Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7900

 1                           Monday, 22 March 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7             This is case number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus

 8     Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Good morning to everyone.

11             May we have today's appearances, please.

12             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner, assisted

13     by Crispian Smith, case manager, for the Prosecution.

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

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for the Stanisic

16     Defence this morning.  Thank you.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For Zupljanin Defence

18     this morning, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Ms. Korner.

20             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, may I just raise two matters.

21             The first is this:  Your Honours should have seen the list that

22     has been sent by the Prosecution for the -- not the next witness, but the

23     one after.  If you look at the list, you'll see that some of the

24     documents there are the subject of two outstanding motions, one February

25     the 18th and the other March -- I can't remember the date now, but

Page 7901

 1     Your Honours asked the Defence to put in an oral expedited response

 2     today, I believe.  But we'd be grateful if we could certainly have a

 3     ruling on the February one as soon as possible.

 4             Your Honour, the other matter is this, can I just mention this?

 5     As you will have realised, I was slightly surprised on Friday when I

 6     heard that not all the intercepts were to be admitted.  The problem that

 7     is raised by this is the following:  We assumed, from the written rulings

 8     we got in respect of the 92 ter, that except where specifically

 9     indicated, the documents would be admitted as part of the 92 package.

10             I see Judge Delvoie shaking his head.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  These weren't 92 ter package, Ms. Korner, the

12     intercepts we are -- you know now which ones are concerned.  They weren't

13     on the 92 ter package list; they were on the other list, the list of new

14     documents for that witness.

15             MS. KORNER:  Well, then, Your Honours, in that case, the point

16     that I'm about to make I hadn't appreciated, because although we got the

17     four intercepts to which this related from Mr. Dygeus on Friday night,

18     late, I hadn't realised they were separate from the 92 ter package.  In

19     that case, I won't pursue this part of my point any further.

20             Oh, and sorry, Your Honour, the motion that is March the 17th,

21     the second motion.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE HALL:  So would the Usher kindly escort the witness back to

24     the stand.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  In the meantime, Your Honours, I do apologise, I

Page 7902

 1     missed my -- our learned friend and colleague Mr. Miroslav Cuskic is this

 2     morning with us.  Sometimes it's difficult, you know, in Monday morning

 3     to count everyone and to see what's going on.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6                           WITNESS:  VLADIMIR TUTUS [Resumed]

 7                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Tutus, good morning to you, sir.

 9             Mr. Krgovic is about to continue his cross-examination.  I would

10     remind you that you're still on your oath.

11             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.  Good

13     morning, Mr. Tutus.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Let us continue where we left off on Friday.  We

17     were talking about the jurisdictions of the public security stations and

18     the Security Services Centre.  I would like to show you tab 4 in the

19     Prosecution's binder.  They showed it to you earlier.  It's

20     Exhibit P1015.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   You are certainly aware that sometime in June there occurred a

23     change in jurisdictions, that is, an amendment of the Law on Courts, so

24     that certain offences which used to be within the competence of the

25     higher courts were assigned thereby to lower courts?

Page 7903

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And, accordingly, you received a letter from Mr. Zupljanin, the

 3     one you are looking at now.

 4        A.   Yes, I can see it.

 5        Q.   And this change in jurisdiction, which should follow the rules on

 6     the internal organisation of the MUP, created certain problems for your

 7     station because you did not have enough personnel or enough resources to

 8     cover also this workload which was shifted to lower courts by this

 9     change; correct?

10        A.   I'm not sure I understood your question.

11        Q.   Look at the next document, please.  It's tab 5, 65 ter 2376.

12     It's your reply to this letter sent by Mr. Zupljanin.

13             In this reply, you say precisely what I've just described.  For

14     objective reasons, you believe that the Public Security Station will have

15     certain difficulty in handling the new workload.

16        A.   In my answer, I indicate the procedure regarding jurisdiction

17     between CSB and the station, and certainly this directive from the centre

18     added to the workload of the Public Security Station Banja Luka, whereas

19     there was no increase of personnel, and certainly that could play a role.

20        Q.   And you say, towards the bottom of this document:

21             "For these reasons, we have so far several times suggested an

22     expansion of the job specification in the Department for the Prevention

23     and Detection of Crime," with no result?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And then you suggest that a new number of jobs be created for you

Page 7904

 1     to be able to handle the new workload.  That's the last paragraph.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Do you remember that after a while, because this issue did not

 4     relate only to the Public Security Station Banja Luka, Vlado Kusmuk came

 5     to visit from the MUP, and in the process of supervision and inspection,

 6     he was trying to deal with this problem, and ultimately this whole issue

 7     of jurisdiction was resolved differently?

 8        A.   I remember the visit of Mr. Kusmuk, but I don't know about these

 9     details.

10        Q.   Would you please look at the last page of the document.  It's

11     your signature?

12        A.   Yes.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in that case I would

14     like to ask for an exhibit number for this document.  I have no

15     indication if it's been admitted already.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It is, it is.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Tutus, could you please look at the next exhibit, number 6,

19     P1078.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In your evidence, you spoke a lot about these various dispatches

22     that had been sent.  I would like you to look at the second page of this

23     document, dated 2nd March 1992, the last paragraph, 11, where

24     Stojan Zupljanin says:

25             "I warn you once again that you have obligations established by

Page 7905

 1     the instruction on urgent, current and interim reporting on all

 2     security-related events."

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please slow down and repeat what

 4     he said after quoting the paragraph.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I have to slow down

 6     for the transcript because the interpreters cannot follow what I'm

 7     saying.

 8        Q.   In my opinion, as I was saying, this is probably the result of

 9     the fact that new people came to the Public Security Station without any

10     experience in police work.

11        A.   Yes, that's true.  There was a large number of people who came

12     from civilian jobs, along party lines, and a large number of them had

13     nothing -- no knowledge, no skills, in the service.

14             MS. KORNER:  It's entirely my fault, but could I -- Mr. Krgovic

15     said, Look at 6.  Does he mean tab 6 in the Prosecution documents, in the

16     Zupljanin documents?

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's in my tab 6, and it's P1078.

18             MS. KORNER:  I know that, but it's not -- do you mean tab 6 in

19     the documents you prepared?

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

21        Q.   Look at this paragraph 10, please, mentioning an incident which

22     is another proof that police officers are failing to comply with the

23     obligations imposed by our previous dispatches.

24             Mr. Tutus, do you remember there were problems in the system of

25     reporting, execution of orders from the centre indicated in the

Page 7906

 1     dispatches, and that was discussed at the expanded collegium of the

 2     centre?

 3        A.   At various meetings of the Professional Council of the centre,

 4     every time we met these problems of mutual reporting were always

 5     discussed.  But as far as execution of orders from the ministry is

 6     concerned, I don't think there were any problems there.

 7        Q.   Primarily because you, yourself, had ample experience and you

 8     spent your entire career until then on the police force, so you were very

 9     skilled in all these matters of reporting and execution of decisions,

10     et cetera?

11        A.   Well, that didn't depend on me alone.  It depended also on my

12     associates.

13        Q.   Could you now look at the next exhibit, tab 7, 1D137, page 1.

14     The Prosecutor asked you earlier about the substance of this document.  I

15     would just like you to look to whom this was addressed.  In addition to

16     the CSB, it was sent to the Ministry of Interior in the Serbian Republic

17     of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the MUP of the SRBH, to the minister,

18     deputy minister for information, and to the CSBs in Bihac, Livno, and

19     Doboj, also for information, to the chief.

20             Is it the case that in April, such documents were forwarded to

21     CSBs for their information?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Would you now look at the next exhibit, your tab 8, and it's

24     P355.  The Prosecutor questioned you on this document earlier, and I

25     would like you to read, under the subheading "Conclusions," the first

Page 7907

 1     paragraph, where we can see the reasons and the introduction into all

 2     these events.  It says there are problems that occurred regarding the

 3     future state organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the fundamental

 4     principles of which were established by the Sarajevo Agreement and

 5     confirmed by the Brussels recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina within

 6     its existing borders, where the coexistence of the constituent peoples

 7     can only be defined through three constitutive units.  And it says, in

 8     view of the international situation and the agreement among the three

 9     parties, in order to establish three entities, all these conclusions are

10     made in keeping with an agreement that had been reached among all the

11     three constituent parties in Bosnia.

12        A.   It seems to follow from this, yes.

13        Q.   Now move to page 2 and look at the last paragraph but one.

14     Basically, these are conclusions adopted by the council.  It says:

15             "After the discussion involving almost everyone, these

16     conclusions were adopted unanimously ..."

17             It follows that certain conclusions were proposed and then were

18     unanimously adopted by everyone present?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Look at the next page, paragraph 2.  By that time,

21     Republika Srpska had already been established, and the MUP of

22     Republika Srpska.  All employees in the CSB Banja Luka who were employed

23     as of 1st April 1992, in keeping with Article 27 on the Law on

24     Internal Affairs, all of them are taken over by the Ministry of the

25     Interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Page 7908

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And look at the next page, paragraph 7, where the conclusions

 3     say:

 4             "In view of the new situation, until such time as the status of

 5     the constituent entities of the other two peoples in the BH Republic is

 6     solved, the Banja Luka CSB will, in the future, receive instructions

 7     exclusively from the CSB chief, without interrupting the current traffic

 8     of dispatches with the MUP."

 9             It says, basically, that links with the MUP of the SRB need not

10     be interrupted, and it's in keeping with the previous document which says

11     it needs to be forwarded to the MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina.

13        A.   That's what it says.

14        Q.   Just a correction.  When I said that communication would not be

15     interrupted, I was referring to the MUP of the Socialist Republic of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Is that right?

17        A.   Yes, that's correct.

18        Q.   On the next page, look at conclusion number 18, where the heading

19     on documents is mentioned.  And now it's to contain the words "Serbian

20     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ministry of the Interior, Sarajevo

21     Security Services Centre, Banja Luka."  And that was the heading you used

22     from that point onwards in your internal communication; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.  That's the letterhead, actually.

24        Q.   And now look at item 22, where it says that:

25             "All management-level employees shall inform their employees in

Page 7909

 1     detail of the reasons and need for this reorganisation.  It is in our

 2     interest to preserve the ethnic representation of SJB employees in

 3     proportion to the ethnic structure of the population in the

 4     municipalities."

 5             This is precisely what you did when you convened that meeting and

 6     explained to your men what was going on and asked the Croats and Muslims

 7     to stay; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   From these conclusions, we can see that at least in the

10     Banja Luka centre, the change was not towards MUP consisting of employees

11     of only one ethnicity; on the contrary?

12        A.   Anyone who wanted to stay and work was able to do so.

13        Q.   Please look at the next document, P367.  It's number 9 in your

14     binder, tab 9.  This is another session of the council of the centre.

15     And when summing up the discussion, the chief, Stojan Zupljanin, proposed

16     the following conclusions.  So this is the same format that we saw in the

17     previous meeting.

18             So please look at conclusion number 4, which refers to orders.

19     Evidently, there is a certain problem in carrying out the decisions of

20     the centre - I'm not referring to your station, but others - because he

21     repeats over and over again that his orders and instructions should be

22     complied with.  And here he goes even further and says:

23             "All my orders conveyed orally as well as those I may forward by

24     dispatch must be carried out."

25             So it's evident from this that orders and decisions were not

Page 7910

 1     being carried out, especially after the war broke out.  I'm not saying

 2     this refers to your particular public security station.

 3        A.   At these meetings of the Professional Collegium, one could reach

 4     the conclusion that such problems did occur in some public security

 5     stations.

 6        Q.   And in item 12, we see here that the delivery of monthly reports

 7     is specially highlighted, and the chiefs who are not submitting these

 8     reports are told that 10 per cent of their salary will be deducted.  So

 9     obviously this problem also existed in the public security stations; is

10     that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Please now look at conclusion 23.  The Prosecutor read this

13     conclusion to you, but only the first sentence, where it says:

14             "In your activities, you are duty-bound to comply with all

15     measures and actions ordered by the Crisis Staff."

