. Would you agree with me?
15 A. Yes, I am aware that some chiefs of SJBs had professional
16 backgrounds other than the police.
17 Q. I mean comparing to the period before 1992, would you agree with
18 me that a certain level of local political authorities were requested
19 like nomination from local community or a procedure for, I don't know,
20 elections, et cetera?
21 A. Are you referring to elections of police officials, or?
22 Q. Yes, appointment of police officials on the bases of the
23 recommendation of the political structure of the local community. Are
24 you familiar with this?
25 A. I'm certainly familiar with the fact that from the period from
1 April a 1992 until the autumn of 1992, the Crisis Staffs in particular at
2 the municipal level often interfered, nominated, proposed, or otherwise
3 involved themselves in the selection of police personnel at the municipal
5 Q. And also you are aware of the fact that after the multi-party
6 elections in Bosnia
7 actually negotiating the candidates for each particular position
8 including police, on various levels of course?
9 A. Yes, they were involved at all levels, and as I noted previously,
10 even before the war, this led to the appointments by all three parties,
11 occasionally of people who were not professionals.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Just correction to the transcript, page 5, line 6,
13 instead of 1993 in my question, it was 1990.
14 Q. Okay, were you aware of the fact that Mr. Zupljanin being elected
15 -- appointed, actually, as chief of CSB Banja Luka after multi-party
16 elections in 1990, actually was not member of SDS party?
17 A. I believe that as far as I know, Mr. Zupljanin was not a member
18 of the SDS
19 Q. And would you agree with me and/or maybe are you familiar with
20 the fact that the actual first candidate of SDS party for CSB Banja Luka
21 was Mr. Vlado Tutus also an active police officer at that time? Just say
22 yes or no, if you are familiar, okay, if not --
23 A. No.
24 Q. And maybe you are familiar or not, but actually Muslim party SDA
25 was against the nomination of Mr. Tutus at that time, and they gave
1 permission only to the professional police officer without party
2 affiliation which was Zupljanin. Did you come to the attention of this
4 A. I'm not aware of the SDA's position on Mr. Zupljanin prior to
5 1992, no.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, I would like to have your opinion with regard
7 to the disciplinary and criminally responsibility -- criminal
8 responsibility of the members of police forces. In your report you spoke
9 about the rule book, about the regulations, laws, et cetera. I will put
10 to you one situation, and I kindly ask you to give me an answer. If
11 police officer committed a crime or a lesser offence like misdemeanour or
12 something else, but I'm focused on the crime act, in performing his duty,
13 what is the first duty of local chief of police, chief of SJB in
14 accordance with the laws and regulations?
15 A. Are you discussing the period prior to the formation of the RS or
16 the period of the RS?
17 Q. Of the period of the RS.
18 A. As far as I recall, the primary responsibility of the local chief
19 of police would be to initiate a disciplinary commission that would
20 examine the charges against the officer in question, and from there the
21 practice diverges depending on whether we are looking at a minor
22 disciplinary infraction or a misdemeanour or a more serious criminal
23 charge. Obviously if it's a more serious criminal charge, the matter is
24 handed to the public prosecutor.
25 Q. And then the relevant public prosecutor is in charge to give
1 additional orders to police to collect certain evidence necessary for
2 investigation or to obtain additional witness statements, et cetera.
3 Would you agree with me that this is the process?
4 A. I agree with that, yes.
5 Q. And chief of SJB was obliged to put this particular event in his
6 daily report to the superior -- superior organ which is CSB; am I right?
7 A. I believe that's correct, although I'm not aware that if it's a
8 minor -- a very minor disciplinary infraction that it would warrant
9 report. But certainly for more serious charges, it should be reported to
10 the CSB
11 Q. And also this particular situation with the serious violation
12 which is a criminal act actually committed by a police officer, this
13 information would be also a part of weekly or monthly report from SJB to
15 A. Reports about disciplinary and criminal procedures against active
16 police officers and data pertaining to such reports should, according to
17 the ministry's reporting regulations, be reported upwards from the SJB to
18 the CSB
19 reports dianalytical reports that I mentioned yesterday.
20 Q. Tell me, Mr. Nielsen, in preparation and process of work, your
21 work to prepare this report, did you find any report from SJB to CSB
22 where local chief of police was reporting that certain violation of rules
23 or laws or commitment of crime was -- was actually a case taking place in
24 this particular municipality?
25 A. Yes, I am aware of such documents, and I have viewed such
2 Q. Can you be more specific?
3 A. Certainly. As an example, I can mention reports, I believe it is
4 from the municipality of what used to be called Bosanski Novi where they
5 report that -- and also from Sanski Most where they report about alleged
6 crimes that have been committed by active police officers, particularly
7 the special unit to which we referred to before, and noted that the
8 municipal civilian authorities are unhappy about the behaviour of such
9 active police officers.
10 I'm also aware of reports in other municipalities, sometimes they
11 do not mention who the active police officers in question are, but
12 mention in a general manner that in the context of looting or plundering
13 abandoned houses that some uniform police officers are allegedly
15 Q. So my understanding from your answer is that actually there were
16 very general, I would say, reports or, I don't know, informations, not
17 specific for specific -- against the specific police officer who
18 committed a specific crime; am I right?
19 A. Not always. There are cases, again specifically with reference
20 to the CSB
21 from the payroll and information about that unit were active members of
22 that unit at that time are mentioned by name as allegedly having
23 participated in criminal activities. And indeed as I state in my report,
24 that actually led to the arrest of some of those members in the summer of
25 1992. They were later forcibly freed from the Banja Luka prison Tunjica
1 by members of the CSB
2 Q. I'm interested in a particular report from a local police chief,
3 chief of SJB. Do you have in mind particular report from someone of
4 chief of SJBs in mind? Can you tell me the name and the function?
5 A. I believe -- I don't know if I can remember his first name, but
6 Mr. Vrucinic who was head of the SJB, if memory serves, I think in -- I
7 can't remember whether it was Sanski Most or Kotor Varos. But certainly
8 he was one of the chiefs of SJBs who filed such a report, and which I
9 have reviewed in the course of preparing this report.
10 Q. So among all municipalities, only chief of SJB Sanski Most
11 Mr. Vrucinic filed this kind report; am I right? Based on your reviewing
12 of documents?
13 A. No, that would be incorrect. I state that he was the one that I
14 immediately recall. I also can recall examples of similar reports from,
15 for example, Eastern Herzegovina, CSB Sarajevo area, and other
16 municipalities in the CSB
17 Q. No, no, no, please just listen. We are speaking about the region
18 of CSB
19 ask you. So to conclude, in your work, you came to the attention that in
20 official capacity only chief of SJB Sanski Most filed a report against
21 his police officers from his police unit in Sanski Most; am I right or
23 A. No. You are again misstating my position. My position is that
24 that is the example that immediately comes to mind, but I am aware of
25 having reviewed other examples of such documentation from the operational
1 area of CSB
2 one. That is -- of that I'm absolutely sure.
3 Q. And tell me in formation of police forces of all three nations in
5 police in 1992?
6 A. After April?
7 Q. After April.
8 A. I know that in the instructions that Mr. Zupljanin sent out in
9 the beginning of April, he noted, I believe, that the insignia and coat
10 of arms of the Serbian police should be the Serbian tricolour, the
11 Trobojka, and that would be the badge identifying Serbian police.
12 Q. And what was the case of Croatian police at that time?
13 A. I believe that they used the "sahovnica," chequerboard of
14 Herceg-Bosna, at least later in 1992. Again I'm not an expert on the
15 Herceg-Bosna police, but I know that at some point in 1992, they
16 systematically started to use the sahovnica as their emblem.
17 Q. What about the members of Muslim police forces, what was the
18 insignia and coat of arms of this police force?
19 A. I don't know precisely what the date was, but after the
20 independent Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina adopted its own regulations on
21 insignia, I believe that they used the shield with the Lilies and the
22 blue background which we are familiar with from the war time Bosnian
24 Q. Would you agree with me actually in this process of dissolution
25 or separation of -- and speaking now of police forces, every member of
1 police went to his, I would say, national group or entity in performing
2 his future police works, many police officers moved from one territory to
3 another territory for various reasons?
4 A. I would agree that for various reasons many police officers
5 moved. I would not agree that every member of the police went to, as you
6 put it, his national group or entity in performing his future police
8 Q. Absolutely. But you would agree with me that very few Serbs
9 police officers left in Muslim or Croat police forces in accordance with
10 your knowledge? Maybe you know or you don't know.
11 A. I don't have the data that I have for the RS MUP, but I do know
12 that the percentages of Serbs left in the Muslim or Croat police forces
13 in Bosnia
14 Q. Okay. You were also aware of the rough number of around
15 600 police officers Serbs came from Croatia, because in 1991 there was
16 clashes there, so they were fired, or for various reasons they came to
17 Bosanska Krajina, are you aware of this fact?
18 A. Yes, and I discussed that fact in my report.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. All right. Now, could we have a
20 document, please, it's 65 ter 279. And the page is of B/C/S version 6,
21 and the English version is 7.
22 Q. In the meantime, Dr. Nielsen, you would agree with me, would you
23 not, that chief of police in Prijedor, a Muslim, Talundzic was
24 co-ordinating in more details activities with the SDA at the period of
25 before the outbreak of the hostilities? Do you have this kind of
2 A. I know that allegations were made against Mr. Talundzic by Serbs
3 that he was co-ordinating his activities with the SDA. I am aware of
5 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Nielsen, please take a look on the --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, what do we have in front of us?
7 MR. PANTELIC: We have, Your Honour, document which was offered
8 by Stanisic Defence. This is a report of MUP of Republika Srpska for of
9 period April/December 1992. And this document was discussed with
10 Mr. Nielsen.
11 Q. So I would like to draw your attention to the third paragraph
12 where --
13 MR. PANTELIC: I'm sorry, I have a problem with English. Is that
14 page 7 of English? Okay. Good.
15 Q. So now this is -- in English version this is the last paragraph.
16 Mr. Nielsen, you used this document in your report in terms of to support
17 your claim that MUP of Republika Srpska was illegally organised; am I
18 right? That was your position? Yes or no, just simple question.
19 A. That's not my position. That's the position of the RS MUP in its
20 own document.
21 Q. Okay. Great. Now, you know the catch with the translation, with
22 the spirit of language, et cetera. I put to you, Mr. Nielsen, that word
23 in the second line of B/C/S paragraph 3, a word "ilegano" is not a proper
24 translated in English with word "illegal" organisation. I put to you
25 that the more proper wording in English would be a secret or undercover,
1 not illegally, and I will give you a basis for that.
2 Using a word which is not originated from Serbian language,
3 "illegal" is something which is in use of in B/C/S language even from the
4 time of Second World War for so-called movement of resistance, and the
5 usual use of word "illegal" means -- is related to illegality or movement
6 of resistance, et cetera. So the author of this document was not use
7 this word in Serbian language which corresponds to the word of unlawful
8 or illegal in English. Would you agree with this approach that I just
10 A. I think that's the most entertaining explanation of the word
11 illegal I've ever heard. And I've been watching a lot of partisan movies
12 lately, so I'm well familiar with traditionalists, but I don't agree with
13 that interpretation.
14 Q. No, no, you cannot agree with that, that's your position. So,
15 tell me, Mr. Nielsen, if the at that time Republika Srpska was
16 established and constitution was adopted, that was a fact of public
17 knowledge; am I right? I mean, nothing was hidden? Was the fact of
18 establishment of Republika Srpska, adoption of constitution and laws, was
19 it secret or public?
20 A. This is not a discussion about whether it's secret or public,
21 it's a discussion about whether it was legal or illegal.
22 Q. No, no, please, it's a very simple and straightforward question.
23 Was the fact that Republika Srpska was established in January 1992 and
24 adoption of constitution and all relevant laws, was that a fact of public
25 knowledge, or Republika Srpska was organised in undercovered operations
1 or in totally secret circumstances? Just give me answer yes or no.
2 A. That one fact was public knowledge. It also involved covert
4 Q. But, of course, if Republika Srpska was established with all its
5 functions and organs, how Ministry of the Interior is considered illegal
6 under these circumstances? Is it strange? How -- then, I mean, correct
7 me if I'm wrong, then even Republika Srpska should be proclaimed illegal
8 by its leadership? It's not logical, Mr. Nielsen, what you are saying to
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I object. That's about four
11 questions. Secondly, this witness has been indicated several times by
12 the Defence as not being an expert on legal matters or constitutional
13 matters, so ...