16             Could you read the rest of this paragraph with regard to

17     disarmament.

18             So this refers to the issue of disarmament, does it not?  That's

19     what this paragraph is about, isn't it, that these dead-lines should be

20     complied with?

21        A.   I see this.  In paragraph 23, it says:

22             "In all our activities, we are obliged to observe all measures

23     and apply all procedures ordered by the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous

24     Region."

25             And then in the next paragraph, it's correct that on a general

Page 7911

 1     level, insisting on the disarmament of extremist groups.

 2        Q.   So the measures that are to be observed relate to disarmament?

 3        A.   Well, one could make that connection.

 4        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I'll show you another document now.  It's number 10,

 5     tab number 10, and it's P160.  So please go to page 6, ERN number

 6     0324-1856, and it's page 9 of the English version.  It's

 7     Stojan Zupljanin's intervention at the meeting in Belgrade, and this is

 8     where he talks about the change in jurisdiction in line with the changes

 9     in the law.  So he proposes to the minister that the instruction to

10     implement the Law on Internal Affairs be annulled.  So this problem did

11     not refer only to Banja Luka, it was a general problem on the territory

12     of Republika Srpska; is that right?

13        A.   Yes, obviously this problem was discussed at this meeting.

14        Q.   In your testimony, when answering the Prosecutor's questions, you

15     mentioned an incident when Stojan Zupljanin criticised Simo Drljaca

16     because of some things that were happening in Prijedor.  Do you remember

17     speaking about that?

18        A.   Yes, I do.

19        Q.   On that occasion, you were asked when this happened.  The

20     Prosecutor suggested it might have been in August, but you were unsure of

21     the time.  You only knew it was in summer; is that right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Well, now please look at page 5.  In English, it's page 8.

24             Here, Stojan Zupljanin says that the army, the crisis staffs,

25     should leave such non-defined camps to the Internal Affairs.  The

Page 7912

 1     conditions in these camps are poor.  There is no food.  Some individuals

 2     do not comply with international standards, they are not appropriate.

 3             So Stojan Zupljanin is referring to this problem at the collegium

 4     meeting, and informing all those present and the minister that there are

 5     problems in this respect; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   I see this as a response to the information he received because

 8     of which he criticised Simo Drljaca.

 9        A.   Well, it's possible that this is connected to that.

10        Q.   In paragraph 4, he also talks about some problems in the work of

11     the centre where the army is asking for police officers to be engaged in

12     combat and pushing them onto the front-lines.  Do you remember this being

13     discussed at the collegium?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now, please look at page 6.  You spoke about this in your

16     testimony, where Mr. Zupljanin says that the military courts are not

17     functioning, that the judges have not been appointed, and so on.  This is

18     another problem that occurred in the work of the centre, and you spoke

19     about it, did you not?

20        A.   Yes, there were problems in the functioning of the military

21     courts.

22        Q.   In the next paragraph, it says that several thousand court cases

23     remain unfinished.  There are no criminal judges.  Judges are

24     intimidated.  They're being threatened.  In some municipalities, hardened

25     criminals are being released from prison.  All this is affecting the rule

Page 7913

 1     of law, the work of the police.  So all of these were problems in the

 2     work of the centre at that time, were they not?

 3        A.   That's what it says here.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, can I just put in a small question

 5     here?

 6             The expansion of jurisdiction that you told us about earlier this

 7     morning, what was that really about?  Which new crimes or areas were

 8     transferred from the higher judicial levels to the local courts?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The passing of the new Law on the

10     Courts, and in this dispatch of the chief of the centre, the crimes of

11     murder, robbery - there were a lot of those - were put under the

12     jurisdiction of the stations, which would be a great burden for us.

13     Previously, these crimes had been within the competency of the centre.

14     In our internal documents, it said that public security stations are

15     immediately tasked with dealing with crimes that the lower courts dealt

16     with, whereas the centre would deal with crimes that the higher courts

17     dealt with.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But did the expanded jurisdiction cover also the

19     military courts or was it only these ordinary civilian criminal courts?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only civil courts, not the

21     military.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Right.  So am I right to understand that the

23     expansion of the jurisdiction over serious offences, such as murder and

24     robberies, did not affect the military courts?  Is that correct?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.

Page 7914

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Tutus, please look at page 20 now, where we see the

 4     conclusions.  Evidently, certain conclusions were reached at this

 5     meeting.  This was how such meetings were conducted:  There would be a

 6     discussion, problems would be put forward, and then some conclusions

 7     would be reached, and persons would be tasked with dealing with certain

 8     problems.

 9        A.   You mean the centre?

10        Q.   Yes.

11        A.   The Professional Council of the centre was an advisory body to

12     the chief of the centre.  After every discussion, the chief would draw a

13     conclusion and issue tasks.  So these tasks enumerated at the end were

14     tasks assigned to individuals by the centre chief.

15        Q.   Well, now look at the conclusions here.  First, it says that the

16     rules that you mentioned would be changed, and the Administration for

17     Legal, Administrative, and Human Resources would be responsible for that.

18        A.   Yes, I see it.

19        Q.   Now go to page 23/24.  It's 23 in B/C/S and 24 in English.  And

20     look at conclusion number 7.  This is about the prevention and detection

21     of other criminal offences and their perpetrators, looting, war

22     profiteering, serious criminal offences aimed at life and limb, and other

23     criminal offences, regardless of the perpetrators.  These are the

24     priorities.  And it says here that the ministry and those attending the

25     meeting said that these would be priorities, regardless of the ethnicity

Page 7915

 1     of the perpetrator; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And it says:

 4             "If objective circumstances render the taking of measures

 5     impossible due to the possibility of wider and bigger conflicts with the

 6     perpetrators, then evidence and documentation are to be compiled, and the

 7     MUP is to be informed on a regular basis."

 8             So as I understand this conclusion, on the territory of

 9     Republika Srpska crimes were committed by members of military and

10     paramilitary formations and certain people in uniform.  For the MUP to be

11     able to implement the law, these criminal offences had to be documented

12     so that when the conditions were put in place, the perpetrators could be

13     brought to justice, and this was to avoid the casualties.

14        A.   Well, one might say that was the case, so that the traces and the

15     evidence would have to be recorded and preserved as far as was possible.

16        Q.   Could you please look at the next document, tab 11, Exhibit 2D25.

17     It is a letter.  The date is 20th, but seems to be corrected to 30th,

18     sent apparently to all public security stations, to the chief, to the

19     commands of the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps, to the MUP of the SRBH, and

20     the operative duty officer.

21             Have you received this document, have you seen it before?

22        A.   Yes, I think so.

23        Q.   There is a link with that conclusion that we discussed.  It's on

24     page 5, conclusion number 10.  It says:

25             "Reports, facts, and evidence that have been documented shall be

Page 7916

 1     delivered, after consulting the centre, to the competent public

 2     prosecutors, together with criminal reports," underlined, "against

 3     employees of public security stations.  And in cases where the public

 4     prosecutors are inactive, deliver criminal reports and evidence directly

 5     to the senior public prosecutor or the nearest public prosecutor."

 6             It's obvious that there is an intention to prosecute even police

 7     officers, be they from the reserve force or the active-duty force.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Can we now go back one page to conclusion 6, which says --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please slow down and wait for the

11     page to appear.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.  It's easier for me to

13     leaf through the hard copy, but I'll have to slow down.

14        Q.   It says:

15             "Public security stations may not, without the approval of the

16     centre, undertake to guard persons arrested by unauthorised persons,

17     because this work is not within the competence of the service."

18             Basically, it means that in keeping with that discussion from the

19     meeting of the 11th of July, public security stations cannot undertake to

20     guard anyone that is brought in or detained by army personnel, without

21     the approval of the centre.

22        A.   The centre is not mentioned here, but what you say is true.

23        Q.   Paragraph 2, it concerns, obviously, problems in operation and in

24     carrying out the orders from the chief.  It says:

25             "Public security stations may not receive nor carry out orders,

Page 7917

 1     decisions, conclusions, standpoints, et cetera, of crisis or regional

 2     staffs or other organs or legal entities, which have not been adopted

 3     following the established procedure and delivered in writing to public

 4     security stations and which do not relate to the purview and competence

 5     of the service or which are not in accordance with the legislation and

 6     bylaws."

 7             So for the umpteenth time, we see an indication that certain

 8     public security stations are executing orders from other bodies, rather

 9     than the CSB?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And that was another problem that was discussed at sessions of

12     the collegium?

13        A.   It probably was, but I can't remember any details.

14        Q.   While we are on the subject, look at the next document, 2D26.

15     It's dated 14 August.  Chief Zupljanin established the commission that

16     would tour the municipalities and public security stations in Prijedor,

17     Bosanski Novi, and Sanski Most, precisely to deal with these issues.  It

18     mentions the number of persons and the procedure of evacuation.

19             Do you know these people on the commission, Vojin Bera,

20     Vaso Skondric, Ranko Mijic, Jugoslav Rodic?

21        A.   I know the first two.

22        Q.   Do you know whether this commission toured these municipalities?

23     Are you aware, in fact, that they did, and that they did not find

24     anything wrong in the work of these public security stations?

25        A.   I have seen this document, it was shown to me by the OTP, but I

Page 7918

 1     have nothing to say about it.

 2        Q.   Do you know, while we're talking about Prijedor, that, in 1992,

 3     there was an operative plan to investigate certain crimes committed in

 4     Prijedor?  It was partially implemented, but it resulted later, in 1993,

 5     in the arrest of some 14 persons; Djordje Dosen, Zoran Zigic, nicknamed

 6     Ziga, and Dusan Knezevic, also known as Duca, for crimes commited in

 7     Prijedor?  This action was led by Zivko Bojic, who I believe was

 8     assistant chief when this operation was carried out.

 9        A.   I remember one operation in Prijedor, and I remember some people

10     were arrested there for some sort of crime, but I believe that was in

11     1994.  I cannot remember the exact year, but I think it's 1994.

12             MS. KORNER:  Is it Mr. Krgovic's intention to put to the witness

13     what did or didn't happen to these people or not?

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm trying to, but the witness is

15     not aware of this.

16        Q.   These people were arrested, criminal reports and charges were

17     filed against 16 persons for crimes against Muslims and Croats.  Do you

18     remember that?

19        A.   I worked in Bijeljina at the time.  I know that some persons

20     there were arrested and detained.

21        Q.   Mr. Tutus, please look at tab 13 in your binder.  It's

22     65 ter 536, page 1 of this document.  You see here that Simo Drljaca

23     reports to the CSB Banja Luka that in the area of Prijedor municipality,

24     there are no camps, prisons, or collection centres.  All captured

25     persons -- all prisoners who currently have that status are in the

Page 7919

 1     Manjaca POW camp.  There is a reference mentioned.  He is replying to

 2     something.  Do you see that Simo Drljaca is saying there are no camps in

 3     Prijedor municipality?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I will now move to another subject that you have

 6     covered in your evidence.  Both the Prosecutor and Mr. Zecevic questioned

 7     you on it.

 8             Look at your tab 14.  That is the article you've seen before,

 9     Exhibit P536.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   I don't think either the Prosecutor or my colleague asked you

12     this.  These people concerned were mainly reservists of the 5th Corps,

13     perhaps, unless it's already been renamed by that time.  It says

14     reservists are waging a private war and putting themselves above the law.

15     This is all about reservists, isn't it?

16        A.   I don't know that.

17        Q.   When you were answering questions from the Prosecution, you

18     mentioned that among these individuals who imposed the blockade were

19     people with criminal records, people who had committed crimes before?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   But that doesn't mean, does it, that everyone taking part in the

22     protest and the blockade had criminal records and were responsible for

23     crimes; just some of them?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   I'll go back -- I'll come back to this subject, but please look

Page 7920

 1     at 65 ter 102, your tab 15.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't hear the exhibit number.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  What was the exhibit number?

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] P552.  I would like this box in the

 5     right bottom corner zoomed in on.  The heading is "Special detachments to

 6     be formed soon."  The Prosecutor devoted quite a lot of time to this

 7     paragraph.

 8        Q.   The last paragraph in the left column of the box, it's basically

 9     a press statement by Stojan Zupljanin.  There is a sentence that reads:

10             "As to the Serbian Defence Forces which were placed under the

11     jurisdiction of the Security Services Centre ..."

12             I think this is something that the reporter says.  It's not

13     something that was said by Zupljanin.  That's how I read this text.

14        A.   Possibly.  I cannot comment on journalistic writing.

15        Q.   The sentence reads:

16             "As to the Serbian Defence Forces/SOS, which were placed under

17     the jurisdiction of the Security Services Centre by the Krajina Assembly

18     decision, Zupljanin said ..."

19             And then what follows is what Zupljanin said.  Everything before

20     that is the opinion of the reporter.

21        A.   I think so.

22        Q.   And then what follows is actually opposite to what the journalist

23     claimed:

24             "Zupljanin said that the large number of these units' members,

25     being reliable and experienced fighters, would be screened for engagement

Page 7921

 1     in the special detachment, while the others would be assigned to the

 2     reserve police force and the Krajina Territorial Defence."

 3             And that's, in fact, what was done.  One group of these people

 4     were sent for screening for possible engagement in the special

 5     detachment.

 6        A.   That's what the chief says.  I don't know whether it was really

 7     true.

 8        Q.   65 ter 99 would be our next document.  I believe it's been

 9     exhibited.  The Prosecutor has shown to you the first page of this

10     document.  Look at paragraph 3:

11             "The detachment shall be composed of members of the active and

12     reserve forces of the police."

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   And that, indeed, was the case.  Among the personnel of this

15     detachment, there were both reservists and active-duty staff?

16        A.   I think so.

17        Q.   Turn to the next page, please, paragraph 4 in the statement of

18     reasons, talking about recruitment.  It says some of the candidates are

19     already part of the Special Platoon.  There was a special platoon in the

20     CSB.  It was called "Police Detachment."  And from every public security

21     station, a number of active-duty staff was taken to be recruited into

22     this special detachment.

23        A.   Yes, I know some active-duty policemen were involved.

24        Q.   And your station also was required to send a number of

25     well-trained, younger policemen to join this unit?

Page 7922

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   It says here that some of the potential candidates used to be in

 3     the same units in Zagreb and Sarajevo, and following the necessary

 4     vetting, they could be accepted into the active force.  Some have the

 5     necessary expertise and skills that would allow them to execute

 6     successfully any assignments.  However, these candidates would have to go

 7     through theoretical training, theory training, and to be vetted before

 8     being accepted on to the active force of the unit.

 9             Item 111 of the draft decision stipulates that the detachment

10     should comprise both active-duty and reserve personnel.

11             This vetting was actually done during their activity.  The

12     detachment had to be set up quickly, and this screening was actually done

13     as they went along, in the course of operation.  That's what follows from

14     the document?

15        A.   Yes, it does.

16        Q.   And according to the next paragraph, those who became reservists,

17     if they met the criteria and conditions, would be transferred to the

18     active strength; that's what it says here?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   So that's how it was envisaged, as I understand this document.

21     This was just one stage.  It was formed from the reservist and

22     active-duty policemen, and the composition and use of this detachment

23     were to be defined in the process; isn't that so?

24        A.   Yes, that's what follows from this explanation, statement of

25     reasons.

Page 7923

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know whether this is an

 2     exhibit, Your Honours.  I tender this document.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 2D55, Your Honours.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Mr. Tutus, please look at this document.

 7             [In English] Yes, here it is now.

 8             [Interpretation] Look at this document.  It's 2D06-0736.  It's

 9     your tab 17.  You spoke about the military and police records, when

10     questioned by my colleague Mr. Zecevic, and personnel records.  And what

11     we see here is a personnel record; isn't that right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   The person's name is Slobodan Dubocanin?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   You mentioned this Dubocanin and said that as he had arrived with

16     these members of the special unit, that you didn't know where he belonged

17     actually.  Do you remember saying that?

18        A.   Yes, I do.

19        Q.   If you look at page 2 of this document, where it says what

20     military unit he was a member of, it says here that as of the

21     17th of January he was a sergeant.  Then he was a second lieutenant.

22     After that, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant.  And in 1989, he

23     was promoted to the rank of captain.  That's right, isn't it?  That's

24     what this document says?

25        A.   I see where it says "sergeant."  I don't see where it says

Page 7924

 1     "captain."

 2        Q.   Well, please look at page 2.  You see where it says here "to

 3     rank-class," "sergeant," second lieutenant," "lieutenant," "captain."

 4        A.   Yes, yes.  I see that now, yes.

 5        Q.   Now look at page 2 again, where it says where he served.  No,

 6     I think it's on the next page where -- his war service record, that is.

 7     It says here -- you can't -- well, the first line is illegible, but from

 8     the 11th of September, 1991, he was in Military Post 7225 in Banja Luka,

 9     up to the 11th of September, 1992.  And from the 12th of September, 1992,

10     to the 20th of October, 1992, he was in Military Post 7407 in Knezevo.

11     And after that, until 1994, he was back at Military Post 7225 in

12     Banja Luka.  Do you see that?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   From this personnel record, it says that this gentleman,

15     Mr. Dubocanin, was a member of the army.

16        A.   Yes, that's what follows from this document.

17        Q.   Please look at the next page here, which was issued in 2010 by

18     the City of Banja Luka, Ministry of Defence, Republika Srpska.

19        A.   Yes.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may this document be

21     admitted into evidence?

22             MS. KORNER:  First, I don't know where this comes from.  It's got

23     a fax -- may I say we weren't given a translation originally, apparently.

24     But it's got a fax number dated the 9th of March of this year, and it

25     comes from something called Bata Komerc [phoen], whatever that may be.

Page 7925

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can -- this was

 2     sent to my office by my investigator, my office in Belgrade.  It's a

 3     document issued by the Ministry of Defence, and you can see the seal, the

 4     federation seal.  So it's an official document issued by the Ministry of

 5     Defence.  We received it by fax from Banja Luka, and it's verified by a

 6     notary public as being identical to the original.

 7             MS. KORNER:  What is verified by a notary public for this copy?

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That the copy is identical to the

 9     original.

10             MS. KORNER:  However, I'd still like to know where it comes from.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The Ministry of Defence of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina, the department in Banja Luka, because now there is a

13     single Ministry of Defence with its seat in Sarajevo, and there is the

14     seal of the federation here.

15             MS. KORNER:  At the moment, I'm quite happy for it to be MFI'd.

16     This witness can't possibly say whether this is an authentic document.

17     He's never seen it before, or doesn't know anything about the contents,

18     or that the contents are actually correct.  But I'm happy to have it

19     MFI'd for the moment.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, you have reason to question the

21     authenticity of what appears to be the seal of the relevant department?

22             MS. KORNER:  No, no, no.  I'm simply saying at this moment -- I

23     asked where it came from, I'm being told where it comes from.  I'm simply

24     saying that this witness cannot actually deal with whether the contents

25     are accurate in any way at all.  I'm not sure -- all that happened was he

Page 7926

 1     looked at the document and it was read to him, and that's the full extent

 2     of what happened.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, is it likely that there is another

 4     witness who would be able to -- who would be nearer to this document than

 5     the present -- the witness presently on the stand?

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness spoke of

 7     personnel records kept by the police, and these show clearly that if

 8     someone was a member either of the special or the regular police, it

 9     would be recorded in his personnel record.  So I showed him a personnel

10     record of a person that the witness knows, and the witness identified the

11     form, he identified the person.  He knows the person and the information

12     in the form.  And in my view, this is sufficient to have the document

13     admitted into evidence.  However, if the Prosecutor challenges the

14     authenticity of the document, that's a different matter.

15             We shall tender such forms for all members of the special

16     detachment so that one can see what their war assignment was and where

17     they belonged, in fact.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  The tendered document is admitted and marked.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 2D56, Your Honours.

21             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can I make a request, then?  If

22     counsel says that they have all the records of the so-called special

23     police, would they be prepared to hand them over, including Ljuban Ecim

24     and the like?

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have submitted the

Page 7927

 1     request to the Ministry of Defence to have all these documents delivered

 2     to us.  This is the first and only one we have received.  But as soon as

 3     I receive the remaining documents, I will certainly provide them, yes.

 4     This is the only one I have to date.  I requested it in connection with

 5     the question concerning Kotor Varos and Judge Harhoff asking where

 6     Slobodan Dubocanin belonged, and that's when we submitted this request.

 7     It took us some three months to obtain this document from the

 8     Ministry of Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, there is, then, a matter I need to

11     raise, but I can raise it at the beginning of the next session, in the

12     absence of the witness.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will now move on to

14     a different topic, so might it be a convenient time for the break?

15             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  We will resume in 20 minutes.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, you had a matter to raise before the

20     witness is returned to the stand?

21             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honour, I needn't trouble you with that,

22     the one I was going to raise, because I've spoken to Mr. Krgovic and I'm

23     now clear on the matters.

24             But the next witness is here.  I've also spoken to Mr. Krgovic

25     about the length of time.  He's actually going to go into the next

Page 7928

 1     session, he tells me.  I have some re-examination, so I wonder if we

 2     could release the witness to come back tomorrow.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I wanted to move to another subject.  But before that,

 8     I'd like to clarify certain points of police work with you.

 9             In response to a question from Mr. Zecevic, you spoke about one

10     category of information, which was intelligence or operative information,

11     and I understood your answer to mean that there are certain information,

12     gained through operative work of the police, that certain persons are

13     responsible for some sort of offence or crime.

14        A.   Those are indicia that something illegal has taken place, some

15     offence has been committed.

16        Q.   And when the police get such operative information, they proceed

17     to check this information and to investigate?

18        A.   Correct.

19        Q.   And if this is a large-scale job, involving a number of

20     perpetrators or offenders, then you make an operative plan of work?

21        A.   Yes, an operative work plan is usually made when the operation is

22     on a larger scale or when dealing with a group.

23        Q.   Could you open now tab 25.  It's Exhibit 1D198.  Let's wait for

24     it to appear in e-court.

25             You discussed this document with my colleague Mr. Zecevic.  It's

Page 7929

 1     the operative work plan concerning a large group of perpetrators, and it

 2     was necessary to draft an operative work plan; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And the plan first refers to this operative information collected

 5     from citizens or informants, and then follows an evaluation how and when

 6     to proceed with an operation?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   The Prosecutor also asked you about the crimes committed during

 9     the barricades on the 3rd of April, 1992.  You said that criminal reports

10     were filed against these persons and it was handled.  Can you remember?

11        A.   Yes, and that's how it was done.

12        Q.   You were unable to remember specific individuals.  Therefore, I'd

13     like to ask you to look at this list, robbery committed by uniformed

14     persons.  It's in the attachment.  It's page 6, in e-court, in English,

15     or 7.  Look at the robberies committed by uniformed persons and the date,

16     3rd April, 3rd April, 3rd April, all the way up to the end of page 2.

17     It's precisely the crimes you spoke about, the crimes committed on the

18     barricades during the blockade.  A large number of crimes, all of them on

19     the first page, were committed on the barricades, if you look at the

20     date?

21        A.   Judging by the date, yes.  But for now, I cannot claim with

22     certainty where they were committed.

23        Q.   In the first column, you will see "Location," where the crime was

24     committed, and it begins with barricade on Vrbanja, on the 3rd and the

25     4th.

Page 7930

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And you will see a list of injured parties, a number of Muslims

 3     and Serbs.  Then move to page 2, and then you will see the barricade at

 4     Tunjice and a number of individual locations.  Then move to page 3.

 5     Again, barricade at Tunjice -- or, sorry, no, Vrbanja, Vrbanja.

 6        A.   Correct --

 7        Q.   While you're still on that page, look to the right, the next page

 8     with handwriting.  "Possible perpetrator," it says "Palackovic," the

 9     third from the top on the page with handwriting.  Look at the last page.