14 MR. PANTELIC:
15 Q. Okay, Mr. Nielsen, would you agree with me that in accordance
16 with the general framework of constitutional principles in Bosnia
17 negotiation in Brussels
18 independent and sovereign state of Bosnia-Herzegovina; am I right?
19 A. Yes, that was part of the negotiations.
20 Q. And finally, the crown of this process of international
21 negotiations and arrangements was Dayton Peace Accord with the two
22 constituent units; am I right? I mean, this is a fact of common
23 knowledge of course.
24 MR. HANNIS: Objection, Your Honour, I'm not sure what the crown
25 of this process means, and the Dayton
1 protracted war. So I don't see that they were part of the Cutileiro
2 negotiations that were going on in 1992.
3 MR. PANTELIC:
4 Q. I put to you, Mr. Nielsen, that on the basis of EU negotiations
5 in 1992, the end of this process of international intervention and
6 mediation was a Dayton Peace Accord where all relevant parties agreed to
7 create a Bosnia-Herzegovina with two constituent units, do you agree with
8 me or not?
9 A. I cannot agree with that assessment.
10 Q. Then, Mr. Nielsen, in the paragraph 88 of your --
11 JUDGE HALL
12 this is your final question.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you.
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, in paragraph 88 of your report, you stated that by
15 the end of March 1992 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
16 clearly nearing dissolution. In light of these findings, I put to you
17 that Republika Srpska and its respective government with its ministries
18 including MUP is a constituent entity of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 and that nothing was illegal when the ministry of internal affairs of
20 Republika Srpska was established. Do you agree with my position or not?
21 Yes or no yes, Mr. Nielsen.
22 A. I disagree and point out again that --
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. -- the MUP uses the word illegal.
25 MR. PANTELIC: I don't have further question for this witness,
1 thank you.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. Before I start, there was
4 a mention of Mr. Tutus as the chief of the -- or being proposed for the
6 question for us when I think it was Mr. Krzic was testifying. And I
7 think you indicated, Judge, that you didn't find him on your chart as
8 chief --
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: I found him on the next page, not on the first --
10 the first page of the chart, there is no CSB -- SJB of Banja Luka
11 mentioned, but on the second part, the next page there is.
12 MR. HANNIS: That's what I wanted to bring to your attention.
13 Thank you.
14 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:
15 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I want to go back to last year and the beginning of
16 the cross-examination on the 15th of December. Just a general matter,
17 Mr. -- I don't recall if it was Mr. Zecevic or Cvijetic was asking you
18 about your work in the leadership research team at the OTP. At
19 page 4800, you were asked, When you say researching the leadership, you
20 mean researches for the cases against Izetbegovic, Tudjman, Karadzic,
21 Krajisnik, Milosevic? Are those the cases you mean? And you said, Yes.
22 My question is, did the leadership go beyond those gentlemen and
23 include other leaders such as top figures in the military and the police
24 in those various republics of the former Yugoslavia?
25 A. The work of the leadership research team focused on the civilian
1 leaderships, police and political of all of the political entities
2 operating in Yugoslavia
3 leadership research was conducted by the military analysis team.
4 Q. I want to refer to the transcript at page 4836, there was a
5 discussion with you by Defence counsel about Mr. Zepinic and the council
6 of ministers. And I think it was Mr. Zecevic who said to you:
7 "Mr. Nielsen, I'm quite certain I assert that Mr. Zepinic was in
8 charge of the Ministry of the Interior and that Mr. Mico Stanisic was
9 minister without portfolio in the ministerial council."
10 And at line 22 you said:
11 "I would again state that the context of the discussion that
12 takes place about their respective appointments makes it very clear in my
13 mind that because of the already then declining trust in Mr. Zepinic,
14 Mr. Mico Stanisic was without portfolio but was, as it were, a shadow
15 minister or a shadow councillor for Mr. Zepinic."
16 MR. HANNIS: And to discuss this I'd like to look at P10.
17 Exhibit P10. These are the minutes from the fourth session of the
18 Assembly of the Serbian people in Bosnia on the 21st of December 1991
19 And I think if we could start with page 35 in the English, and I think
20 the B/C/S page in e-court is page 73.
21 Q. And on this first page you'll see that the list of proposed
22 members for the council of ministers. You recall seeing that with
23 Mr. Zepinic as number 3, and Mr. Stanisic not appearing in the initial
24 list; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, I recall examining that document.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to the next page in English. And
3 the next page in B/C/S. Actually we need to go to one further page in
5 Q. We'll see the speaker is noted as Mr. Bjelosevic who is
6 expressing his disagreement with the proposed appointment of Mr. Zepinic.
7 You recall that?
8 A. Yes, I recall that discussion in the Assembly.
9 Q. Okay. And farther down on the English page we see the chairman.
10 Who was the chairman at this session, by name, if you know?
11 A. Well, the -- normally the chairman would have been Mr. Krajisnik,
12 but I would have to look at the first page to make sure that he was
13 indeed presiding at this session.
14 Q. Okay. And he indicates that there always be more than one
15 proposal for particular position, and decisions on particular
16 appointments will be made according to what we think is the best person
17 to do the particular job. And the next speaker is Mr. Jovan Sarac, who
18 supports the previous speaker and proposes appointing Mr. Mico Stanisic
19 in the council of ministers in charge of these issues.
20 Now, given where that appears in the minutes, what is he
21 referring to when he says "in charge of these issues"? Referring to the
22 matters for which Mr. Zepinic has been proposed?
23 A. That is my understanding that, as I state in my report, because
24 of a prevailing deep dissatisfaction in the SDS with the conduct of
25 Mr. Zepinic on issues related to Serbs in the SRBiH MUP, a number of SDS
1 politicians including Mr. Jovan Sarac are proposing Mr. Mico Stanisic to
2 sit in the council of ministers, as it were, as a kind of shadow on
3 Mr. Zepinic.
4 MR. HANNIS: Okay, if we can stay on this page in the English,
5 but we need to go to page, I think, 77 of the B/C/S.
6 Q. Just a little further down after Mr. Knezevic speaks, we see the
7 Mr. Chairman is noted as thanking the previous speaker and adding that
8 clarification is needed:
9 "I think we explained at the session before last that the council
10 ministers should be filled by ministers, deputy ministers, assistants of
11 ministers or other officials of appropriate level. The idea is that the
12 council of ministers should be a kind of executive body of the Serbian
14 And then in the next paragraph he says:
15 "If you agree, I would like it to propose that we include
16 Mr. Mico Stanisic as well."
17 Is that consistent with your view that Mr. Stanisic is being
18 proposed to deal with police issues in addition to Mr. Zepinic?
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go finally to the next page of the
21 English. I think we have to go to page 78 in the B/C/S.
22 Q. You see in the middle of the page of the English, the chairman is
23 speaking, and you'll note in capital letters is it says:
24 "The Assembly unanimously adopts the proposed list of ministers
25 and the appointments of the chairman..."
1 There's no further comment suggesting that anything different
2 than what you've inferred from this that Mico Stanisic was being
3 appointed to, in effect, supplement the appointment of Vidomir Zepinic
4 for matters related to the Internal Affairs, would you agree with that?
5 A. That is correct.
6 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated] Next at page --
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, Mr. Hannis, but I don't think it's proper.
8 This is misinterpretation of the document, Your Honours.
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's a matter for submissions.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Explain yourself.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, the document is very explicit
12 in this respect, and I think -- I think the report by the witness is also
13 very explicit in this respect. There is no -- there is no supplemental
14 position for Mr. Mico Stanisic. Mico Stanisic is a minister without the
15 portfolio, and minister within the ministry council for Internal Affairs
16 is Mr. Zepinic. That is the decision of the Assembly. Now it appears,
17 as Mr. Hannis is alleging, is that Mr. Zepinic was never, in fact, the
18 minister for Internal Affairs, but Mico Stanisic was instead appointed to
19 that post, which is not the fact. And it doesn't come out from the
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's put that to the witness.
22 THE WITNESS: I agree with Mr. Zecevic that Mico Stanisic was not
23 appointed to the post of minister in the council of ministers for
24 Internal Affairs. My position in my report and now on the stand is that
25 even though Mico Stanisic was appointed minister without portfolio, the
1 circumstances surrounding his appointment to minister without portfolio
2 and is reflected in this discussion in the Assembly and in numerous other
3 documents that I discuss from that period is that, in fact, he was there
4 to shadow Mr. Zepinic, who was indeed appointed as the minister for
5 Internal Affairs in the council of ministers.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: And how did that work out in practice?
7 THE WITNESS: Based on the documentation that I've been able to
8 review, in practice it means that Mr. Zepinic at a rapidly declining
9 pace, or I would say rapidly increasing pace, rather, is removed from the
10 inside discussions regarding decisions that the SDS wishes to see
11 implemented in the police, and that Mr. Momcilo Mandic and Mr. Stanisic
12 are increasingly involved instead of Mr. Zepinic. This culminates in
13 April with Mr. Zepinic's resignation and Mr. Stanisic's appointment as
14 the first minister of Internal Affairs of the RS.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
16 Q. Now, I'd like to turn to transcript page 4839, again on the 15th
17 of December. You were shown a document 1D119, we don't need to call it
18 up. That was a 18 March document in which Mr. Mandic was voicing certain
19 complaints about Mr. Zepinic. And you were asked the question:
20 "Serbs evidently were having a major rift amongst themselves;
21 isn't that correct?
22 And you answered:
23 "That is correct."
24 My question is that in March of 1992 were you aware of any rift
25 between Momcilo Mandic and Mico Stanisic?
1 A. I'm not aware of a rift between those two individuals at that
3 Q. Were you aware of any rift between Mr. Stanisic, Mico,
4 Momcilo Mandic on the one hand and Radovan Karadzic on the other? Any
5 rift between them?
6 A. Not at that time in March 1992, no.
7 Q. Thank you. The next matter is just, I think, an error in the
8 transcript or perhaps just a misspoken word. At page 4841 of the
9 transcript you were being asked about the barricades that were set up in
11 "I take it that she's probably referring to, among other things,
12 her unhappiness with the news magazine "Slobodna Bosna" which I make
13 reference to there articles on the barracks as published in around
14 12 March."
15 I think you meant to say articles on the barricades, would that
16 be correct?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. Thank you. On March 16th you were being asked about
19 Exhibit P424.
20 MR. HANNIS: If we could bring that up, please.
21 Q. You recall this is a document that included a list of candidates
22 for training as Special Forces in the Republic of Croatia MUP
23 it's dated the 8th of July, 1991. Had you seen this document before it
24 was presented to you in your cross-examination?
25 A. I believe that I stated that I had not seen that document
1 previously to the cross-examination.
2 Q. And I don't see in the document itself any indication of who paid
3 for the training or whether or not these trainees were MUP reservists.
4 Do you have any knowledge about that?
5 A. As I stated previously, my knowledge about the modalities of this
6 training is very limited, so I do not know whether it was the MUP or the
7 SDA that was paying for this training.
8 Q. Okay. And it appears that the SDA is merely recommending
9 candidates. Do you know who would make the final decision about whether
10 or not these proposed candidates would be received for training in the
11 MUP of Croatia
12 A. I'm not aware who was exactly in charge of determining that.
13 Q. And it appears in the transcript at page 4854 that it was pointed
14 out that in the text it says this was, "in keeping with the joint
15 agreement of authorised representatives of the MUP of the Socialist
16 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the MUP of the Republic of Croatia
17 There's no indication that this was being done in secret or
19 A. Again with the caveat that I'm not an expert on this particular
20 issue, I would note that, as I have done previously, that I am aware that
21 during the same time-period there was both this kind of training of
22 Bosnian MUP employees in Croatia
23 Serb members of MUP in Belgrade
24 envisaged as a part of procedure or whether that represented an
25 innovation, but I'm certainly aware given the documents that Defence
1 presented that such practices were ongoing on several sides.
2 Q. Related to that you mentioned that you had an LRT colleague who
3 dealt with the Croatian MUP. Just as a matter of curiosity, who was
5 A. Well, I had colleagues who both dealt with the Croatian MUP and
6 the Bosnian MUP. The colleague who dealt with the Croatia MUP, I believe
7 there were two of them, Chuck Sudetich and William Tomljanovich.
8 Q. Thank you. I want to now move to transcript page 4909. You were
9 being asked generally about the Bosnian Serbs actions in late 1991 and
10 early 1992 in moving toward creating their own state. And you agreed
11 that Republika Srpska was formed on the 9th of January 1992, and then you
12 were asked:
13 "Wouldn't it be logical to expect that a republic that is
14 established would establish its own organs?"