10        A.   I can see it.

11        Q.   I see from this that, in practice, the CSB, in co-operation with

12     the Public Security Station, identified a large number of persons who

13     seized cars and valuables and money from civilians at the barricades on

14     the 3rd and the 4th of April, 1992.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And if we go back to the original document, page 2, item 2,

17     there's a reference to the operation that needs to be undertaken; arrest

18     and disarm the group led by Brano Palackovic.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   That's the group that mistreated people at the barricades, robbed

21     them of cars and money and valuables?

22        A.   Along with others.

23        Q.   It also mentions a person who robbed cars and goods at the

24     barricade at Tunjice?

25        A.   Yes, and the task is to identify him.

Page 7931

 1        Q.   That tells me that this service did their job professionally and

 2     proceeded to investigate crimes, bring in and arrest these people?

 3        A.   Yes, we did that.

 4        Q.   We heard from previous witnesses that in Banja Luka, in that

 5     period from end 1991 and in early 1992, there were many cases where

 6     explosives were set and houses and businesses were bombed?

 7        A.   Yes, certainly.

 8        Q.   Here, on page 3, item G, we see that there is operative

 9     information that Vedran Mandic, Nenad Kajkut and another person were

10     responsible for a number of bombings of various businesses?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And if you look at the last paragraph, the service, following

13     this operative information, identified 27 crimes of violating public

14     order by setting explosives.  In fact, the service established that this

15     group perpetrated 27 of these crimes.  We can read about operative

16     information concerning their movement and their accomplices?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And there is a reference to another group also involved in

19     bombings, led -- or, rather, one of the members is Goran Gataric.  I read

20     somewhere that his involvement was actually established only in 1993,

21     that he was arrested.

22        A.   I can't remember specifically, but I think this crime was

23     processed and prosecuted.

24        Q.   Another case is also mentioned, the bombing of the

25     Casablanca Cafe.  There were two explosions caused by Samir Knezevic,

Page 7932

 1     also known as Kinez, Chinaman, a Muslim?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   So after drafting this operative work plan, you proceed to

 4     investigate, try to identify offenders and perpetrators, and conduct

 5     operations.  Both your public security station and the CSB did this work

 6     jointly?

 7        A.   Yes, we worked together.

 8        Q.   Can we now show 1D01-0184.  It's your tab 26.  This is a report

 9     filed by the CSB.  Look at the last page.  I don't think it's Zupljanin's

10     signature.

11        A.   No, it isn't.  It must be one of his associates.

12        Q.   It concerns precisely those crimes, but first it discusses the

13     operative work plan.  Look at the description of crimes, mentioning

14     Vedran Mandic, Nenad Kajkut, Drasko Mihajlovic.  It's the attack on that

15     police station, and they got killed in the shooting that resulted from

16     the attempt to arrest them.

17        A.   Yes, correct.

18        Q.   This is all one document.  Look through all the pages.  This

19     document discusses the activities of this group, and all the attachments

20     are an integral part of this report to the Public Prosecutor's Office?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And on the next page, we see the record of the verbal criminal

23     complaint.  This was received on the 7th of May, 1992, in your public

24     security station by the authorised officer, Zdravko Ruzevic?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 7933

 1        Q.   He was employed in your public security station?

 2        A.   Yes, as an operative officer.

 3        Q.   Now please go back to the previous page, the first page of the

 4     document.  There is a note in longhand.  It says:

 5             "Why did we have to wait so long for this report, I can't

 6     understand," and the initials of Stojan Zupljanin?

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   In fact, he admonishes his workers, his underlings, for taking so

 9     long to deal with this case?

10        A.   He's asking for an explanation.

11        Q.   Let's go back to page 3 of the document in English, the record of

12     receipt.  It's a criminal complaint received at your station concerning

13     the vehicles that are the subject of your investigation?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And as a result, the CSB also gets involved, and they also

16     provide a report.  It's English page 5.  Authorised Officer

17     Milorad Jelisavac, employee of the Security Services Centre, signed this

18     one.

19             And the next document is from your public security station, a

20     receipt confirming that something had been given back to that person

21     whose vehicle was seized?

22        A.   Which document do you mean?

23        Q.   Certificate on the return of objects.

24        A.   That's from the CSB.

25        Q.   Now look at the next document.  It's the Majdan Police Station,

Page 7934

 1     page 7.  And page 4, it was drawn up by Petar Tanazovic, was it not?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   An employee of your public security station?

 4        A.   Yes.  He was the commander of the Majdan Police Station.

 5        Q.   And the next document, well, this is an Official Note drawn up or

 6     compiled on the premises of the Majdan Police Station, and it was

 7     Ilija Cibic, an employee of yours, who compiled it, was it not?

 8        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 9        Q.   The next document, English page 12, is a report concerning an

10     explosion where a hand-grenade was shown on a shop called Carmen.  It was

11     signed by Marinko Bilic and Damir Gunic?

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.

13        Q.   They were employees of your public security station?

14        A.   Yes, they were policemen of the Majdan Police Station.

15        Q.   And this policeman, Damir Gunic, judging by his name, I would say

16     he was a Croat or a Muslim?

17        A.   Well, he could be a Muslim.  Marinko Bilic was a Croat.

18        Q.   You have another note compiled on the 15th of May, 1992.  It's

19     the next document, English page 13, also referring to an explosion.  It

20     was an employee of yours, Bosko Kudric, who compiled the note, was it

21     not?

22        A.   His name was Bosko Kudra.

23        Q.   I do apologise, Kudra.

24             Let's look at the next document, then.  It's a report sent to the

25     Public Prosecutor's Office, signed by the chief of the centre.  Could you

Page 7935

 1     look at page 3?

 2        A.   Yes, that's his signature.

 3        Q.   And, in fact, this is a report listing criminal offences

 4     perpetrated by these persons who were killed and their group; is that

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And these were mostly explosions, and the property was owned by

 8     Muslims, Sehitluci and so on?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And on page 2, we see a reference to a Croat, Franjo?

11        A.   Yes, Gagula.

12        Q.   And on page 3, under 3, another explosion, a coffee bar called

13     Biser, Miro Majdandzic?

14        A.   Yes, Majdandzic.

15        Q.   He was a Croat, was he not?

16        A.   I think he was.

17        Q.   And under number 4, a dry-cleaner shop owned by Josipa Knapic, a

18     Croat; is that right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Under number 5, a fruit shop owned by a Muslim; is that right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And on the next page, under 6, a beer shop.  I don't really know

23     what ethnicity this person would be.

24        A.   Well, judging by the last name, the person might be a Serb, but I

25     don't know.  I'm not sure.

Page 7936

 1        Q.   And then number 8, a hand-grenade was activated and thrown into

 2     the Gril shop owned by Darko Djuric?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And then under number 9, these persons threw a hand-grenade onto

 5     the Majdan pastry shop owned by Abdulah Emini, who was an ethnic

 6     Albanian?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And as far as I was able to see from these documents, as a rule,

 9     the police investigated these explosions in Banja Luka in the spring of

10     1992.  Is that right?

11        A.   Yes, yes, the ones we have just mentioned.

12        Q.   If we move on, we'll see that in investigating these criminal

13     offences, as this is all one file, the Public Security Station was active

14     and participated in all this.  So please look further and you will find

15     an Official Note - it's page 24 in English - compiled on the premises of

16     the Public Security Station Centar.

17        A.   Yes, I see it.

18        Q.   On the 5th of May, by Ranko Stojnic [phoen], Zoran Blagojevic,

19     and Bratislav Milosevic?

20        A.   Yes, I see it.

21        Q.   These are all employees of your public security station, were

22     they not?

23        A.   I don't know them personally, but I think they are.

24        Q.   But the note was drawn up on the premises of the police station?

25        A.   Well, they call it the SJB Centar.  It should be the

Page 7937

 1     SJB Banja Luka, but Centar Police Station.

 2        Q.   But you can see by the stamp?

 3        A.   Yes, yes, these are policemen in the Centar Police Station.

 4        Q.   After that, there's a part of the document where we see that an

 5     investigating judge carried out an on-site investigation, so that the

 6     whole file shows that regular procedures were followed.  Just look

 7     through it and then I'll ask you to outline the procedure.

 8             But in general, we can say that the procedure was as follows:

 9     Once information arrives that there was an explosion, an Official Note is

10     drawn up.  The police go on site and take a statement from the damaged

11     party.  Most often, it's a policeman on whose territory the offence

12     occurred?

13        A.   If you allow me, I'll explain.

14             When an explosion occurred, depending on the damage, the police

15     would secure the site.  As soon as possible, operative employees and

16     forensic technicians, together with the investigating judge, would carry

17     out an on-site investigation.  A record would be drawn up, and the

18     policeman who first arrived on site would compile an Official Note and

19     carry out all the official work, with the control of the operative

20     workers.

21        Q.   When the investigation was carried out, a forensic technician

22     would be there?

23        A.   I've just said that.

24        Q.   And this whole file, concerning these criminal offences committed

25     by this group, is the product of joint work by the Public Security

Page 7938

 1     Station and the Security Services Centre?

 2        A.   Yes, the two services co-operated closely, and there were no

 3     problems in co-operation.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as the witness has

 5     identified parts of this document, I wish to tender this document into

 6     evidence.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D57, Your Honours.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Mr. Tutus, please look at the next document.  It's 1D03-1816, and

11     it's your tab 27.  Just let's wait until it comes up on the screen.

12             This document, issued by the Public Security Station in

13     Banja Luka, is signed on page 2, it says, by you, although we don't see

14     the signature.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And it's sent by Zoran Josic, your chief?

17        A.   He was the chief of the Crime Prevention Service Department.

18        Q.   Do you remember, when I showed you the operative work plan at the

19     outset, I read out the name of a person called Samir Nezirevic, known as

20     Kinez, and he was the person who threw hand-grenades on two occasions?

21        A.   I remember.

22        Q.   So this is the same person.  The operative plan was, in part,

23     carried out by your public security station, was it not?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Please look at the next page, where it says that an action was

Page 7939

 1     launched to capture the persons who participated in these bombings.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   It's also a document issued by the Public Security Station?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   After this, this form which is attached, please take a look at

 6     it.  It is a form of the MUP of the Public Security Station, requiring

 7     detailed -- details about the criminal offence.  This is all statistical

 8     data?

 9        A.   Yes, I've seen this.

10        Q.   And the next -- well, not the next, but the report on arrest, and

11     bringing a person in before the investigating judge, for this person,

12     Samir Nezirevic, it's signed by the chief of the centre,

13     Stojan Zupljanin.  Somebody signed it for him, did they not?

14        A.   Yes, Djuro Bulic did.  He was the chief of the Public Security

15     Services Sector.

16        Q.   And then we have a criminal report filed against this person,

17     again signed by Djuro Bulic?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

20        Q.   This case of bombing was investigated and dealt with, was it not?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] May this document be given an

23     exhibit number, please?

24             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D58, Your Honours.

Page 7940

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Sir, there's a document here.  It's a report on arrest of several

 3     persons:  Goran Davidovic, Radenko Malic and Zoran Kovacevic.  These are

 4     all Serbs, are they not?

 5        A.   Are you referring to Goran Davidovic and Radenko Malic?

 6        Q.   Yes.

 7        A.   Yes, yes, you're right.

 8        Q.   So the criminal offence was carried out against the parish

 9     priest, Jure Stipic from Banja Luka?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And somebody signed this for Stojan Zupljanin.  So because of the

12     attack on the Catholic parish priest, these persons were taken into

13     custody?

14        A.   I can only assume this.  I did not have this document before, so

15     I can only tell you what it says.

16        Q.   Well, look at another document, which is part of this document.

17     It's an Official Note drawn up on the 21st of May on the premises of the

18     Majdan Police Station, and it's, I think -- I do apologise.  It's 1D00105

19     [as interpreted].  I apologise.  I know this is a boring exercise, going

20     through these documents.  It's 1D00-1105.  28 -- it's tab 28 in your

21     binder page 4 of this document.  It's an Official Note compiled by an

22     employee of yours.