15 And you said, "yes."
16 And then you were asked:
17 "If the representative of a people decide to create a state and
18 adopt such a decision at the Assembly, then it can be assumed surely that
19 such a state would need to function, too, would it not?"
20 Your answer:
21 "Yes, within the context of their own plans, it indeed does."
22 But related to this issue that we've discussed about whether or
23 not the creation of a separate RS MUP was in accordance with something
24 referred to as the Sarajevo
25 or otherwise, I note that you've discussed Exhibit 1D135 which is the
1 11 February meeting of senior Serb staff in the joint MUP; correct?
2 A. That is correct, we discussed that document.
3 Q. Okay. And in Exhibit 1D133, which is dated the 22nd of February,
4 and 1D134, 18 March, which are statements of principles referred to as
5 the Cutileiro plan, we see indications that this was a matter that was
6 still being discussed, although the Serbs had already been making
7 preparations before that date; right?
8 A. As I state in my report, at the latest in September 1991 the
9 Bosnian Serbs began contemplating the possibility of forming their own
10 Ministry of Internal Affairs.
11 Q. One thing I want to address with you, relates it to the 31 March
12 dispatch sent by Momcilo Mandic, which is Exhibit P353, and then Mr. --
13 Minister Delimustafic's related telefax which is Exhibit 1D136.
14 MR. HANNIS: And if we could bring up those side by side in the
15 B/C/S, I want to bring something to your attention and ask you a couple
16 of questions about it.
17 Q. In the transcript at page 4913 you were asked by, I think it was
18 Mr. Zecevic, about the timing of the sending of these documents. And on
19 the left side of the screen you'll see the dispatch from Mr. Mandic, and
20 you note at the top the header line that we typically see on a fax seems
21 to indicate that this was being sent to -- well, it's kind of hard to see
22 on Mandic's, but it appears to be to Radio Sarajevo. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I believe that Radio Sarajevo was the recipient.
24 Q. And the time of transmission is 1358. Do you see that in the
25 upper left?
1 A. Yes, I see that.
2 Q. In the upper right corner, we see 002, and some kind of icon, it
3 appears to be like a page. Would it be safe to assume that refers to
4 this as a second page of some sort of fax transmission?
5 A. Well, looking at the two page numbers, 002 and then 003 on the
6 document on the right-hand side, that would seem to confirm my earlier
7 conjecture that the two were sent as part of one fax. At least
9 Q. Okay. Yes. And the one on the right, and in the first page of
10 the telefax from Delimustafic, you see the time of transmission is 1359?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to the next page of that exhibit, of
14 Q. You see the time of transmission on that next page is 1400, and
15 the page number is 4, 004?
16 A. Yes, I see that. And I note also from the ERN stamps that these
17 are in consecutive order, which is to say that they were found as part of
18 one document.
19 Q. Okay. And if counsel will take my word for it, the next two
20 pages are page 5 and 6, and they are transmitted at 1401. That seems to
21 suggest that both these documents were transmitted to the same time to
22 Radio Sarajevo
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I have to object now. I mean, I was patient enough
24 with -- all these questions were actually leading to speculation on the
25 part of the witness, but I'm objecting at this point. Thank you.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 but could you articulate it for the record, Mr. Zecevic.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, it is put to the witness
4 basically to speculate whether this is one document which was sent in a
5 consequence one after the other, or a part of one document. And it's
6 also -- it's also put to the witness that the document is -- the document
7 is a press release, which the witness doesn't know, and he can only
8 speculate on that, that it's a press release. I mean, in my position
9 that's calling for speculation, with all due respect. Thank you.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. HANNIS: That's fair, Your Honour. I'll withdraw that
12 question. But the reason that I'm going into this amount of detail on
13 this is because at transcript page 4913, Mr. Zecevic says:
14 "This means that between Momcilo Mandic's dispatch which is P353
15 and the reaction of the minister of the interior, Mr. Alija Delimustafic,
16 there's only one minute difference." Somehow trying to suggest that the
17 Delimustafic document might be a later fabrication or something made up,
18 at least that's how I viewed it. That's why I thought it was necessary
19 to go into this because I think it's a reasonable reading that these were
20 sent out together to Radio Sarajevo because it's a hot news item.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 Mr. Hannis, is that I'm sure that I'm not the only person who has had
23 experience with the headers on faxes not being accurate. So how much you
24 can build on this, I don't know -- I don't that initial purpose is served
25 by going down this road.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I take your point but the fact that
2 these appear to be consecutive pages and they are one minute apart, it
3 may not be the right time, but it's probably the right time vis-à-vis the
4 relative sending of those individual pages, if you take my.
5 JUDGE HALL
6 comes to assess the evidence, it will be taken into consideration.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, I'll move on.
8 Q. Next, Mr. Nielsen, I want to move to your cross-examination on
9 the 17th of December at transcript page 4929. You were being asked about
10 document 1D137.
11 MR. HANNIS: If we could have that up on the screen.
12 Q. This is a document from Stojan Zupljanin to subordinate SJBs, I
13 believe, related to the dispatch we saw from Mr. Mandic. And we saw
14 Mandic's dispatch was the dated the 31st of March. You'll see the
15 dispatch from Mr. Zupljanin is dated 3 April. And in the addressees in
16 the second line we see it's going to the SRBH MUP, and my English
17 translation says minister and deputy. Who would that be at that time in
18 the SRBH MUP, if you know?
19 A. I don't know if legally speaking Mr. Zepinic might still on paper
20 have been the deputy minister as he was before the 1st of April; but if
21 it was not he, I don't know who it would have been on that date.
22 Q. Well, let me ask you this question, the first line appears to be
23 the Serbian Republic of BH Ministry; correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. And SR, is that also the Serbian republic or is that the
1 socialist republic of BiH?
2 A. Well, given -- there is a confusion during this period with the
3 acronym SR because it can both mean Serbian republic or
4 socialist republic, both in English and in B/C/S. But in this case it's
5 clearly spelled out in the first line of the recipients, the Serbian
6 republic of BiH, therefore I infer that in the second line when they
7 refer to the SRBiH, they are not sending it twice to the same minister,
8 they are sending it once to the minister of the Serbian republic and once
9 to the minister of socialist republic and his deputy.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.
11 Moving to transcript page 4945, you were being asked about
12 Mico Stanisic's appointment to the SRBiH MUP. I think on the 14th of
13 February 1992, we were shown Exhibit 1D139 which was a decision by
14 Delimustafic appointing Mico Stanisic as an advisor.
15 When Mico Stanisic who was then a member of the joint MUP was
16 appointed the minister of interior for the newly created Serb MUP, would
17 he have taken an oath to become the minister of the Serb MUP, do you
19 A. I have to admit that I'm not aware whether ministers were
20 required to take an official oath to the government of which -- to the
21 government of which they were members.
22 Q. Did you ever come across any document indicating that
23 Mr. Mico Stanisic resigned from the BiH MUP or the joint MUP at or
24 shortly after the time he became minister of the newly created Serb MUP?
25 A. I have not seen a document that indicates that an official
1 resignation took place.
2 Q. [Microphone not activated] Now, on the 17th of December --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry.
5 Q. On the 17th of December, Mr. Cvijetic was asking you some
6 questions at page 4992. He was asking you about I think the law on the
7 ministries -- or the law on state administration, I'm sorry. But that's
8 one that we don't have an English version for.
9 MR. HANNIS: So, Your Honours, once we have an English
10 translation I'd like to request an opportunity to perhaps come back to
11 that issue, but I'm somewhat hamstrung not having any English to work
12 with, so I'll move on.
13 Q. Let's go to the 1982 Law on the All People's Defence. You were
14 asked some questions about this by Mr. Cvijetic, and he addressed the
15 portion of your report where you say:
16 "In situations of immediate threat of war and other
17 contingencies, the police may also be used to carry out combat task of
18 the armed forces in keeping with law. During its engagement for combat
19 activities in the armed forces, the police shall be under the command of
20 the authorised officer in charge of the combat activity."
21 And you said that you agreed with that principle as it was
22 written in the Law on All People's Defence. And at page 5429,
23 Mr. Cvijetic said to you:
24 "Mr. Nielsen, according to military regulations in the system of
25 All People's Defence all subjects in the state are duty-bound to prepare
1 for All People's Defence, to make plans, to form staffs, and to take all
2 other necessary steps."
3 At the time the 1982 Law on All People's Defence was written,
4 it's correct, isn't it, that the former Republic of Yugoslavia
5 of Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Romas, a variety of other peoples?
6 A. It is correct that the Socialist Federative Republic
8 were called.
9 Q. And is it your understanding that in April, May, June, 1992, the
10 Republika Srpska, as it came to be called, was following the 1982 Law on
11 People's Defence because they had not yet formulated a new law?
12 A. In all cases where the RS had not yet formulated its own law,
13 they appeared to have been guided by the previously existing Yugoslav
14 legislation. I am aware, and I do not at the present moment recall the
15 exact date, but I am aware that in the course of 1992 they promulgated
16 their own law on these matters.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which was different from the old ones, or were
18 they just copies of the old ones?
19 THE WITNESS: Some of them were to a large extent copies as
20 indeed was the law on Internal Affairs, but certain passages were most
21 certainly changed and updated. But I'm not an expert on the differences,
22 and I have not compared the two laws on National Defence.
23 MR. HANNIS:
24 Q. Speaking in general terms in 1992 after April in the
25 Republika Srpska as part of All People's Defence, were Muslims and Croats
1 being provided arms and invited to make plans and take part in the All
2 People's Defence?
3 A. I'm not aware that open invitation to that effect was issued.
4 That having been said, I am aware that both the RS MUP, as we've
5 previously discussed, and the VRS contained very small percentages of
6 non-Serbs who did serve on behalf of that republic.
7 Q. And generally speaking, weren't weapons being removed from
8 Muslims and Croats in the Republika Srpska by the army and the police?
9 A. That is amply reflected in the police documentation that I have
10 been able to examine, and I am aware that it's also amply reflected even
11 more in the military documentation which my colleague Ewan Brown has
13 Q. At page 5430 and -31, then you were asked about Exhibit 1D46.
14 Which is a document dated the 15th of May, 1992, an order issued by Mico
16 MR. HANNIS: If we could have that up on the screen, please.
17 Q. You are familiar with this one. This is the order basically
18 creating or organising parts of the MUP into war units.
19 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document.
20 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to page 2 in both the English and
21 the B/C/S.
22 Q. In item 7 the last paragraph says:
23 "While participating in combat operations, the units of the
24 ministry shall be subordinated to the command of the arms forces.
25 However, the ministry units shall be under the direct command of certain
1 ministry officials."
2 What is your understanding of that term "direct command of
3 certain ministry officials"?
4 A. My understanding of that, and, indeed, as I understand it, the
5 understanding of my esteemed colleague Mr. Bajagic whom I met in December
6 and had read his report in the Borovcanin case, is that what this means
7 in the operational level is that when a police unit is resubordinated to
8 military command, it is under military command pursuant to the Law on
9 National Defence as Mr. Cvijetic very correctly also stated, but that
10 orders to the actual members of that police unit in the area, and so on,
11 of combat activities are issued through the commanding officer of that
12 police unit. So if the ranking police officer in the case of a combat
13 activity is the commander of a Special Police unit, the chief of the
14 military or the commander of the military activities on the VRS side
15 would not simply go to any -- just any member of the police and say, Do
16 this, or do that. He would first go to the commanding police officer and
17 say, I order that your unit, for example, support the right flank of our
18 offensive. This is to ensure that the police were not ordered to do
19 things that their own commander was not aware of in the zone of combat
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Is this an appropriate time for the
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. But before we go to the break, I was
24 intrigued by some of the propositions made by counsel Pantelic when he
25 was cross-examining the witness, because in Mr. Pantelic's
1 cross-examination I gathered as much as the proposition that in the CSB
2 of Banja Luka there were a number of different units, and I was left with
3 a very unclear impression of if these units really existed, and how many
4 officers were in them, and what was their function. And I really don't
5 know if indeed this is relevant information to the Chamber, but just in
6 order to take advantage of the presence of the expert witness, I would
7 propose to Mr. Pantelic, if you would be so good to offer a diagram of
8 the structure of the CSB
9 to consult with your client about how the Banja Luka CSB was really
10 structured. And if that's possible, we can then after the break put it
11 to the witness, and of course, Mr. Hannis will be given an extra chance
12 to comment on that. But I -- it may not be relevant, but yet it may,
13 actually. So let's use the existence and presence of the expert witness.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I don't have a diagram for Banja Luka
20 Court. I don't know if Mr. Pantelic has anything for you or not.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: The idea was, I think, that you should finish
22 your re-examination and then at some time, Mr. Pantelic may or may not
23 put a draft diagram on the ELMO, and we'll hear the witness whether he
24 has any comments to it, and you will then be allowed to put further
25 questions in relation to the comments made by the witness, and then
1 we'll --
2 MR. HANNIS: That's fine, Your Honour. I anticipate finishing
3 well before the end of the day, and I would indicate to the Court that
4 our next witness won't be available to start until tomorrow. So if we
5 finish early maybe we can look at the Banja Luka diagram and address some
6 other matters.
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, we were looking at 1D46, the 15 May order from
8 Minister Mico Stanisic. I had a question for you. Item 7 talks about
9 the use of the ministry units in co-ordinated actions with the armed
10 forces of the Serbian Republic
11 already looked at the last paragraph under number 7 about "while
12 participating in combat operations." Do you read co-ordinated action in
13 -- I see Mr. Zecevic on his feet.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I was wondering if we could have this document on
15 the e-court. Thank you.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, I didn't notice they weren't.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: And before we see it in e-court, Your Honours, with
18 your permission, I think that the starting question of my learned friend
19 was, "do you read co-ordinated action in," I think it's slightly leading,
20 so I'm not reading a mind of my learned friend, but I think we have to
21 get an opinion, expert opinion on the issue from Mr. Nielsen. Maybe I'm
22 wrong, sorry.
23 JUDGE HALL
24 looking at the transcript. Where will I find the question to which you
25 are taking objection?
1 MR. PANTELIC: The ongoing question, actually, of my learned
2 friend, so let's hear and then we can see.
3 MR. HANNIS: I hadn't finished my question, so I think the
4 objection is a bit premature.
5 Q. In item 7, you see the first sentence says, The use of the
6 ministry units in co-ordinated action. In the third paragraph in item 7
7 you see a reference to combat operations. What is your understanding of
8 the term co-ordinated action in the first line? Do you read that to
9 include something beyond combat operations or exclusively combat
11 A. Well, the first line of point 7 of this document just uses the
12 rather vague term co-ordinated actions, or co-ordinated action as it's
13 translated in English. I think it's clear that this document -- the
14 ambit of this document is to discuss joint activities of the VRS and the
15 RS MUP, in particular combat activities. But it's obviously the case
16 that in operations outside combat activities, for example, the
17 apprehension of paramilitary groups in Zvornik at the end of July 1992,
18 that was a joint military police operation; that was not a combat
19 activity. So it was not only in combat that the MUP and the VRS would
21 Q. Thank you. And that first paragraph says that the use of the
22 ministry units may be ordered. Does that raise an inference that the MUP
23 may decline to order MUP units to participate in any particular
24 co-ordinated actions?
25 A. I think there's two points to be made here. One is that it
1 appears that the minister in point 7 may himself order certain joint
2 activities to take place that involve both the VRS and the RS MUP, and
3 again these joint activities do not necessarily need to mean joint combat
5 The other point that I think needs making at this stage is that
6 it is evident, as I have testified previously, that on a number of
7 occasions, the minister of Internal Affairs demonstrated his annoyance at
8 the use of police units for combat activities without proper notification
9 to him as minister. And this order, a large point of this order, is to
10 ensure that the VRS does not go and use one resubordinated unit for one
11 particular combat activity, and then without consulting back to the
12 ministry, go on to use them for a whole bunch of other activities.
13 There is an agreement ongoing, and it's discussed and reflected
14 in the government minutes in the summer of 1992, that the police is
15 supposed to be used for discreet activities when it's resubordinated to
16 the VRS. And if the VRS then decides that it still needs the services of
17 the MUP, it's supposed to go back to the minister of Internal Affairs and
18 say look, can you agree that we continue to use the MUP for such
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: What do you mean by discreet operations?
21 THE WITNESS: Well, whether it's tasks or operations, there is --
22 the VRS commander would say, I need to use MUP forces because we need
23 reinforcements on the front, because we need to arrest looters, we need
24 to round up military conscripts, whatever the purpose of that activity
25 may be. And the minister says, Yes, I agree, you can have this unit, and
1 these particular units of the police are resubordinated to you. Now, if
2 he then find out six weeks later that the military command in that area
3 is still ordering around the police and using them for all kind of other
4 things that minister did not originally -- and the relevant police
5 officials did not originally grant permission for, then that would be
6 perceived by the MUP as a breaking of that agreement.
7 I note that this takes place in the context as is evident in all
8 the RS MUP documentation that the minister of Internal Affairs wants the
9 police to get back to being police and get them out of combat. There's a
10 great quote from the ministry in the report where he says, I do not want
11 to see a situation in which the police is conducting -- or, excuse me,
12 the military is conducting traffic while the police are in the trenches.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just briefly, if you can, Mr. Nielsen, how were
14 these conflicts between the MUP and the army resolved in practice? Is
15 there any pattern in the way in which these issues were resolved, or was
16 it just the minister of interior barking at the army?
17 THE WITNESS: As I note in the brief section of my report on the
18 co-operation of RS MUP with the VRS, there were ongoing negotiations, a
19 Planum that was set up under the supervision of the Presidency in which
20 the minister of Internal Affairs and Ratko Mladic and other military
21 commanders were supposed to be meeting and agreeing continuously that
22 whenever there were conflicts they would try to ease them through such
23 negotiations and resolve them on an ad hoc basis. It's overall the case,
24 as is reflected in the RS MUP annual report and the minister's interview
25 in October 1992 that until the end of 1992 the level to which the police
1 was of involved in combat activities far exceeded that which the ministry
2 itself wished to see. But I do note, and I state in my report, quoting
3 Mr. Mico Stanisic's interview in October 1992, that is in paragraphs 392
4 to 395 of my report, that Mico Stanisic said that overall he was
5 satisfied with the co-operation with the VRS in the course of 1992, and
6 he played down any notion of conflict of responsibilities between the two
8 MR. HANNIS:
9 Q. Dr. Nielsen, in paragraph 8 it talks about
10 "... in military operations military regulations and rules shall be
11 enforced." If you could look at the original and in paragraph 7 you see
12 the reference to co-ordinated action and also to combat operations. Here
13 in paragraph 8 we see military operations. Are those three distinct
14 terms that are used in the original?
15 A. Well, I'm immediately seeing two key terms, one is "sadejstvo" in
16 B/C/S, which is translated merely as co-ordinated action. The other is
17 "borbena dejstva" which is combat activities. And the key distinction
18 here, as we have discussed previously, is that if the -- if an employee
19 of the RS MUP commits, for example, crimes during the period in which is
20 he resubordinated to the VRS and participating in joint combat
21 activities, then point 8 states that it is military regulations and rules
22 that shall be enforced. If on the other hand, he is carrying out duties
23 which are pursuant to his job under the law in internal affairs, then it
24 is the relative -- with the police regulations on disciplinary
25 responsibility that apply.
1 Q. Can you clarify for me whether the term combat operations in
2 paragraph 3 of item number 7 is the same phrase in B/C/S as what is
3 translated in paragraph 8 or item 8 paragraph 1 "military operations"?
4 A. You are correct. There are two terms being used. One is
5 "borbena dejstva" which is combat activities, and one is "vojna dejstva"
6 which is military activities. As far as I know and not being a military
7 expert, these two are, for all intents and purposes, synonyms.
8 Q. Thank you for that.
9 MR. HANNIS: Let me go next to take a look again at
10 Exhibit P427.14 that you were shown on Monday at transcript page 5443.
11 This is a 28 May 1992
12 Q. You looked at that before. I want to ask you about item number 6
13 which says:
14 "The moving out of the Muslim population must be organised and
15 co-ordinated with the municipalities through which the moving is carried
16 out. Only women and children can move out, while men fit for military
17 service are to be placed in camps for exchange."
18 It's not clear from this document whether the men in the Muslim
19 population are captured fighters or old male civilians living at home.
20 Did you see other documents reflecting that non-Serb males,
21 non-combatants were being detained or held for purposes of exchange.
22 A. Yes, I have seen that, and that is reflected in paragraphs, I
23 believe, 3 -- excuse me, 298 through approximately 302 of my report. I
24 note that there was a discussion about detained persons of Muslim and
25 Croat ethnicity in which they ultimately, as I state in paragraph 298,
1 devised, and this is reflected in a letter written by Mr. Zupljanin on
2 the 20th of July to Mr. Mico Stanisic, to the sorting of detained
3 individuals into three categories. The first was comprised of persons
4 suspected of commission of criminal acts. The second was comprised of
5 persons suspected of aiding and abetting those in the first category.
6 And the third was comprised, and I quote from the document:
7 "Of adult males concerning whom the service has not to date
8 gathered any security relevant data on the bases of which these persons
9 may be treated as hostages."
10 And there is an internal discussion in the ministry where
11 Tomislav Kovac and Stojan Zupljanin and Mico Stanisic are involved as to
12 what to do with these individuals. Zupljanin proposed the exchange of
13 military-aged males in the afore mentioned third category for Serbs being
14 held under similar circumstances by the Muslim Croat forces. The concern
15 at this time that is reflected in many documents is that if the Muslim
16 military-aged males were allowed to move out, as this document phrases it
17 that we have in front of us, they would return from their refugee
18 locations and rejoin the struggle against the Serbian Republic
20 Q. In your report you indicate that this was a subject matter of
21 discussion at meetings of the high-level members of the RS MUP, and I
22 think you've pointed to various documents reflecting an awareness of this
23 problem of non-Serb civilians being held without any kind of charges
24 being filed. Correct?
25 A. That is correct. And again, the paragraphs which I previously
1 mentioned reflect some of the correspondence that relates to that
2 discussion at the level of the CSB
3 it was also discussed at government sessions.
4 Q. You were shown by Defence counsel some documents reflecting
5 Minister Mico Stanisic's directions to subordinates to treat detained
6 individuals in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and humanitarian
7 law principles. Do you recall that?
8 A. I recall being shown documents by Radovan Karadzic to that
9 effect, and them having been forwarded by Mr. Stanisic, yes.
10 Q. Okay. Did you find in your review of the documents anything
11 showing direct action taken by Minister Stanisic or the MUP with regard
12 to this category of persons such as releasing these people forthwith, or
13 refusing to continue to furnish police personnel to guard people held or
14 detained in such capacity? Did you see anything like that?
15 A. As I stated previously, in August 1992 and from -- actually from
16 mid-July 1992 Minister Stanisic was pressuring his subordinates to divest
17 RS MUP of responsibility for detention facilities as quickly as possible.
18 In practice, what this meant is that in the course of August 1992 in
19 particular, the police did indeed for the most part cease to operate and
20 guard detention facilities. And those persons detained at facilities
21 such as Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje were sent to Manjaca, the
22 military detention facility, where the military was then in charge of
23 their further fates.
24 I do note and it is the case, and I state it in paragraph 311 of
25 my report, that Mr. Stanisic in his capacity as minister issued orders
1 that all RS MUP personnel dealing with detainees obey the relevant
2 domestic and international laws. That was a dispatch he issued in
4 I would also note, and it is reflected in my report, that the VRS
5 complained particularly in the case of Prijedor municipality that they
6 were receiving at Manjaca persons who had been detained at facilities
7 under the control of the RS MUP for whom no accompanying documentation
8 was given about the reasons for their detention. And in several cases,
9 VRS officers filed reports to their superior officers noting the
10 extremely poor physical state of these detainees, and in a few cases also
11 the fact that they appeared to have been beaten and killed by the RS MUP.
12 Q. Thank you. You were shown at page 5449 on Monday a document that
13 has identification number 1D03-0496.
14 MR. HANNIS: If we could have that up in e-court, please. And
15 the English is 1D03-0498.
16 Q. This is a document that apparently has a handwritten date on it
17 of 9 December 1992
18 Manjaca POW camp. You recall looking at that yesterday or Monday?
19 A. Yes, I do recall that document.
20 Q. At the bottom of the page in the English, and it's the fourth
21 paragraph in the B/C/S, it makes reference to:
22 "With respect to the Muslims for whom you have operational and
23 technical documentation..." And later on in the paragraph it says, "and
24 against whom you have not submitted criminal reports do so immediately."
25 Do you have any idea how long some of these prisoners would have
1 been held as of December 1992? Or do you have any way of knowing?
2 A. I do know from the relevant police documentation that some
3 individuals were detained for a period that certainly extended over a
4 period of several months, but I'm not aware of the specific lengths of
5 detention of specific individuals.