23        A.   Are you referring to this signature?

24        Q.   Luka Guslov.

25        A.   Yes, he was the commander of the police department in Majdan.

Page 7941

 1        Q.   And from this it follows that Jure Stipic, a Franciscan friar

 2     from Stratinska, reported the crime, thus initiating proceedings?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   After this, the Security Services Centre became involved, and

 5     there's an Official Note, where these persons were interviewed; is that

 6     right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And as a result - please go back to page 2 - a criminal report

 9     was filed against these persons, was it not?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And if you look at page 2 of this criminal report, it says that

12     they were remanded in custody; is that correct?  Look at page 2 of the

13     criminal report.

14        A.   Yes, yes, they were remanded in custody.

15        Q.   And after this statistical form, it says that these persons also

16     perpetrated other criminal offences.  So that after this, let's call it,

17     document, there is another document, English page 45, where the

18     Public Security Station of Banja Luka, your service, compiled an

19     Official Note.  It's dated the 13th of April, but this was compiled

20     later.  But evidently it's attached to this file because the same persons

21     also perpetrated other crimes?

22        A.   Yes, I see the note dated the 13th of April.

23        Q.   If you recall, these persons were mentioned in the operative

24     report as one of the groups known to be committing crimes; is that right?

25        A.   What persons are you referring to?  Cavic, Dragan Cavic?

Page 7942

 1        Q.   No, no, Davidovic, Kovacevic, Malic.

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to tender this

 4     document into evidence.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D59, Your Honours.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Tutus, my colleague asked you about this document before you,

 9     but he didn't go into detail as I would like to.  You remember, when we

10     were talking about that operative work plan, we mentioned this person.

11     It's your tab 29, and the exhibit number is 1D201, MFI.

12             This is a criminal report against Brane Palackovic, mentioned

13     earlier, and his entire group, 14 of them?

14        A.   Yes, that's correct.

15        Q.   And if you look at the list of crimes for which they were

16     responsible - it's page 7, and in English it's pages 8 and 9 - it's the

17     handwritten number 23.  Look at the description of crimes and the dates

18     under 23, 24, 25, 26, and then on the next page, 28, 29, 30, 31.  Those

19     are precisely the crimes committed on the barricade on the

20     3rd of April, 1992?

21        A.   That's correct.

22        Q.   So again we can agree that the operative work plan adopted at the

23     time was carried out, and criminal reports were filed against these

24     persons for crimes that they committed back then?

25        A.   Well, they were reported.  But whether all of them were brought

Page 7943

 1     in and whether all of them were remanded in custody, I can't see from

 2     this document.

 3        Q.   We shall see that later.  If you look at this criminal report,

 4     you will see what the author says about Brano Palackovic, next to his

 5     name, in custody.  Look at all persons on the first page.  Palackovic,

 6     Josic, Racic, Kovacevic, Gajic, according to this document, are in

 7     custody?

 8        A.   Yes, I can see that.

 9        Q.   7, Nebojsa Dragojevic, is a fugitive?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Banjac, Tamburic, Sjenica, in custody?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And the remaining three are on the run?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   Now, apart from these crimes I emphasised committed at the

16     barricades, there are other crimes, robbery and theft, mainly against

17     Muslims and Croats, but also against some Serbs?

18        A.   That's right.

19        Q.   And if you go further through this document, there will be an

20     Official Note roughly behind page 4.  It's a note -- a record from the

21     Public Security Station Banja Luka; English page 19.  It's a double-sided

22     copy, the third document after the criminal report, on the left-hand

23     side; English page 19.

24             Have you found it, record of on-site investigation?

25        A.   Yes, I found it.

Page 7944

 1        Q.   It's on the other side, because it's a double-sided copy.  I'm

 2     not sure you're looking at the right thing, but it seems that my people

 3     didn't copy the entire document.  You will see a record of on-site

 4     investigation, 4th May, made in the Public Security Station Banja Luka.

 5     Look at it on the screen.  It's dated 2nd May.  It's a record of receipt

 6     of a verbal criminal report.

 7             Remember the question from Judge Hall.  This is a form for

 8     receiving a verbal criminal report.  It's from your public security

 9     station, isn't it?  Look at the signature, Boro Visic.

10        A.   That's right.

11        Q.   The injured party reported this crime.  The name of the author of

12     this document is Boro Visic.  It's not clear in the transcript.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   It's a question of receipt of a verbal criminal report against

15     these people we've mentioned before, one nicknamed Java, Ivankovic,

16     Palackovic, who stole a car from this person.  And then there is a record

17     of on-site investigation; English page 21.  The date is 4th April, if you

18     look at the other page of this document.  Spasoje Dujakovic is the

19     officer who made the record, and he was an employee in your station,

20     wasn't he?

21        A.   Yes, I think so.

22        Q.   And the next Official Note, English page 23, it's a note drawn up

23     at the Police Station Centar, Banja Luka, pertaining to the same crime

24     committed by Dragan Javorac against Asim Kurjak.  It's also about the

25     theft of this car; paragraph 3.

Page 7945

 1        A.   Yes, I can see it.

 2        Q.   The next page, English page 24, is the record of on-site

 3     investigation dated 7 May.  Do you have it?

 4        A.   I do.

 5        Q.   Also from your public security station?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Mario Laks, the injured party, is a Croat, isn't he?

 8        A.   Possibly, but he may also be of another ethnicity, maybe a Jew.

 9        Q.   And the officer who carried out the on-site investigation is

10     Milenko Radomirovic?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, the next page of the same document, another document from

13     your station, a record --

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   -- concerning this person Palackovic?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And the signature is that of Milorad Granulic, your employee?

18        A.   Yes, and I remember this woman, Ljiljana Laks.  I think she was a

19     professor at the University of Banja Luka.

20        Q.   I see the crime was committed by this Vojvoda Palackovic.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, move two pages on.  The documents that follow mean that the

23     centre is getting involved and they write their own official notes.  And

24     the third document is again from your station; English page 32.  It's an

25     Official Note made at the Centar Station.  The names are Dusan Popovic

Page 7946

 1     and Jadranko Mikic?

 2        A.   Jadranko Mikic and Dusan Popovic.

 3        Q.   Employees of the Centar Station?

 4        A.   I think so.

 5        Q.   They were also working to elucidate one of the crimes committed

 6     by this Palackovic and his group?

 7        A.   Probably.  It's a note they made.

 8        Q.   Now, the fifth document after this one.  I don't want to show you

 9     those in between.  They concern the assignment of cases.  English

10     page 41.  The Official Note is made again at the Centar Police Station

11     regarding another crime of this group.  The authors are Nikola Davidovic

12     and Vojo Milovanovic, employees of the Centar station?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And the next document is again from your station, dated

15     1st May 1992.  The authorised officers are Ermin Kovac, Spomenko Dakic

16     and Slobodan Ostojic, also concerns crimes committed by this group?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Ermin Kovac is a Muslim, isn't he?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Look at the next page.  It's another document from your public

21     security station?

22        A.   It is.

23        Q.   It's an Official Note signed by the same officers, and the

24     injured party is Mirsada Dzehic, a Muslim woman?

25        A.   Correct.

Page 7947

 1        Q.   The next document also concerns the wrong-doings of this group,

 2     an Official Note dated, again, the 1st May, taken by Ermin Kovac,

 3     Spomenko Dakic, and Slobodan Ostojic.  It was an interview geared at

 4     elucidating this event?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   There are another 10 or so documents that I don't want to go

 7     through.  Up to page 52 in English, they're all official notes and

 8     records made by officers of the Public Security Station Banja Luka, up to

 9     this document which is from the Budzak Station -- up to this record

10     whereby the centre again gets involved?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And there is a note from the 14th of May, an Official Note made

13     by Faruk Kotilovac [phoen]; page 59 in English.

14        A.   Yes, I can see it.

15        Q.   It's a Muslim; right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So an employee of the Public Security Station who took this

18     statement?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   I've looked through this entire criminal report, and I can

21     conclude that it was the result of joint work between the Public Security

22     Station of Banja Luka and the Security Services Centre against this

23     group.  Wasn't it?

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   This criminal report and all these records either made by the CSB

Page 7948

 1     or by your station, they all look authentic; right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And you even can remember some of the injured parties?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since we went through

 6     this in detail, I would like to tender this for full admission rather

 7     than MFI.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Now, Mr. Tutus, look at the next document, 1D199, MFI, and in

11     your binder it's tab 30.  It's an additional criminal report against

12     Brano Palackovic and the others.  It concerns a different type of crime.

13     More than once in April -- in May 1992, in Banja Luka, they damaged six

14     different businesses owned by Muslims or Albanians, by throwing

15     hand-grenades and pouring and igniting gasoline?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Look at the next page.  The signature belongs to

18     Stojan Zupljanin?

19        A.   That's right.

20        Q.   There is a set of documents, mainly official notes from the CSB,

21     but I'm interested in page 19 of this document.  It's before this signed

22     form.  It's an Official Note from your public security station.  Counting

23     from the criminal report, it's the sixth document.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   This Official Note was made at the Centar Station.  Can you see

Page 7949

 1     that?

 2        A.   Which date?

 3        Q.   5th May.

 4        A.   Yes, I'm looking at it.

 5        Q.   It's English page 14.  We see a description of one of these

 6     bombings.  The document is 199, MFI, and it's page 14 in the English

 7     version, under tab 30.  In the Serbian version, it's page 13, and in

 8     English it's page 14.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I may be wrong.  1D00-1723.

11     MFI 1D119, if I noted it down correctly, and this is a part of that

12     document.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, it seems to be not 1D0199, but

14     1D0200.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's probably my

16     mistake.  I noted down the number when Mr. Zecevic was tendering the

17     document, and I thank Your Honour for correcting me.

18        Q.   So it's page 14 in the English version of the document,

19     Mr. Tutus, I do apologise.  In connection with throwing hand-grenades and

20     setting fire to certain facilities, this Official Note was compiled by

21     Boro Jacimovic, an employee of the police station; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Look at the next page.  It's 15 in English, and this is another

24     note compiled by Boro Jacimovic on the 5th of May.  And we can see that

25     these persons were brought in; Cutkovic, Palackovic, Milasinovic, and

Page 7950

 1     Milakovic.  It's on the next page.  Just turn the page, the next-to-last

 2     page.

 3        A.   I can't see it.

 4        Q.   Well, then look at the screen.

 5        A.   Yes, it's the document we commented on.

 6        Q.   And Boro Jacimovic is an employee of yours?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And this action of elucidating these criminal offences was

 9     conducted jointly with the centre -- Security Services Centre and your

10     employees, it follows from the notes they drew up.  Is that correct?

11        A.   This Official Note was drawn up by employees of the Centar

12     Police Station.

13        Q.   If you look at all these records and all these forms, do they

14     seem authentic to you?

15        A.   Yes.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may this document be

17     admitted into evidence?

18             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And now another document.  Unfortunately, this is boring, but we

21     have to go through this, Mr. Tutus.  The next document is 1D00-1440.

22     It's tab 31 in your binder.  It's a report and a criminal report against

23     Marinko Gajic, Djuro Racic.  If you recall, these are persons mentioned

24     in the operative plan as perpetrators of crimes.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 7951

 1        Q.   And it's evident here that the criminal report -- well, it says

 2     it was signed by Stojan Zupljanin, but it doesn't look like his

 3     signature.  It looks to me like the signature of Zivko Bojic.  Can you

 4     assist?

 5        A.   I think it's Zivko Bojic's signature.

 6        Q.   Tell us, who was Zivko Bojic?  What was his position at that time

 7     in the Security Services Centre?  Do you remember what he was?

 8        A.   He was the chief of the Crime Prevention Department for general

 9     crime.

10        Q.   Here we have the crime of seizing money from a person of Muslim

11     ethnicity?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And please look at this receipt on confiscated property, which is

14     just before this form.  It's page 14 in English, and it's just before the

15     statistical form in your binder.