6 Q. And were you aware that exchanges were still taking place in
7 December of 1992?
8 A. Yes, I am aware of that fact, and I'm aware of the fact that
9 there was an RS exchange commission established for that purpose.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Your Honours, that document was
11 discussed with the witness yesterday, but it wasn't tendered by the
12 Defence. I would like to tender it, just to put his testimony about it
13 in context.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P872, Your Honours.
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
17 Next if we could look at Exhibit P194. And if we could look at
18 the last page in both the B/C/S and English versions.
19 Q. I'll tell you, Dr. Nielsen, this is the 17 August 1992 report of
20 the commission on the inspection of collection centres and other
21 facilities for captives in the Autonomous Region of Krajina. You are
22 familiar with that document?
23 A. Yes, I discuss this document starting in paragraph 304 of my
25 Q. If we can look at the very last item number 6, in my English
1 translation it reads:
2 "The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior should
3 jointly prepare adequate regulations on the treatment of captives held in
4 collection or investigation centres, or other facilities for
5 accommodating these people."
6 Did you find in your review of documents any definition of the
7 term "collection centre" or "investigation centre"?
8 A. It's, as with many terms used in the summer of 1992 in the RS,
9 Crisis Staffs, War Presidencies, detention facilities, collection
10 centres, there is a sloppiness with the use of terms, often they are
11 undefined. And when reading the documents as an analyst, it appears that
12 several terms are used to mean the same thing, yet at some times there
13 seem to be subtle differences. So the terms "collection centre" and
14 "investigation centre" are symptomatic of this. In the most narrow sense
15 of the word, collection centre would mean a place where people are simply
16 put and collected, whereas an investigation centre would be a place where
17 people who are formally under investigation would be held and where
18 judicial or police officials would come to investigate them. In
19 practice, these things occur at both types of facilities.
20 Q. And what about the term "other facilities" for accommodating
21 these people? Any idea of what that is and how it differs from a
22 collection or an investigation centre?
23 A. I can only speculate that that might include reference to other
24 buildings locations in which persons so defined were kept. I mean, there
25 were a lot of improvised buildings and facilities that were operating for
1 these purposes during the summer of 1992 and as of the writing of this
3 Q. Can you tell us whether or not a prisoner of war camp would be
4 included within these three terms, or is that something separate and
5 apart, if you know?
6 A. Again, there is a sloppiness in the original documentation with
7 respect to the use of the term "prisoners of war." I would note that
8 prisoners of war as defined by the RS officials were most certainly
9 detained in military facilities. However, as I note in paragraph 305, on
10 occasion persons detained in police controlled facilities were also
11 termed prisoners of war. And indeed in some cases, subsequent to further
12 categorisation, it later emerged that some of the people originally
13 identified as prisoners of war were exonerated from that and put in this
14 third category to which I referred previously.
15 Q. At page 5452 in the transcript when you were asked about this
16 document, you said that you were familiar with it, and in expanding on
17 your answer you said:
18 "I would note that the point in number 4 is completely consistent
19 with my findings, namely that as of August 1992, not least because of the
20 international outrage regarding detention facilities in the RS, the
21 Ministry of Internal Affairs was very actively and very rapidly trying to
22 divest itself of any involvement in the operation of such facilities."
23 And then you started:
24 "In some cases," and Defence counsel interrupted and asked to
25 move on. Do you recall now what else you were going to say there? If
1 so, can you tell us what that was.
2 A. I believe that I simply wanted to state that in some cases, the
3 reports of the police after mid-1992 pretended that the police had never
4 been in charge of detention facilities. And I note that Simo Drljaca --
5 this is the, I should note, the only example I am aware of where this was
6 the case. That Simo Drljaca in Prijedor municipality simply erased from
7 his report the fact that the police had ever been involved in detaining
8 people in Prijedor municipality. He was supposed to say what facilities
9 had existed and which ones were they still operating. He essentially
10 said we are not operating any such facilities, and left out the fact that
11 they had been doing so until literally the previous week.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. HANNIS: Next I'd like to show you -- I see Mr. Zecevic on
14 his feet.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, just for the clarification in the
16 transcript. 46, line 1, I believe the witness says, and I note this is
17 the only example I am aware of. And this might -- in the transcript it
18 says, Not note the only example I am aware of. So it might be understood
19 that it's not the only example I'm aware of. So I would like that to be
20 clarified with the witness if you would, please, Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS:
22 Q. Is that correct, Dr. Nielsen, is that the only example that you
23 are aware of?
24 A. Yes, Mr. Zecevic is correct, that is the only example that I am
25 aware of.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
3 MR. HANNIS: Next if we could quickly take a look at
4 Exhibit 1D55.
5 Q. You were shown this at transcript page 5455. It's an order
6 issued by Mr. Mico Stanisic, and I believe it's dated the 10th of August:
7 You recall seeing that earlier this week?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Can you read what is handwritten in the upper right. I can tell
10 you what it's been translated as in the English, if you aren't able to
11 read it.
12 A. Well, the first part in Cyrillic lower case at the top says,
13 "please disseminate" or "forward to all SJBs."
14 Q. And below that, starts with "MUP."
15 A. Can it be enlarged. Can we zoom in on that second part.
16 Yes, it says, "the MUP of the Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina
17 promised to do this for Trebinje." So it's correct what, as far as I can
18 tell, what has been translated in the English.
19 Q. Okay. And who was the head of the Trebinje CSB at that time?
20 A. I believe that was Krsto Savic.
21 Q. And August 10th, when is that date in relation to when the
22 international community first became generally aware of the situation in
23 Manjaca and elsewhere?
24 A. I believe that media reports to the effect of that issue began to
25 emerge in either late July or early August.
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. If we could next take a look at 1D56.
2 Q. This is the next document you were shown on Monday at transcript
3 page 5458. This one is dated the 17th of August from Minister Mico
4 Stanisic. I think you commented on this yesterday, there's a phrase
5 that's been translated as "wild prisons." Do you see that term in quotes
6 in the B/C/S?
7 A. Yes, the term in B/C/S, at least if we put it in the nominative
8 case, is "divlji zatvori," wild prisons.
9 Q. Do you know what that means?
10 A. I take that to be a reference to the unauthorised operation of
11 detention facilities by, for example, paramilitary organisations or
12 others who were not employed by the RS MUP or indeed by the VRS.
13 Q. Have you seen that particular term used in any other MUP
14 documents, other than this one?
15 A. I may have seen it one or two other places, but this is -- let me
16 see. I have a footnote here, but that should be the same document.
17 Well, yes, I have it in footnote 449 of my report, I note that Zupljanin
18 was forwarding an administerial dispatch of 19 August to the chiefs of
19 all subordinate SJBs in which Stanisic ordered that all RS MUP personnel
20 dealing with detainees obey the relevant domestic and international laws
21 and the existence of any wild, i.e., illegal camps or detention centres
22 was to be reported immediately to the minister. So but that in essence
23 as I read it is a forwarding of Stanisic's order.
24 I think the term might also appear at the 11 July meeting in
1 Q. Thank you. Have a look at that later.
2 But in connection with this document, Judge Harhoff asked you or
3 asked Defence counsel a couple of questions. And at page 5461 of the
4 transcript in answer to one of Judge Harhoff's questions, Mr. Cvijetic
5 says at line 13:
6 "The minister of the interior does not decide on questions like
7 the engagement of the police in combat activities and in the security
8 service of camps. It is the corps commander and the warden of the camp
9 who take these decisions. These orders were not even notified to the
10 minister, at least in the aspect that we discussed, that's how I see it."
11 And then on to line 20 he said:
12 "No camp was under the direct control of the Ministry of the
13 Interior under the law."
14 That sounds like sort of a de jure, de facto statement. Is there
15 a definition of camp that you've seen in any of the documents that you
16 reviewed for writing your report?
17 A. As I stated there is a sloppiness in the terminology during this
18 period in which terms that sometime appear to be synonyms, sometimes
19 appear to be slightly different. But I have not been able to find a
20 document from either the military or the RS MUP in my review that would,
21 in a rigorous way, go through and say, All right, there's three or five
22 or seven types of facilities, and this is precisely how they are defined.
23 The only such facility that is so defined is -- are the prisons
24 operated by the Ministry of Justice, which are set out and defined in the
25 relevant legislation that is pertinent to that ministry.
1 Q. Did you not also see in the documents the term "camp" used in
2 connection with the military detention facilities in Batkovic and
4 A. Yes, the term "camp" is so used.
5 Q. By whatever name or term we use it, in your review of the
6 documents and the evidence, did you see evidence that non-Serbs, Muslims
7 and/or Croat civilians were being held or detained in some sort of
8 facility that was under the direct control of Ministry of the Interior
10 A. For the basic life of its existence, the Omarska camp was one
11 such facility. It was established pursuant to a Crisis Staff decision.
12 But throughout the period in which it existed up until it was shut down
13 in August 1992, on a day-to-day basis it was run by the police, operated
14 by the police and guarded by the police.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. HANNIS: And in connection with that, I'd like to look at
17 1D55 again.
18 Q. While that's coming up, I'll tell you it's a document dated the
19 10th of August 1992 from Minister Mico Stanisic to the five CSBs.
20 Related to detention and holding measures, item 1 tells the chiefs that
21 they shall be personally responsible for the lives of people who are
22 being held and detained. Can you tell us, is there a term of art
23 involved here, is there some difference between held and detained, or
24 between detention and holding measures? Do you know?
25 A. Can the first paragraph of the B/C/S be enlarged. It's a bit
1 difficult to see on the screen here.
2 In the B/C/S they talk about two forms of measures, one is
3 measures of "pritvor," detention. And one is "mjere zadrzavanja" which
4 is -- refers to simply holding someone. So certainly the minister
5 himself and his order seems to be distinguishing between two different
6 types of holding people or two different methods of holding people, but
7 it's clear that the subsequent parts of the order and to treat those
8 people responsibly and to ensure basic hygiene, health requirements,
9 et cetera, pertains to all such individuals.
10 Q. Thank you. And in item 2 says:
11 "The security of collection centres shall be the direct
12 responsibility of the Serbian army and, if they do not have enough men
13 for these duties, it shall therefore be necessary to engage members of
14 the reserve police for these tasks and to place them at the army's
16 As a practical matter, how is this foreseen to be implemented?
17 Who decides, for example, whether the army has enough men, do you know?
18 A. I am aware of the fact that the military itself on occasions
19 would notify the police and say, We don't have enough people to guard
20 this facility. We need to use you or part of your reserve police
21 officers to continue guarding such a facility. In paragraph 300 of my
22 report, I note that on the 24th of July, the War Presidency of the
23 Municipal Assembly Prijedor itself ordered a reduction in the number of
24 reserve police and requested that the military take over security
25 operations for Keraterm, Trnopolje, and Omarska. This is an example of
1 continued Crisis Staff involvement, or War Presidency in this case
2 involvement. However, Simo Drljaca reported that the military refused to
3 accept this obligation, and he was not happy about that. Both
4 Mr. Drljaca by that point as well as the minister wanted to get MUP as
5 quickly as possible out of guarding facilities. The military was not so
6 keen to take over all of these obligations.
7 Q. And --
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, Mr. Hannis.
9 MR. HANNIS: Sorry.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Just one comment, Your Honours, I just noted that
11 there might be a problem with the translation of this document. Because
12 I'm not sure due to my limited knowledge of English language that the
13 "shall" in this particular part of paragraph 2 is it used as regarding
14 the future from that moment on, or is just to stress that that is the
15 situation. I'm not sure about that. But the Serbian original talks
16 about the present. The actual translation of this document would be that
17 the camps -- I am sorry: "That the security of the collection centres
18 are in direct authority of the Serbian army." That is the actual
19 translation. I mean, maybe Mr. Hannis can verify that with the witness
20 because the witness speaks Serbian as well, or maybe we can send for
21 reconsideration to CLSS this document.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I suggest we ask the witness, and then if we can
23 have the interpreters to confirm that is this is the correct translation.
24 MR. HANNIS:
25 Q. I'm certainly happy to begin by asking Dr. Nielsen if he can
1 assist with the point raised by Mr. Zecevic.
2 A. I agree completely with Mr. Zecevic on that point.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can we have a word from the interpreters.
5 THE INTERPRETER: As far as interpreters know, the word "shall"
6 in legal term implies obligation, not a future tense.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much, madam.
8 My question was whether the translation proposed by counsel
9 Zecevic coincides with how you would translate it.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, it does.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much, madam.
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Thank you all.
13 Q. At page 5475, you were shown a document 65 ter 1936 which was the
14 only session of a Supreme Command meeting that took place in 1992. That
15 is on December 22nd.