16        A.   Yes, I see it.

17        Q.   And it's issued by the Banja Luka Public Security Station, which

18     confiscated these items?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   As the crime referred to seizing money, probably it was this

21     money that had been obtained by robbery that was confiscated?

22        A.   Yes, I assume that is the case.

23        Q.   And here we see that there was joint action by the Banja Luka

24     Public Security Station and the centre?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 7952

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] May this document be admitted into

 2     evidence, Your Honours?

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit 2D60, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, in the document that we have just

 6     admitted into evidence it said that Mr. Marinko Gajic had been arrested

 7     and transferred, but I couldn't see to where he was transferred.  Can you

 8     clarify?

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, for Mr. Krgovic.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on page 2 of the

11     English version of this document, one can see that he is in the remand

12     prison; page 2 of the English version.  He was remanded in custody.  And

13     this other person was in the military remand prison because he was

14     already under investigation by the military authorities.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  I didn't catch that when we saw it

16     the first time.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Now, Mr. Tutus, please look at the last document in this series.

19     It's number 32 in your binder, 1D00-6804.  This concerns the criminal

20     offence of setting an explosive in Karanovac.  That was a municipality

21     where there were many problems with these members of special units?

22        A.   Yes, I remember these problems.

23        Q.   One of these persons planted explosives - if you look at page 3 -

24     in property owned by Sofija Nulesi [phoen].  I think this is an ethnic

25     Albanian.

Page 7953

 1        A.   I don't see where you've seen this.

 2        Q.   It's one, two -- or, rather, the third page of this document.

 3     No, I apologise.  This is the report on arrest, but I do apologise.  It's

 4     Exhibit 1D00-2190, because, in fact, it concerns two persons who

 5     committed these crimes.  1D00 -- these two documents refer to persons who

 6     are mutually connected.  The first one is a building in Karanovac, and

 7     the second one refers to Boro Grujicic, who through a grenade on a

 8     goldsmith's shop, Filigran [phoen]; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   So it's one of a series of explosions which was investigated by

11     the centre and the Public Security Station of Banja Luka; is that

12     correct?

13        A.   Yes.  Yes, yes.

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  May this exhibit

15     be given a number?  But these are actually two, 1D006804 and 1D0062190.

16     So they can be admitted together or one by one, whatever is easiest.

17             JUDGE HALL:  They will be separately admitted and marked.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 2D61 and 2D62, Your Honours.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have spent more

20     time than I intended at this because of the Prosecutor's objection to

21     these documents, so I had to go through them.  These documents were

22     compiled by the service headed by this witness.  I have some half an hour

23     or 40 minutes that I still need.  I think this might be a convenient time

24     for a break, as I will be moving on to a different topic.  And I hope

25     there will be no more exhibits being tendered through this witness.

Page 7954

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, so we take the break now.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3                           --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Tutus, let's continue where we left off.  We had to go

 9     through those documents for procedural reasons in order to have them

10     admitted into evidence.

11             A question following from this whole set of documents that I

12     showed you.  I see that both you and the centre -- the Security Services

13     Centre filed a large number of criminal reports containing qualifications

14     of these criminal offences, and I see that you are using the

15     qualifications from the Criminal Code, murder, robbery, and you qualify

16     them as regular crimes; is that right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   When my learned friend Mr. Zecevic and the Prosecutor were

19     putting questions to you concerning dispatches concerning war crimes, you

20     thought that as Banja Luka was not in the war theatre, you could describe

21     these crimes in the same way you would as in peacetime; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Regardless of the fact that persons of other ethnicities were the

24     victims of the crimes, this did not, in your view, make it a war crime;

25     is that correct?

Page 7955

 1        A.   Well, we thought we should do the job in the way we did, but that

 2     doesn't mean that the prosecutor could not have altered that.  As we were

 3     not actually in the war theatre, on the battle-field, we thought that

 4     this was the proper way to go about it.

 5        Q.   But it was up to the prosecutor's office, when bringing the case

 6     to trial, to qualify the offences.  The prosecutor was not bound to

 7     follow your description; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And I went through some newspaper articles - I won't show them

10     here now - where you were calling on persons of other ethnicities to

11     report crimes committed against them.  This meeting was held in

12     President Radic's office in April with the SDA leadership, and two Muslim

13     leaders were present there; do you remember?

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7956

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9             That's all very well, but can you please give me the 65 ter

10     number?

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have the ERN number.  0202-9785,

12     that's the ERN number.  Just a moment.

13             MS. KORNER:  And, Your Honour, I repeat my objection.  Just

14     because the Defence say that they don't like newspaper articles and, as a

15     matter of principle, are not going to put them in, if they're going to

16     use the newspaper articles, then they should be produced to the witness

17     as a document.  And whether they decide to make it an exhibit or not, we

18     should still know what it is they're referring to.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I had no intention of

20     putting this article to the witness.  I just wanted to see whether he

21     remembered that meeting.  It's not in e-court, to the best of my

22     knowledge.  I didn't have time to upload it.

23             JUDGE HALL:  I think, Mr. Krgovic, you might have misunderstood

24     the point that Ms. Korner was making, that whether you're putting it in

25     or not, that the witness and the other side need to know what the -- need

Page 7957

 1     to have a common understanding of what it is you're referring to.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I can put it on the ELMO, as I

 3     don't think it's in e-court, and then the witness can look at it.  I can

 4     put my copy on the ELMO and it can be shown to the witness.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, why do we need the article, even not

 7     tendered?  If there's a meeting you want to ask the witness about, just

 8     ask him.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yeah.  Yes, Your Honour.  You're absolutely right.

10     Okay, I'll proceed on that way.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Tutus, do you remember that -- well, you

12     said you had a number of meetings with citizens, drawing attention to

13     certain security problems.  And in April, there was a meeting attended by

14     an SDA delegation, led by Muharem Krzic, the president of the SDA, and at

15     that meeting Bajazid Jahic was present, and you asked these citizens, who

16     were SDA members and Muslims, for greater co-operation in providing

17     information so that the MUP could respond in a timely manner and prevent

18     incidents that might lead to serious consequences.  You were actually

19     calling on citizens to report crimes?

20        A.   I remember we had several meetings in President Radic's office.

21     I remember that Ahmed Ceranic was present at one of those meetings.  He

22     was an employee in the Services Centre, and he's now in SIPA.  And I

23     remember that on more than one occasion, I called on citizens in public,

24     through newspapers, to report crimes, regardless of their ethnicity,

25     because the Security Service did not care about the ethnicity; it just

Page 7958

 1     wanted to protect all citizens.  So I would accept any co-operation.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Mr. Krgovic, could you repeat, please, the ERN

 3     number?  This is not on any list that we have.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 029785.

 5             MS. KORNER:  No, that's not a number.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 0202-9785.

 7        Q.   And to round off this topic, Mr. Tutus, when performing your work

 8     in 1992 as chief of the Public Security Station in Banja Luka, you made

 9     efforts to protect all citizens and investigate every crime, regardless

10     of the ethnicity of the perpetrators and the victims; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes, we did our best to act in this way.

12        Q.   And these criminal reports and all of these reports that we saw

13     show that you succeeded to a large extent, as far as this was possible,

14     bearing in mind the wartime circumstances surrounding Banja Luka?

15        A.   All the organs to whom I reported on the work of the Public

16     Security Station were satisfied with our work.

17        Q.   We're moving on to a new subject, Mr. Tutus.  Go back to tab 18.

18     It's P1089.

19             I asked you this morning about methods of police work, and this

20     report you sent to the CSB, to the chief, has the title "Operative

21     Intelligence."  Do you see it at the beginning of the document?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And that means that there is certain operative information that

24     former members of the special police are responsible for certain crimes?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 7959

 1        Q.   Which does not mean you have evidence that they are, you only

 2     have indicia, and further action is needed to elucidate these cases and

 3     to establish whether a crime had been committed by them?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   When you were talking about the structure of the Security

 6     Services Centre, when the Prosecutor was questioning you also about your

 7     public security station, the uniformed police in the Public Security

 8     Station, in keeping with the rules and in the internal organisation, was

 9     under whom; not you, but under the chief for public security affairs;

10     correct?

11        A.   Did you say under me or above me?

12        Q.   I'm talking about the Public Security Station.  You were

13     describing various sectors.  What exactly did you say?

14        A.   Now talking about the Public Security Station, the commander of

15     the station is the one managing the station.  I did not have any deputies

16     or assistants.  I was the next in line after the commander.

17        Q.   And the station commander is in charge of the uniformed police,

18     both active-duty and reserve?

19        A.   Yes, the station commander has his own associates, his deputy,

20     assistants; assistant for crime, assistant for traffic, et cetera.  They

21     were all working in the Public Security Station.

22        Q.   And in the Security Services Centre, in addition to the chief,

23     there are two sectors, State Security and Public Security?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And the uniformed police, including the special police, according

Page 7960

 1     to that system, should be under the jurisdiction of the chief of public

 2     security; right?

 3        A.   If we look at these two sectors, then all uniformed and

 4     non-uniformed police should be subordinated to the chief of public

 5     security, within the Public Security Sector.

 6        Q.   And in 1992, that was Djuro Bulic?

 7        A.   Before him was Bajazid Jahic, but then it was Djuro Bulic, right.

 8        Q.   And when you, as the chief, or your department chief,

 9     Zoran Josic, sent such a note concerning operational intelligence to

10     Chief Zupljanin, he should send it down to Chief Bulic, who would then,

11     through the commander of the special unit, check this information; is

12     that right?

13        A.   He had several methods of running checks.  Normally, he would do

14     it through his associates in public security, but if it concerned

15     something special, he could also use the services of the other sector.

16        Q.   Now, please look at another exhibit.  It's 65 ter -- excuse me.

17     It's Exhibit 2D02-1357, your tab 21.  It's a document.  Look at the last

18     page, page 3.  Is that your signature?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   You are referring to a meeting held on the 24th of April at the

21     Assembly, and you request certain information and a certain list from the

22     CSB Banja Luka; is that right?

23        A.   I'm sorry, I didn't understand.  Which list?

24        Q.   You are mentioning a list of the members of the Special

25     Detachment.  It's on page 2, the last page, above the signature.  It

Page 7961

 1     says:

 2             "For the reasons set out in this dispatch, we must insist that

 3     the said list be provided so that legal measures can be taken."

 4        A.   That's what it reads.

 5        Q.   So you wanted a list of the members of the special police in

 6     order to find them and disarm them?

 7        A.   In a certain sense, yes, and for the purpose of elucidating the

 8     crimes that they were associated with.

 9        Q.   Now, look at the handwritten note on the first page of this

10     document.  You can see the signature of Stojan Zupljanin?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And he says:

13             "Urgently take measures -- take steps to establish lists and

14     confiscate our weapons and official identity cards."

15             The date is 10 May 1993, and it's addressed to Bulic.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So when Stojan Zupljanin received this letter, he tasked Bulic,

18     as the man in charge of this unit, to prepare this information and to

19     follow your suggestion; namely, to make a list, and take steps to disarm

20     these men, and to deal with this problem once and for all?

21        A.   I don't know who was in charge of this unit, but Bulic was the

22     department chief for public security, and that was his job.

23        Q.   And this note is actually addressed to him to take action?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Now, go back to the previous document in your binder, tab 20,

Page 7962

 1     65 ter 2763.  This is a document submitted to the Public Security

 2     Station -- sorry, to the CSB and to the Ministry of the Interior, and

 3     Djuro Bulic actually signed for the chief of the centre?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   That leads me to conclude that he has certain connections with

 6     this unit, because he is tasked to deal with the problems created by this

 7     unit.

 8        A.   He's the one who signed these documents.

 9        Q.   Mr. Tutus, just one clarification.  You said earlier on that this

10     special unit consisted of both reservists and active-duty personnel?

11        A.   Yes, there were both kinds in that unit.

12        Q.   Now, if a procedure is started to establish the responsibility of

13     a member of a special unit, namely, disciplinary responsibility, the

14     procedure is different for a reservist than for an active-duty staff

15     member?

16        A.   That's how we did it.

17        Q.   With an active-duty staff member, the regular disciplinary

18     proceedings would be instituted, he would go before a disciplinary court.

19     And if the Court established that it was a serious breach of duty, the

20     harshest measure was dismissal, termination of employment?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   However, if a disciplinary violation was committed by a

23     reservist, the so-called abbreviated procedure was followed.  The

24     allegations would be checked to establish whether this reservist, indeed,

25     was responsible for such a breach of discipline.  And if the answer was

Page 7963

 1     affirmative, the person would be taken off the list of reservists and it

 2     would be notified to the Ministry of Defence, which would then decide

 3     what to do with that individual?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And if evidence was found of a criminal act, regardless of who

 6     the person was, the regular procedure would be followed and a criminal

 7     report would be filed?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Until the moment operative information is collected, a certain

10     time is needed.  This time needed for running checks on active-duty

11     personnel was much longer than for a reservist?

12        A.   Dead-lines were established in the Rules on Disciplinary

13     Liability, and for reservists, yes, this dead-line was shorter.

14        Q.   As soon as allegations are verified, and that also takes some

15     time, that person could be taken off the list of reserve police officers?

16        A.   Yes, that's correct.

17        Q.   And that made it easier for those responsible to deal with this,

18     because they could take a short-cut around these disciplinary proceedings

19     and get rid of these people who shouldn't be on the police force at all?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And that's what you did at your police station?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Tutus, could you go back to this document.  We'll have

24     to view these documents in parallel, like the Prosecutor did.  The

25     previous document is P1089.  In that Official Note, you mentioned a

Page 7964

 1     number of persons on whom there was operative information of wrong-doing.

 2             I would like you to take this photocopy of an exhibit, if I can

 3     have the assistance of the Usher, P1089, so you don't have to leaf

 4     through the binder.  And in the meantime, look at the list, 276, which is

 5     tab 20.

 6             We see again the same names from the Official Note.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please read slowly the names.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Milo Todorovic, Ljubisa Vranjes --

10             MS. KORNER:  I've just been handed a document in B/C/S by the

11     Usher, with the request to know whether it can go to the witness.  I have

12     no idea what it is.  What is the document?

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's P1089.

14        Q.   You see, these names are on page 2 of the document:  Todorovic,

15     Vranjes, Kojic, and Milankovic.  And now please look at this document and

16     look up sequential number 253.  You can see that this Mile Todorovic is

17     on the list of the unit.

18             And look up also 280.  You can see that this Ljubisa Vranjes is a

19     member of the 4th Light Infantry Brigade in Banja Luka; right?

20        A.   That's what the list says, but it also indicates reserve police.

21        Q.   Predrag Kojic is number 102; Military Post Office Box Laktasi,

22     Odzak?

23        A.   That's what it says.

24        Q.   Zlatko Milankovic is number 145, if I got that right.  It says

25     "Dvor, Banja"?

Page 7965

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   It seems to follow that this unit member is at Dvor, in Banja.

 3     He's probably from the Republic of Serbian Krajina, one of that group

 4     that was admitted into the detachment?

 5        A.   Yes, yes.

 6        Q.   Then turn to the next page of this document.  You will see

 7     Mirko Bajdic, number 191, and he's in Military Post Office Box Laktasi?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Slobodan Strazik [phoen] is number 238.  He's in Okucani; right?

10        A.   Yes, it says "Okucani."

11        Q.   It's probably someone from the Territorial Defence of Baranja who

12     arrived and joined the Special Detachment?

13        A.   I don't know where he came from.

14        Q.   Ratko Vlajnic is number 229.  Also Okucani?

15        A.   Yes, that's what it reads.

16        Q.   Zeljko Sumrak, number 229.  Okucani again?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Nenad Grujic, number 63, Military Post Box Simicevo, Odzak?

19        A.   Yes, it's written.

20        Q.   Gajic, member of the Special Detachment.  Look up number 60.

21        A.   I see that.

22        Q.   He is in the CSB, according to this?

23        A.   Yes, according to this.

24        Q.   Then Vukadinovic.  Look up number 81.

25        A.   Which number?

Page 7966

 1        Q.   I'm sorry.  Vukadinovic is 281.  His whereabouts are not known,

 2     not indicated?

 3        A.   That's correct.

 4        Q.   You already discussed Kajkut with the Prosecutor.  We'll skip

 5     him.  You'll see Jovan Divic and Goran Sladojevic.  Number 41, Divic is

 6     also in Okucani?

 7        A.   That's written here.

 8        Q.   And this Sladojevic is number 227.  I'm sorry, it's 228, wounded.

 9     Further below, you'll see "Ilija Damjanov" [phoen], page 3, number 49.

10        A.   Which number?

11        Q.   49, "4th Light Infantry Brigade, Banja Luka"?

12        A.   I see it written.

13        Q.   Then you see "Radomir Boskan" [phoen] under number 13.  It says:

14     "Wounded in a bar, Territorial Defence of Slavonia"?

15        A.   That's written here.

16        Q.   Then "Z. Stojmirkovic" [phoen].  Look up number 184, I think.

17     Injured in the month of May.  Zeljko Mirkovic, if that's the same person.

18     I'm not sure, myself.

19        A.   It's written there.

20        Q.   "J. Divic," number 41, he's in Okucani?  And "Milenko Divic,"

21     number 43, also in Okucani.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now, look up 284.  The name is Zmijanac, 11th Krajina Brigade.

24        A.   Yes, it's written.

25        Q.   You spoke already about Nenad Kajkut with the Prosecutor.  Now

Page 7967

 1     comes Dusan Dragojevic, number 45.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   He's in the Special Police Detachment.  Now, from what I see

 4     here, without a detailed analysis, out of all these people I mentioned, I

 5     found two or three names recorded as associated with the police in 1993.

 6     All the others were either in the Territorial Defence of Okucani, or

 7     Dvor, on Una, or different military locations?

 8        A.   I don't get it.

 9        Q.   From what I read, you will see that only two or three names are

10     associated with the police at the time when this report was made.  All

11     the rest were members of various Territorial Defence units or military

12     units, but have nothing to do with the CSB Banja Luka anymore?

13        A.   Yes, I can see that.

14        Q.   So my conclusion/inference is that most of these persons who were

15     suspected of something, according to operative information, were removed

16     from the force and sent to the Territorial Defence units or military

17     units, et cetera.

18        A.   I think they were disbanded by that time.

19        Q.   We'll come to that, Mr. Tutus.

20             When you were questioned by the Prosecutor about the special unit

21     and indicia that they were involved in crime or wrong-doing, do you

22     remember that after this incident in Tunjice on the 21st or

23     22nd July 1992, a group of men, including Sveto Gajic, an inspector from

24     the MUP, from the central MUP, came to you for a visit to discuss this

25     information in your presence and in the presence of the chief of the

Page 7968

 1     centre?  Do you remember that meeting?

 2        A.   I know Sveto Gajic visited Banja Luka, but I did not attend the

 3     meeting and I don't know what was discussed.

 4        Q.   Are you aware that immediately after that, within 10 days, a

 5     decision was made regarding that special unit, not only the special unit

 6     attached to the station, but all the other special units, that they

 7     should be disbanded?

 8        A.   Sveto Gajic came to my office and showed me an instruction -- an

 9     order from the minister to disband such units.

10        Q.   Did he confirm that he was in receipt of your reports to that

11     effect and the reports of the CSB; do you remember?

12        A.   No, I honestly don't.

13        Q.   Have you ever heard and do you know, since this unit was placed

14     under the command of the army, this transition took place in Kotor Varos

15     on the 10th of August?

16        A.   I'm not aware of that.

17        Q.   Mr. Tutus, while we're still on the subject, you answered

18     detailed questions from the Prosecutor about that request from

19     Mr. Zupljanin regarding prisoners.  And when Zupljanin discussed this

20     with you, he didn't actually ask you to stop all action and release them,

21     he didn't ask you to stop the prosecution, but just to take them to the

22     investigative judge?

23        A.   He did not ask that prosecutions be stopped.

24        Q.   Now, talking about this relationship, the powers of various

25     employees, including the chief of the centre and the chief of the

Page 7969

 1     station, such as you were, are derived from the law, not from anybody's

 2     orders?

 3        A.   They are derived from the Law on Internal Affairs and other

 4     bylaws of the Ministry of the Interior.

 5        Q.   But also the Law on the Authorisations of Police Officers, the

 6     Criminal Code, and the Law on State Administration?

 7        A.   Yes, these laws are also relevant.

 8        Q.   The rules only distribute the legal powers - excuse me, I have to

 9     pause for interpretation - so that the competencies of employees of the

10     police are prescribed by law and regulated in greater detail by the rules

11     and the job description; is that right?

12        A.   The authorised officers, their authority follows from the

13     Law on the Interior and the Rules of Service of the Security Services.

14        Q.   And you, as the chief of the Public Security Station, and all

15     your superior and subordinate officers, your relationships are regulated

16     by law and by the Rules of Service?

17        A.   Yes, by the law and bylaws.

18        Q.   And this is not the same sort of superior-subordinate

19     relationship as in the army.  You don't operate pursuant to direct orders

20     and instructions, but based on the law and the Rules of Service; is that

21     correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this exhibit that I

24     showed the witness, and this list, 65 ter 276 [as interpreted], may it be

25     admitted into evidence, please?

Page 7970

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D63, Your Honours.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Mr. Tutus, I haven't gone through this list in detail, but I see

 5     that -- with you, I mean, but -- I'm referring to a report from 1993, but

 6     I see that a large number of persons were no longer on the list as

 7     members of the Special Brigade, so just one question about this.  From

 8     the moment that operative information is obtained to the moment when a

 9     violation or a breach is established, there is a time when this has to be

10     investigated and confirmed.  There has to be some sort of procedure in

11     the interval, especially as these are police officers.  Is that correct?

12        A.   In the case of active-duty policemen and also reserve policemen,

13     yes, there has to be a procedure.

14        Q.   If I look at the activities of this special unit, in May, some

15     two and a half months or three months later, it was disbanded, was it

16     not?

17        A.   Yes, it was disbanded, but I don't know to what extent it

18     functioned at all.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Tutus, what do you mean by that?  Are you

20     putting a question about whether they continued to function even after

21     they were disbanded or are you saying that even by the time they were

22     disbanded, they had -- they were no longer functioning?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only wanted to say that I cannot

24     connect these dates, when it was formed and when it was disbanded.  When

25     they were disbanded, I assume they were not functioning, but I wasn't

Page 7971

 1     trying to throw doubt on that.  I just meant to say I didn't know the

 2     exact date when they were disbanded.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic --

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm looking for a document to show

 6     the witness, Your Honour.  I think it's on my list.

 7             May we have Exhibit P600, please.  I apologise.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, before we go to another document, I

 9     have a little doubt about the document we just exhibited, and that had

10     65 ter 276, you said.  Am I right that this --

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honour.  2763.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  2763.  Okay.  Then it's not correctly in the

13     transcript.  That's why I couldn't find it on your list.  Thank you.

14             MS. KORNER:  In fact, I don't know which document is which now,

15     but in light of the fact that you don't want too many documents in, the

16     list, for some unknown reason, Mr. Krgovic went -- there are two copies

17     of this very self-same list, one of which has already been exhibited as

18     part of the letter.  So we've got two identical lists being exhibited.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] In fact, the list shown by the

20     Prosecutor to the witness was typed out on a different typewriter and

21     there are handwritten notes on it, whereas this is the official version

22     of that document.  And both are Prosecution documents which were

23     disclosed to us.