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, this was discussed with the witness,
17 and I simply would like to tender it. It was not tendered by the
18 Defence, but given than it was quoted from with the witness, I think in
19 fairness, it should be in the record. And I would move to tender it at
20 this time.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe it was admitted, Your Honour, after
22 His Honour Judge Hall intervened, and I believe it was admitted already
23 on the intervention of the Trial Chamber. I didn't want to offer it as
24 the witness was not aware of previously of the document, and then
25 Your Honours suggested that it should be -- it should be admitted because
1 it's in a consequential sense, it goes with the previous document. And
2 Mr. Hannis didn't object.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 Defence exhibit.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, I was just trying to reflect
6 the memory.
7 THE REGISTRAR: If I could assist the counsel, the document is
8 Defence Exhibit 1D173.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you very much. I apologise for wasting
10 everyone's time, I missed that. Got a bit of a cold, and I'm not my best
12 Q. If we could go next to page 5486 of the transcript, you were
13 asked about paragraphs 320 to 329 of your report. And Defence counsel
14 went through with you four different elements. You had cited in support
15 of your finding or position that the police of the RS were involved in
16 deportations and forceable transfers. Do you recall that discussion?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. He only discussed four elements with you, one was insufficient
19 security for all the citizens. Two, was a significant number of
20 non-Serbs were leaving territories affected by war or combat. Three, the
21 cleansing or mopping up operations. Four, the involvement of police
22 officers in the disarming operation.
23 Are there any other elements that you want to mention now or
24 comment on? They are in your report. But are those the four primary, or
25 do the others that you cited in your report carry equal weight in your
2 A. Well, the only thing that I would wish to amend to what I've
3 already said is that one certainly gains the impression from the police
4 documentation that an enormous amount of population movement was ongoing
5 during this period, and that in a large number of cases, that was not on
6 a voluntary basis.
7 I would also note, as I do in paragraph 324, that in some cases,
8 in this case in the municipality of Kljuc
9 Municipal Assembly of Kljuc, at the very time in August 1992 when
10 detention facilities are being shut down and there's a discussion about
11 what to do with these people, writes to the police and says, If you send
12 people back to Kljuc we cannot guarantee their safety. This is, I think,
13 an interesting statement that it's the War Presidency telling police, who
14 is responsible for day-to-day security, that the War Presidency cannot
15 guarantee security of people who might return from detention facilities
16 to Kljuc municipality. As I note in most cases the people ended up
17 leaving Kljuc with Canada
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Nielsen, what do you make out of that?
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, what I make out of it is that I've
21 been struck by the number of police documents which state that they
22 either cannot or will not ensure the security of people who are returned
23 from facilities and who they, in their own documentation, state did not
24 do anything that would justify them being in those facilities in the
25 first place. Specifically, I note a report also -- actually, several
1 reports from, for example, Mr. Vinko Kondic in Kljuc, who stated that the
2 Muslim inhabitants, these are his words, had been inculcated with fear
3 and that pressure had been put on them to leave the municipality. And he
4 refers to an ongoing campaign of terror, and even in his own words, these
5 are not my words, monstrous crimes, massive theft against Muslims who
6 remained in Kljuc municipality. Another chief of the police refers to
7 the hot potato, as he call it, of prosecuting or even trying to arrest
8 people who had committed crimes against the remaining Serbs -- excuse me,
9 Muslims or Croats because the civilian population was in a rage against
10 those persons. That is to say, the Muslims and Croats. So overall, the
11 portrait is of a situation in which the Muslims and Croats are leaving
12 not only because some of them perhaps voluntarily decide to leave, but
13 they are leaving because it's an intolerable situation in those
14 municipalities. That is the overall impression that I am left with.
15 MR. HANNIS:
16 Q. Thank you. Yesterday at page 5515, you were asked by Defence
17 counsel about some changes that were made in the summer of 1992 to
18 disciplinary rules or procedures. And asked your opinion about whether
19 that was an adequate step. In spite of whatever procedures were changed
20 or stream-lined, did you find in your review of the documents instances
21 of police actually being disciplined? And if so, can you tell us
22 anything about the number and the nature of those things?
23 A. As I noted previously in my testimony, the RS MUP draft 1992
24 annual report, in fact, offers the specific numbers on the number of
25 police who were either subject to disciplinary procedures or who were
1 prosecuted pursuant to alleged criminal activities in which they had
2 engaged. So those numbers, which I unfortunately cannot quote to you off
3 the top of my head, are available in the RS MUP draft 1992 report.
4 Q. Did you see the documents reflecting members -- police members
5 from Banja Luka being disciplined in connection with killings and other
6 crimes in Kotor Varos, in particular, killings at the hospital? Are you
7 aware of that incident and the allegations that police from the special
8 unit in Banja Luka were involved? And if so, whether or not any
9 documents reflected any discipline or punishment for any of those
11 A. For the period of 1992, I am not aware of any specific
12 disciplinary actions taken with respect to that incident. The only
13 disciplinary or criminal procedures of which I am aware for 1992 in the
14 case of the CSB
15 vehicles and joy riding in those vehicles in Banja Luka. That is the
16 incident I referred to earlier where some of the members of that unit
17 were in fact put in Banja Luka prison and were freed when members of the
18 unit threatened to attack the prison unless they were released.
19 I would note that Mr. Tutus who has been referred to several
20 times today gave an interview in June 1992 in which he complained about
21 that and said that such behaviour by the police was not conducive to the
22 establishment of the rule of law.
23 Q. Thank you. Yesterday at page 5536 you were shown a document
25 MR. HANNIS: If we could have that up on the screen.
1 Q. It was put to you to contest the statement in your report about
2 only six non-Serbs in the RS MUP at the end of June 1992. Do you recall
4 A. Yes, and I reiterate my gratitude to counsel for raising my
5 attention to that point which I had myself spotted while preparing to
7 Q. I have a question for you about the nature of this document. It
8 appears to be a printed computer -- well, a printed document. There's no
9 handwriting on it except on the first page, it appears to be handwritten
10 "October 1992."
11 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to the last page.
12 Q. I don't see anything on the document other than the typewritten
13 word, I think, which is translated as "chief," but there's no name,
14 there's no signature, there's no stamp, there's no seal. Is that unusual
15 for an official MUP document?
16 A. Certainly an official MUP document should contain a signature and
17 a seal. I'm not disputing the authenticity of this document simply
18 because it does not have a stamp or a seal or a signature. It may just
19 be a copy of the payroll. I note that having collected a large number of
20 payrolls from the basement of Banja Luka police stations, many of them
21 are not necessarily finished in the official sense of the word.
22 Q. Now, I note in footnotes to your report, you make reference to
23 several payroll documents, and those documents appear often times to be
24 payroll documents where the person receiving the pay signs for the pay.
25 And there's a signature from the chief or the head of department
1 authorizing payment. Are you familiar with those documents?
2 A. Yes, I am familiar with those documents. They have a somewhat
3 different format than this document does. They usually provide spaces
4 where the person would sign. This is -- looks to me like a computer
5 generated document from the accounting department and not as the receipt
6 document that employees would sign upon receipt of salaries.
7 Q. Okay. This is apparently numbered from 1 through 516 or so, at
8 least on the page I'm looking at, and the second column is a number of
9 several digits. Do you know what that is? Is that a personal
10 identification number or employee identification number of some sort?
11 A. Can we please scroll to the top of the first page? Yeah, it's
12 there, what is called the JMBG personal identification number.
13 Q. Is there any way to determine what position these individuals
14 held in the Banja Luka CSB
15 A. Not from this document alone, no. Such a determination cannot be
17 Q. And no way of knowing when some of these individuals were hired,
18 whether it was before or after the end of June 1992?
19 A. No, that is impossible to derive from this document.
20 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to move -- I am sorry. I think, yeah,
21 just a couple of items left. At page 5558 of yesterday's transcript, you
22 were shown a document 2D27. And you were asked about this issue in your
23 report where you had said that there was only from April 1992 until the
24 end of that year, the SNB
25 against only one individual for suspected war crimes.
1 Let me ask you, do you know if there was a -- in the
2 Criminal Code for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at that time in 1992
3 whether there was a particular Criminal Code provision for war crimes as
4 a specific separate kind of offence? Do you know?
5 A. Again, I'm not a legal expert, but I think that there was such a
7 Q. Okay. And do you know how the term "war crimes" was supposed to
8 be reported in the MUP of RS when -- I think you've told us that there
9 were requests for information to be sent in about war crimes. Was there
10 a definition in those requests for information or elsewhere in the MUP?
11 MR. KRGOVIC: This line of question just remind me on to
12 yesterday objection to my learned friend, so I think that we held the
13 same approach as yesterday, not [indiscernible], but he cannot explain
14 what are these war crime, how the MUP understand war crimes, so ...
15 MR. HANNIS: Well, if the expert is being attacked because in his
16 report he says there was only one instance of a war crime being reported,
17 and the Defence is presented a document to him where he says, this is
18 criminal charges against 16 individuals for war crimes, how come that
19 isn't in it your report, I think it's relevant to ask if there was a
20 definition of war crimes that MUP units were told to use when reporting
21 information about whether or not they had any cases involving war crimes.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 it is, and Mr. Krgovic would correct me if my memory isn't what it should
24 be, that the -- when he was embarking on this course yesterday, there was
25 a -- I could only put it as a sort of semantic morass into which we were
1 being led, and at your intervention that course was abandoned. So
2 Mr. Krgovic, as I understand his present objection, is expressing
3 surprise that you were seeking to go back into that situation. Is that
4 your objection, Mr. -- is that where you are, Mr. Krgovic?
5 MR. KRGOVIC: Absolutely right, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 has continually insisted that he isn't a lawyer.
8 MR. HANNIS: That's fine, Your Honour. I'll move on.
9 Q. I think the last question I wanted to ask you, Dr. Nielsen,
10 related to a question from Mr. Pantelic this morning. I think it was at
11 page 2. You were asked by him if you would agree that Mr. Zupljanin in
12 his capacity of chief of CSB
13 rather a co-ordinator, et cetera. You said, "yes, I would agree."
14 My question is, but in the CSB
15 within the CSB
17 A. In agreeing with Mr. Pantelic's question, I was understanding the
18 question as being who was responsible on a day-to-day basis for
19 operational activities, and indeed in that sense, it is the commander and
20 not Mr. Zupljanin in his capacity as the chief of the CSB. But
21 obviously, and this is reflected in the relevant RS MUP documentation
22 including the lengthy rule book on the internal organisation of the
23 ministry, the chief of the CSB
24 among other things that he is the highest authority at that level of the
25 police and that all employees from the chiefs of the relevant services
1 and departments in the CSB
2 responsibility to him.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Dr. Nielsen, I don't have any further
4 questions for you.
5 Your Honours, and I know this is about the time for our normal
6 break. I don't know if you want to come back and see if anybody has a
8 In terms of the next witness, Ms. Korner would like to come in
9 and address you concerning him, but it's my understanding the Prosecutor
10 is not prepared to proceed with him this afternoon. He just arrived last
11 night, there's been some proofing with a number of intercepts, et cetera.
12 So I'll alert to you that, but I'll allow her to discuss that further
13 when we return.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may, there's just one thing I
15 would like to raise the attention of the Trial Chamber and the Registry.
16 I know that today's transcript bears the date 26th which is, like,
17 yesterday, so we have two transcript dates of 26th of January, so I would
18 kindly ask that this be corrected. Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 and return in 20 minutes.
21 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, with regard to any kind of
24 organisational chart or diagram for Banja Luka SJB, all I've been able to
25 find is one handwritten schematic drawn by a witness, an insider witness
1 with knowledge of it, but it is not going to be very useful to the
2 Trial Chamber. It's in B/C/S, I've handed to the Registry officer, you
3 can have a look, but I don't think it's what you are looking for. I
4 don't know if Mr. Pantelic has anything else that he can offer you since
5 he is the one who raised the intriguing questions.
6 I would note that that drawing that you have, I think, is roughly
7 a reflection at the SJB level of what you will find in one ever the
8 org charts we provided to the Bench in 65 ter 10138 number 5 which is an
9 org chart of the Ministry of Internal Affairs between April and December
10 1992. And it shows the lines of work, the administration for police
11 affairs and tasks, the administration for police affairs and tasks, the
12 administration for detection and crime prevention, et cetera. I think
13 what that purports to be is a similar showing of the different
14 administrations or departments at the SJB level. But I think you can see
15 for yourself, there may not be much that we can do with it with
16 Dr. Nielsen at this point, and I'll leave it to Your Honours and
17 Mr. Pantelic.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, can you offer some assistance? You
21 were the one who raised the issue of the existence of a Special Police
22 unit resulting under the authority of the CSB in Banja Luka
23 addition, another police unit, so since you are the author of all of
24 this, I asked you if you could produce a diagram or an organogram.
25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, first of all, for the record,
1 well, it was not my intention, like my learned friend Mr. Hannis just
2 stated, to proceed with the line of intriguing questions, of course. My
3 aim as a Defence counsel is to challenge certain findings of
4 Mr. Nielsen's expertise, and to put some elements of Defence case with
5 that regard.
6 In response to your question, Your Honour, and after being in
7 communication with my client, Mr. Zupljanin, the position is the
8 following: Both Defence team, Defence case will provide an expert
9 opinion by our expert that you have met when he was here during the
10 examination-in-chief in December last year, Mr. Bajagic, Dr. Bajagic.
11 And since to some extent all of us here are layperson to certain very
12 specific issues, organisation stuff, I would prefer fully in accordance
13 with the instructions of my client to defer that issue to our expert who
14 will be able to in all details explain the structure in organisations of
16 internal regulation of MUP, and also with regard to particular
18 What we -- if you allow me to say, what we agreed with
19 Mr. Nielsen during my cross-examination is that in accordance with law
20 and regulations within CSB
21 these units. Each form was dependent of the actual role or task or
22 circumstances. For example -- I just give you an example in very general
24 For example, in the extraordinary circumstances like earthquake
25 or massive riots or intrusion of terrorist units from the other
1 territories, then a particular unit for special purposes could be
2 activated, and then the point that I made during my cross-examination
3 which is of our interest is to show that in between Mr. Zupljanin as a
4 chief of CSB
5 person who was chief of sector for public security, actually commander of
6 that line. In narrow term.
7 So that was the basis of line of our cross-examination and
8 discussion this morning, and we both agreed, I believe, Mr. Nielsen, that
9 these particular units were there as a part of an overall legislation and
10 regulation within MUP. But, of course, I would defer that issue in
11 details for our expert, Your Honours. Thank you.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic. My question to you was
13 really just merely triggered by the simple thought that it would have
14 been an easy task for the chief of the CSB who is present in the room to
15 draw up a diagram or an organogram of his own unit at the time. But be
16 that as it may, we will defer to the expert when he comes.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: To Mr. Nielsen, I would like to put one question,
19 and that is the following: Are you able to within your expertise to give
20 us an impression of the normal functions that the Special Police unit
21 within the CSBs would normally undertake in comparison to the other
22 police units in the CSBs? If you look at the chart which is on the
23 screen, I think, and if we can ask the Registrar to tip it over so we
24 have it horizontally, I don't know if you can see on the screen but to
25 the far -- almost to the far right there is something called the "Special
1 Police detachment/brigade," and I suppose that this is what is normally
2 perceived of as the Special Police unit belonging to a CSB. Now, what
3 would be the functions of this Special Police detachment or brigade, if
4 you know?
5 A. Yes, Your Honour. Actually, what is referred to as far as I can
6 see from this diagram as the Special Police detachment or the brigade is
7 a unit that exists at the ministerial level, not at the CSB level. And
8 as I discussed in response to Defence counsel's earlier questions, this
9 was commanded by Milenko Karisik and was directly responsible to the
10 minister. This unit existed prior to -- under the old SRBiH MUP as well
11 and performed many of the functions that Mr. Pantelic mentioned.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. Thank you, let me just interrupt you
13 because I was asking under the assumption that the organigram of the MUP
14 would reflect the organigram of a CSB
15 in Banja Luka. So the Banja Luka CSB would also have most of these units
16 that are depicted in the organigram for the MUP. Can you confirm this?
17 A. Your Honour is correct in stating that the structure of a CSB
18 mirrors the structure of the ministry as a whole. I would just point out
19 that the notion that there were Special Police units based and
20 responsible to the CSB
21 1992, that did not exist in SRBiH MUP.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: That is clear to me, but once they were
23 established, what were their functions?
24 A. Their functions could include many of the activities which
25 Mr. Pantelic referred to dealing with emergency situations, situations of
1 natural disasters and such in practice, as I state in my report. During
2 the summer of 1992, these Special Police units engaged extensively in
3 combat activities throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
4 this is reflected, if one looks at, for example, the weaponry that was
5 allocated to the CSB
6 we have artillery pieces, heavy machine-guns, helicopters, this is
7 obviously much more than a peacetime swat or Special Police unit as we
8 are familiar with it in many countries. This is a paramilitary, in the
9 classic sense of that word, police unit that is equipped and able and
10 indeed did engage in combat activities.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did they have any special training, and did they
12 wear any visible uniforms that would distinguish them from ordinary
14 A. They indeed did have special training. Mr. Zupljanin himself in
15 announcing the formation of this unit proudly announced that many of them
16 had special training in the martial arts, in mountain climbing, in other
17 extraordinary skills that regular police officers might not have. As I
18 noted previously, a number of the Special Police officers in the CSB
19 Banja Luka
20 sabotage training in Pancevo in Serbia
21 1992. As regards their uniforms, there I think it would be most
22 appropriate to ask someone who worked with that unit. I know from the
23 media at the time that there was a mish-mash of various uniforms used
24 throughout this period, so I'm unable at this point to of inform you
25 about exactly what type of uniform they used.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, during cross-examination by
3 Mr. Krgovic, there was some discussion about the role of
4 Predrag Radulovic was mentioned as the chief of SNB Banja Luka, and you
5 said at a certain point, you seemed to remember at a certain point he was
6 chief SJB of Teslic. And, in fact, you can find that name on the -- in
7 your chart -- in your chart under SNB
8 isn't it so that it concerns two different persons with the same name?
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it is the same person. He was
10 appointed acting chief, and my understanding, the evidence will show, he
11 was appointed acting chief of Teslic SJB for a very short time-period
12 during the time that the group that was referred to as the Mice was taken
13 into custody. And for a very short time he was appointed as acting chief
14 of the Teslic SJB. Does that answer your question?
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
16 MR. HANNIS: And he was -- in Banja Luka he was a member of the
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Special operative chief of group.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I perhaps ... Can I help?
20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 MS. KORNER: It may be that I can help with this. Radulovic
24 worked as a the chief of a line within the SNB, but the chief during the
25 relevant period was largely a man called Kesic in Banja Luka. For a
1 short period of time, as Mr. Hannis has said, he took over as acting
2 chief of the SJB Teslic.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 Prosecution has provided a list of 391 documents to be admitted through
6 this witness, some of which have already been used in court and marked
7 for identification. All of these documents are referred to in the
8 footnotes to the witness's report and are on the Rule 65 ter list.
9 However, of the MFI
10 confirmed that 20 have already been admitted through another witness.
11 One document has been marked pending verification of a translation, and
12 so the final determination as to admissibility should await the outcome
13 of that review. All of the remaining documents whether marked for
14 identification or not, may now be admitted.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. And does that include his
16 expert report itself which is 10082 and the erratum sheet which is 10083.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MR. HANNIS: I can't remember now, Your Honour, if I moved them
19 in at the time when I began his direct examination or not.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE HALL
22 in the list now provided.
23 MR. HANNIS: Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 Chamber, and you are now released as a witness.
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE HALL
6 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, can I raise a matter in connection
7 with a witness who is due to start tomorrow who is witness 171. Your
8 Honours will recall that we've had certain problems in getting him here.
9 One of the matters that he can deal with is the question of the
10 identification of voices on intercepts. I have asked both counsel for
11 the two accused whether in the light of Your Honours' ruling that the
12 intercepts subject to the usual rules of admissibility are admitted and
13 that they are application, they should be excluded in their entirety as
14 being rejected, they were prepared to say whether it is said by the
15 Prosecution that either Stanisic or Zupljanin on the intercepts, whether
16 that's admitted or not because that will clearly save a the lot of time.
17 It has no impact whatsoever on any other issues they may wish to raise on
18 the legality of these things. But otherwise we are going to be
19 subjected - Your Honours are, tomorrow, and all of us - to an exceedingly
20 tedious exercise.
21 Your Honours, I was told by both sets of Defence counsel that
22 nothing will be admitted which I have to say, in my view, is exceedingly
23 unhelpful, unnecessary, and is going to lead to a huge amount of court
24 time being taken up.
25 What at the moment is happening is that the witness is sitting
1 there literally listening to something like, I think we worked out 57
2 different recordings of intercept conversations where -- which include
3 those in which it is said that Stanisic took part in the conversation and
4 one where Zupljanin took part in the conversation. That's going to take
5 him a long time. The Defence wish to speak to him, and he has agreed, so
6 that's going to take more time. And in addition to that he has got to go
7 through the actual documents which are relevant. So it may well be,
8 Your Honours, and I say this, we may not be in a position to start with
9 this witness tomorrow morning if we have to deal with all these
11 What I've asked the investigator to do is to make a note on a
12 spreadsheet of any comments he makes, any voice recognition and then to
13 ask him either to take a statement or sign a spreadsheet as reflecting
14 accurately his comments. I would then like, rather than taking him
15 through every single intercept where the only question is voice
16 recognition, the content for these purposes not relevant, to tender that
17 as an exhibit, and that will mean that all we have to do with him is go
18 through some of the intercepts where the content is clearly relevant and
19 material. Many of the intercepts are -- reflect the voice of the witness
20 as well.
21 But that's the situation, Your Honours. I have to say that in my
22 view it is appropriate for the Defence to say nothing else about the
23 intercepts but whether or not they accept that it's the voice of their
24 client on it.
25 But, Your Honours, that's -- the reason I'm raising it now is the
1 other matter is this, we put down four hours based, at that stage, on
2 actually him taking us through the events to which he was a party. But
3 the addition of having to take him through every single intercept and
4 possibly having to play every single intercept and load it and put up the
5 transcript, Your Honours, there's no way we can complete his
6 examination-in-chief in four hours. That's the only matter. It's going
7 to take effectively a couple of hours alone if I have to take him through
8 every intercept.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HALL
11 point? The intercepts?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, no, no, Your Honours. I'm not sure
13 what are you referring to? We have been disclosed the masses of
14 intercepts during the disclosure in the pre-trial phase. We just
15 received the list of documents while we were sitting in court to be used
16 with the ST-171 which is to appear tomorrow. Therefore, we were not able
17 to -- I mean sitting in court right now, I'm not in a position or we are
18 not in a position to listen to the intercepts at the same time and follow
19 the court proceedings.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: But have you had a chance to listen to the
21 intercepts previously? And so to be more concrete, the 57 or 58
22 intercepts that Ms. Korner is now proposing, would you be able to confirm
23 or deny whether the Prosecution is correct in assuming that one of the
24 speakers are your clients?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour --
1 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour, some are. We are also going to
2 identify other voice, people he knew so that that way we can give
3 Your Honours the indicia of reliability and get the intercepts admitted.
4 But a goodly proportion certainly are ones in which Mico Stanisic is said
5 to speak largely to Karadzic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, Your Honours, we stated our position
7 on the intercepts some time ago. Now, we have been disclosed thousands
8 -- well, hundreds of intercepts in the pre-trial stage. Of course we did
9 not listen to all of them, because most of them are irrelevant, including
10 the intercepts by Mico Stanisic, they are mostly irrelevant. So I cannot
11 confirm that we have actually heard these intercepts that Ms. Korner is
12 proposing. And having in mind your decision of the 16th of December, I
13 believe it's very clear. Your Honours under the number 18, paragraph 18
15 "Intercepts like all tendered exhibits will only be admitted if
16 and when the tendering party has provided the evidence necessary for the
17 Trial Chamber to determine that the threshold for admissibility has been
19 Your Honours, may I just finish. The Prosecution position when
20 the Prosecutor moved the Trial Chamber to decide on the intercepts was
21 that the Prosecution indicates, that's paragraph 15, that at the time it
22 tenders the intercepts, it will do so through an appropriate witness who
23 is able to provide evidence which will allow the Trial Chamber to
24 determine whether the threshold for admissibility has been met.
25 So Ms. Korner knows this from the 16th of December. This is the
1 decision. It hasn't been -- the Prosecution was silent, they didn't ask
2 for certification of decision or anything. So, therefore, they accepted
3 this decision, this ruling, like we did.
4 Now, Ms. Korner -- this was 16th of December. Now Ms. Korner
5 tells us that for some reason she omitted to include the tendering of
6 intercepts in her estimation of the direct examination of the witness.
7 I'm really sorry, but that's an omission which we cannot help her, I am
8 afraid, as much as I would like. Thank you. So we object to this
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sure, we understand your position. But before we
11 give the floor to Mr. Pantelic, my immediate comment would be that of
12 course the criteria for admissibility have two prongs. One, is the
13 authenticity, and the other is the relevance. And while we may have a
14 dispute about the relevance, the way in which I interpret Ms. Korner's
15 request today is that we could save time actually if we could deal with
16 the other prong, namely the authenticity, meaning the authenticity of the
17 voices that are heard on the intercepts. So if at least that hurdle
18 could be weeded away or weeded out, then we could concentrate on the
19 contents and the relevance of what is being said in the intercepts.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I understand your question. Our
21 position on the authenticity is widely known of the intercepts, that we
22 don't accept that any of the intercepts offered in this case or
23 authentic. That's our position. Except in a situation where the person
24 -- the witness has -- is one of the other speakers on this particular
25 intercept and he confirms the date, the contents, and the person who he
1 was talking to. We cannot -- with all due respect, we cannot accept that
2 the witness comes over here and he says, I hear Mr. Zecevic and
3 Mr. Pantelic talking on this intercept. We don't accept -- I mean, we
4 will object to it because we believe that this is not the proper way to
5 authenticate the intercept. Because this witness might make a mistake.
6 He might have talked to me on the phone some time ago and might have
7 talked to Mr. Pantelic on the phone some time ago, but it doesn't mean he
8 can identify my voice when talking to, for example, Mr. Pantelic, or his
9 voice when he is talking to me. I don't think that's appropriate. That
10 is our position.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 is obvious. I shouldn't say your difficulty, the difficulty is obvious.
13 And it appears that the position that Mr. Zecevic has just articulated
14 would not come as a surprise to the Prosecution, not that the --
15 Mr. Pantelic and Mr. Zecevic are prone to being obstructive, but having
16 regard to the incidents of proof in a matter such as this, the position
17 that Mr. Zecevic has just indicated was inevitable, if I may say so.
18 But what I would wish your assistance on, I heard you, but I'm
19 not sure I fully understood it, is what -- having regard to what you now
20 have confirmed, have had confirmed adds to the Defence's position on
21 question of authenticity as Judge Harhoff has identified it. As distinct
22 from relevance, what was the short cut that you had proposed? Could you
23 return to that for me, please.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, firstly, can I say that the Defence
25 position is not a acceptable position. Things have moved on a long way
1 since Defence can simply stand up and say you prove your case; we are
2 admitting nothing. That' not the situation anymore either at this
3 Tribunal nor in most of the domestic courts. However, having said that,
4 the suggestion that I made is, as I say, at the moment the witness is
5 listening to the 59 various intercepted calls, on some of which he is a
6 speaker himself, on others in which we he say Mico Stanisic is a speaker,
7 and others on which other people involved in these events are speakers
8 with whom we say he is familiar with the voice. He will then -- the
9 comments or the agreement or whatever he says will be entered by the
10 investigator who is with him at the moment on either a statement or they
11 have been put into an Excel spreadsheet. He will then sign it. I'm then
12 asking that instead of having to play each and every one of the
13 intercepts about which the only interest that we have at this stage is
14 whether we can confirm that the person said to be speaking is speaking,
15 we play only or we go through the transcripts in fact, because it's
16 quicker, only of the ones where the content is of interest and about
17 which he can give the relevant evidence. And that is a shortened form of
18 this procedure.
19 And we will be asking, can I make this clear, and if there's
20 going to be argument, Your Honour, then we maybe better deal with it at
21 some stage. We are going to be asking of admission of each and every one
22 of those intercepts where he is able to identify the voices. We say that
23 is a -- and indeed Your Honours already ruled, because in respect of one
24 of the witnesses, admitted were the ones where he identified the voices;
25 not admitted at this stage were the ones where he said he couldn't
1 identify the voices. And, Your Honours, in our view, this is a proper
2 way of dealing with the admission of these intercepts, but it's very,
3 very tedious and long. And it's -- we say it's unreasonable and indeed
4 whether in -- certainly in my domestic jurisdiction, where Defence
5 counsel to waste time like this, when it is not disputed, when
6 Mico Stanisic says, This is my voice, they would be penalised and the
7 costs thrown away.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]... but the situation
9 is Stanisic says it's not --
10 MS. KORNER: No, no, that's not right. He is not prepared to say
11 one way or the other. He is not saying, It's not my voice. As I
12 understand it. He is simply not prepared to say, It's not my voice, or
13 it is my voice, full stop.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I wouldn't comment the last part. I
15 would just make one comment. I don't believe, Your Honours, that it's
16 proper to ask for the admission of the document of the intercept based
17 even on the assumption that the witness is such a perfect witness that he
18 can distinctly recognise two voices talking over the phone. Because,
19 Your Honours, the contents of this intercept, the parties will rely on
20 the contents of it.
21 Now, if I am supposed to, as a witness, to identify the speech
22 between Ms. Featherstone and Mr. O'Sullivan, and I can do that, I cannot
23 verify the contents of that speech because I was not a party to it.
24 Therefore, if this intercept has been tampered with by some unauthorised
25 person, the contents of that intercept can be modified many ways like we
1 were suggesting before. I don't see how on which basis can -- just on
2 the basis of voice recognition a content of an intercept be admitted.
3 That is really a problem which I'm taking a serious issue with,
4 Your Honours. Sorry.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 MR. PANTELIC: And Your Honour --
7 JUDGE HALL
8 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, how far is your investigator into the
10 listening of the tapes? My question is relating to the following
11 possibility: Is there any chance that your investigator could sit with
12 the Defence investigators and do the exercise together? Is that still an
13 option, or is he almost finished?
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't know where he has got to, I am
15 afraid. I've been in court for the last -- and they are doing it in a
16 room somewhere. I can find out. The witness has in fact agreed to meet
17 Defence counsel in any event. I don't know that they've got Defence
18 investigators here. I don't know what they think of that proposal.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: It's just that it would seem to us that the
20 process of verifying or identifying the voices on the tapes would
21 meaningfully be a process that should be exercised by both parties, so if
22 the Prosecution's investigator could sit with the Defence investigators,
23 or the Defence counsels themselves, I don't know, and just go through the
24 tapes, that might be perhaps a good way.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the exercise started this morning at
1 around half past 9.00, so I would imagine I hope he has gone a goodly way
2 through them.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's hear from Mr. Pantelic.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, for the record, I respectfully
5 disagree with the approach of Trial Chamber on several occasions. I
6 kindly ask this Trial Chamber to give me a floor as a second Defence
7 after my colleague Mr. Zecevic before any discussion or ruling just for
8 the record, and then the Trial Chamber we have position of the both
9 Defence team, because now I want to, for the record, express my
10 submission with regard to the submission of the OTP, Office of the
11 Prosecutor, and we are in the midst of the process of discussion of this
12 particular issue. I think it's proper, and it would be fair for
13 Zupljanin Defence to be heard after Stanisic Defence for the record, and
14 then we could go at a several stage.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: There's no question about that, Mr. Pantelic. We
16 have not ruled anything. We have had an internal consultation, and there
17 was one question that arose which we put to Ms. Korner, and of course we
18 get back to you.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour, but in your
20 internal discussions, I think the wider picture might be of importance
21 for your discussion if you be able to heard Zupljanin Defence,
22 Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, don't worry, we will listen to your
24 interventions as carefully as we have listened to Mr. Zecevic's and
25 Ms. Korner's.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, very much, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 you to try to get clarification of what Ms. Korner was proposing before
4 you responded.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, with your permission, Your Honour, the
6 Zupljanin Defence position is the following: Point number 1, this
7 particular submission of my learned friend Ms. Korner is a perfect
8 example of gross and blatant of judicial economy rules of proceedings and
9 spirit of, I would say, co-operation in terms of -- on our road to
11 Point number 2, Your Honour, this is a Prosecution case. They
12 have very strict and precise guide-lines from this Trial Chamber. They
13 are -- also they have precise case law, and they have rules of procedure
14 here. And they are obliged well in advance to contact particular
15 witness, to discuss all materials and then get back to you and to us. In
16 this particular situation, this witness came here under the subpoena. So
17 is it a lack of diligence of the work of my learned friend Ms. Korner, or
18 is, I would say, act of God, or it's something else which is behind this
19 particular episode? I don't know. And I'm not interested at all.
20 Why the Office of the Prosecutor failed in pre-trial phase up to
21 today on a proper way to contact witness, to discuss all these matters,
22 and to come here with a well-proofed witness?
23 And my final submission is the following: We are fully support
24 the submission of our learned friend Mr. Zecevic with regard to the
25 intercepts and this issue. We are not prepared to take any part in this,
1 I would say, inter-parties contacts with regard to the authenticity or, I
2 don't know, the weight of this particular proof, et cetera. We are not
3 -- we are laypersons. We don't know who, when, and how performed these
4 particular process of intercept.
5 What we -- at least Zupljanin Defence is prepared to do, is to
6 give the chance to Prosecution to ask his witness whether on a particular
7 date he was a part of certain conversation and to confirm that. Nothing
8 else because we are of the opinion that this particular witness can
9 testify only on behalf of himself when he was a part of certain
10 conversation. He is not entitled, for obvious reason, to give any
11 particular evidence with regard to the conversation between two different
13 Prosecution has many experts including experts for intercept, for
14 voice recordings, et cetera. And finally, Prosecution is absolutely free
15 to bring witness, whoever that witness is, maybe from Muslim state
16 security service in 1992, 1991, 1993, or a member of international forces
17 in Bosnia
18 intercepts. And then they establish and to verify the process how these
19 intercepts were made.
20 So with regard to the next witness, only possible solution is
21 that he can be confronted with the particular conversation where he was a
22 part of. Any other approach is absolutely unacceptable for Defence.
23 Thank you for much for the attention, Your Honours.
24 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL
2 The Chamber has determined that the witness will begin his testimony as
3 scheduled tomorrow, but the Chamber has reserved a decision on the
4 application made orally by the Prosecution and may not be in a position
5 to rule before the witness's testimony resumes tomorrow morning. And,
6 therefore, the issues which are clearly not so easily resolved as
7 evidenced by what has passed between the Chamber and counsel on both
8 sides, it may very well result in a break in the witness's testimony
9 until we can definitively dispose of this issue.
10 The Chamber, of course, bears in mind its own ruling that it
11 would have given in -- was it -- the 16th of December on this question,
12 and it appears that this witness is not -- the witness to come is not in
13 exactly the same position as was the witness to whom that ruling was
14 specifically -- whose testimony that ruling specifically addressed.
15 So the Chamber out of prudence would say nothing further at this
16 stage, but appreciates that it has to deal with this matter by tomorrow.
17 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, may I say that this in relation
18 to the question of him starting, as Your Honour knows there have been
19 many difficulties in respect of this witness, and Mr. Pantelic knows it
20 as well. And, therefore, his criticism that this wasn't dealt with
21 earlier is, we would submit, unfounded.
22 However, because Your Honours haven't ruled and because I cannot
23 get any assistance from the Defence on this, the exercise that he is
24 undertaking is a lengthy one. The information I've had is he has got
25 through 30 in the last nearly four hours, obviously with a break for
1 coffee, I imagine. So to get through the rest will take him another few
2 hours, he then has to look at the documents. He is going to be
3 interrupted in the exercise he is undertaking because the Defence want to
4 talk to him. And so all of this, Your Honours, with the greatest of
5 respect, may mean, I'm sorry, that there may have to be a delay tomorrow
7 JUDGE HALL
8 naivete which judges often do. Looking at what this was intended to --
9 what he is intended to testify to, we didn't see a difficulty with him
10 beginning. I hear what you are saying now, but --
11 MS. KORNER: I can't talk to him once he has begun his evidence,
12 Your Honours. None of us can. That's the difficulty. So we can't break
13 his evidence to deal with other matters. Unless Your Honours give
14 permission for us to speak to him or him to go on listening to
15 intercepts. What he has to deal with in terms of the factual -- his own
16 part in these events would certainly be covered within four hours, and
17 the documents he can speak to, but the intercepts just take longer. And
18 Your Honours, may I say, when we originally put in our timings for this
19 man, we hadn't got the decision on the intercepts, whereas Your Honours
20 are talking about indicia of liability. Well, identification of the
21 voices as the persons that we say they are is a major part of that,
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I just interrupt, if it would be
25 possible to switch from -- I'm not normally in favour of this, but to
1 switch from the morning to the afternoon? That might be --
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: We were just considering that.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL
5 afternoon in this courtroom, and the Chamber will rule as soon as we can
6 tomorrow on the issues which have been canvassed today.
7 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.39 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of
10 January, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.