24             MS. KORNER:  I appreciate that.  I'm merely pointing out I don't

25     see there's any difference at all between the two lists, save for the

Page 7972

 1     handwritten notes.  But if the Trial Chamber wants to have two identical

 2     lists as exhibits, that's fine by me.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] There is a difference, Your Honour,

 4     because you have the previous page, the cover letter with the list, and

 5     that's where the difference is.  On the 65 ter list, you have the first

 6     page, so that the documents are not identical.  They are similar, but not

 7     identical.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  We leave them as exhibited, then.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Document P600, may it be brought up

10     on the screen, please.

11        Q.   Mr. Tutus, please look here.  This is information sent by

12     Stojan Zupljanin to the chief of all public security stations, the

13     Command of the 1st Krajina Corps of the Serbian Republic, and the chief

14     of the intelligence security organ of the 1st Krajina Corps.  And the

15     date is the 14th of August, 1992, and the dispatch says that as of the

16     10th of August, 1992, the special unit of the police in the CSB is being

17     disbanded.  That's what it says here?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   So on the basis of this order, they will have their rights as

20     members of the CSB.  So if you remember the payroll of August, they were

21     paid for August although they were no longer members of the CSB, but this

22     was a transitional period so that their benefits and other entitlements

23     would be paid them up to the 31st of August.  So it follows that that

24     list was drawn up on the basis of this document?

25        A.   I remember that list and I see this document, but I don't know

Page 7973

 1     what your question is.

 2        Q.   It means that their benefits and other rights after the 31st of

 3     August, as far as salaries go, they got these from the CSB and not in the

 4     army; is that right?

 5        A.   Yes, that's what it says in the dispatch, up to the

 6     31st of August.

 7        Q.   Although they were disbanded as of the 10th of August, I suppose,

 8     based on the agreement between the army and the CSB, their benefits and

 9     the salaries were paid even though they were no longer members of the

10     police?

11        A.   I'm unable to answer that question.

12        Q.   And this letter is being sent to the intelligence organ of the

13     1st Krajina Corps probably because this unit was now coming under their

14     auspices, so that they have to be informed of this as well?

15        A.   Well, I see from this document that they were informed.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, please remember to slow down to allow

17     the interpreters.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That's all I had to ask you,

19     Mr. Tutus.  Thank you.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I'm afraid I can't complete my

22     re-examination today, but I can start it.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Ms. Korner.

24                           Re-examination by Ms. Korner:

25        Q.   All right.  Mr. Tutus, let's go back to some of the things that

Page 7974

 1     you were asked about by Mr. Zecevic.  First of all, you were asked a

 2     number of questions about the reserve police on Thursday of last week,

 3     from page 7763 of the transcript following.  I do want to ask one matter

 4     about that.

 5             Is it right that the whole composition dealing with the internal

 6     police and the like was dealt with by the Law on Internal Affairs?  I'm

 7     sorry, "internal."  I should have said "reserve police."  Sorry, my

 8     fault.

 9        A.   Yes, the law prescribed the numbers and their organisation, and

10     the minister was the one who enacted the criteria for recruitment.

11        Q.   Right, thank you.  And, equally, what happened as far as they

12     were -- the disciplining of internal -- reserve police was not a matter

13     for individuals -- for individual SJBs or CSBs, but, again, was regulated

14     by law; is that right?

15        A.   As for disciplining, it was not prescribed precisely in the law,

16     because the law speaks of employees, whereas reserve police officers are

17     not considered to be employees, and that's where the difference lies.

18        Q.   Sorry, it's my fault for using loose terms.  It was regulated by

19     means of internal regulations which were issued by the minister; is that

20     right?

21        A.   The minister enacted the Rules on Establishing Disciplinary

22     Responsibility.  Yes, that was a document issued by the minister.

23        Q.   Now, next you were asked about and you were shown the video of

24     the Banja Luka parade of the police on the 13th of May, 1992.  And it was

25     put to you that this was a propaganda exercise, and you agreed with it.

Page 7975

 1     And you were asked about whether the vehicles had obviously just been

 2     painted blue.

 3             I want you to have a look, please, at two documents.  First of

 4     all, could you have a look at document 65 ter 94, which is P548.

 5             Now, were you aware that on the 23rd of April, 1992,

 6     Stojan Zupljanin, if we look at the -- sorry, not Stojan Zupljanin.  Yes,

 7     Stojan Zupljanin.  If we look at the last page in English -- I don't know

 8     what it is in B/C/S.  No, that's not it.  There should be one further

 9     page.  No.  All right.  I don't think there's any -- were you aware that

10     Stojan Zupljanin had asked for helicopters and armoured vehicles and the

11     like, some three or four weeks -- three weeks before this parade - can we

12     go back to the first page - for the needs of the Special Purposes

13     Brigade?  Were you aware of that, Mr. Tutus?

14        A.   You used a sentence I did not utter, that I agreed that this

15     parade was a propaganda exercise.  I denied this, to the best of my

16     recollection.

17        Q.   Well, in that case we'll just check and see exactly what you did

18     say.  Page 7785.  The question was put at page 7785:

19             "Q.  Would you agree with me --" or:  "You would agree with me,

20     would you not, that these vehicles and this entire parade was, in fact,

21     held for propaganda purposes, the vehicles were used for propaganda

22     purposes and the parade was held for propaganda purposes?"

23             And your answer:

24             "I couldn't say so.  I think the purpose was to demonstrate force

25     and to demonstrate for the benefit of the citizens that the situation was

Page 7976

 1     secure.

 2             "Q.  That's what I meant by 'propaganda purposes.'  Well, thank

 3     you."

 4             Do you accept that those vehicles were acquired from the army and

 5     were there for the use of and were used by the special police?

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Even after the parade?

 7             MS. KORNER:  Even after the parade, yes.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So they were not only required for the purpose of

 9     the parade, but they were required for the purpose of the police --

10             MS. KORNER:  Special police --

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- functions.

12             MS. KORNER:  -- functions, exactly.  Thank you.

13        Q.   Is that right, Mr. Tutus?

14        A.   I believe that that's right.

15             MS. KORNER:  Thank you.  And, Your Honours, I won't bother to put

16     it up on the screen, but, in fact, we do have the response from the army,

17     which is already an exhibit, agreeing to hand over the vehicles.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's just be clear about this.

19             We're being told that Mr. Zupljanin, apparently, applied to have

20     these vehicles and helicopters three weeks before the parade took place.

21     And then after the parade had taken place, those vehicles and helicopters

22     remained at the disposition of the police in Banja Luka -- at the

23     disposition of the CSB in Banja Luka?  Is that correctly understood, or

24     were they taken back at some later point?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of those details.  I

Page 7977

 1     don't know.  I only agreed that these vehicles did come from the army,

 2     that the army gave them to the CSB.  But as to whether and when they were

 3     returned, I really wouldn't know.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Do you remember seeing them around in Banja Luka

 5     or the Banja Luka area after the parade?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The special unit did have such

 7     combat vehicles.  They were painted blue.  And they did participate in

 8     the celebration of the 13th of May and I believe they were kept on

 9     afterwards, but I cannot be more precise.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks.

11             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, perhaps we ought to just

12     complete this.

13             Can we have up on the screen, please, the document from the army,

14     which is P549, dated the 24th of April.  And it states that -- sorry, I

15     don't know where it is in B/C/S, but it's the fourth page in English.

16     I think it's the fourth page in B/C/S as well, yeah, bottom paragraph.

17     And there we see General Kukanjac, [indiscernible] this address, was

18     requested, saying:

19             "We believe this request should be granted, most notably for the

20     material that cannot be found on the market and in the amount which would

21     meet the basic needs."

22             Can we move off from the video to --

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  I really do

24     have to object.

25             First of all, this document does not confirm what Ms. Korner

Page 7978

 1     said.  This document, if we would agree that the P548 is the document

 2     sent by Zupljanin, which is not correct because it only states a part of

 3     the document allegedly sent by Zupljanin, it is signed by somebody who is

 4     Bozo Ninkovic.  But apart from that, this document, P549, is actually an

 5     opinion of General Kukanjac, sent to the SSNO.  The SSNO is the

 6     Federal Secretariat for National Defence, which is in Belgrade.  So

 7     Milutin Kukanjac, who was the commander of the JNA 2nd Corps stationed in

 8     Sarajevo, sends an opinion to the Federal Secretariat which is in

 9     Belgrade, to the headquarters of the JNA in Belgrade, that to this

10     request of the allegedly CSB Banja Luka should be -- that the SSNO should

11     provide this material to the CSB, but it doesn't confirm at all that the

12     material has been, in fact, given to the CSB.

13             MS. KORNER:  And we are looking at what, exactly, on the parade?

14             Your Honours, up until now, I hadn't appreciated, it's never been

15     indicated before - sorry, [indiscernible] - that there was any dispute

16     that the special police received this equipment and used this equipment.

17     And, indeed, I believe, although I can't now -- I know that there was

18     some evidence in relation to Kotor Varos.  I would like to -- is it

19     actually seriously disputed that the special police received this

20     equipment from the army?  Because it has not been indicated up to these

21     odd questions about propaganda.  I think we're entitled to know that.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course it's in

23     dispute, what the unit received.  It is our position that the planes and

24     helicopters you saw, where even the numbers of these vehicles and

25     helicopters do not agree, so of course it's in dispute what the unit

Page 7979

 1     received, and to what extent, and whether it was only a loan, and who was

 2     actually in charge of those vehicles.  If you look at the parade, if you

 3     look at the persons sitting in those combat vehicles, you'll see that

 4     they are not policemen.  But that's a matter of analysis.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  The --

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, this is part of the problem with the

 7     absolutely hopeless pre-trial briefs we received from the Defence.  We're

 8     totally unaware, until it's suddenly raised, as to what is actually in

 9     dispute.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, we filed our briefs, we filed

11     additional file briefs.  The file briefs has been accepted, and that

12     should be -- I believe we shouldn't re-address this issue anymore.

13             What I -- what I objected was the statement of Ms. Korner on

14     page -- I'm sorry, please bear with me, Your Honours.  It's page 76,

15     20 to 22.

16             "Ms. Korner:  Thank you.  And, Your Honours, I won't bother to

17     put it up on the screen, but we already, in fact, have a response from

18     the army, which is already an exhibit, agreeing to hand over the

19     vehicles."

20             That is a misstatement of that document, of P549, and that is why

21     I reacted, Your Honours, because Ms. Korner says that this is the

22     agreement of the army to hand over the vehicles and the equipment, which,

23     in fact, it is not.  Now, we don't --

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, if, in fact, Ms. Korner's comment,

25     observation, conclusion, whatever it is, about the document, which is

Page 7980

 1     already exhibited, differs from yours, at the end of the day this would

 2     be a matter for argument and the Chamber will have to decide.  So I don't

 3     know that we need spend time on this exercise, this back-and-forth.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand and I appreciate, Your Honours.  I

 5     just wanted to raise the attention of the Trial Chamber.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, I'm afraid that looks like it's

 7     it for today.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Tutus, your testimony is still not quite at an

 9     end.  So the Chamber is about to rise, and when we resume tomorrow

10     morning, Ms. Korner will complete her re-examination.

11             The Usher may escort you from the Chamber at this point, because

12     there are two procedural matters with which we have to deal before we

13     rise.  So thank you, sir.

14             And, of course, you'll remember the caution about not discussing

15     your testimony, the number of days you would have been here, I suppose.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  There are still matters to be dealt with.  The

18     first one is the expedited response we asked for the last -- last week.

19     Is there an oral response or will there be a written response?

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, it was our understanding that

21     Your Honours appreciated an oral response, so I'm ready to --

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It's okay.  Go ahead.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I will be very brief.

24             We believe that the request from March 17th, 2010, which -- where

25     the Office of the Prosecution seeks to tender two documents and to

Page 7981

 1     reinstate one document, we believe that the Prosecution showed no good

 2     cause for such action and due -- or due diligence, for that matter.  It

 3     is obvious, in our opinion, that we are at the same position as we were

 4     with our response to -- which we filed on the 10th of March, our response

 5     to Prosecution supplemental motion to Prosecution motions to amend its

 6     65 ter list of exhibits; namely, in paragraph 16 we stated that the

 7     Prosecution -- that supplement motion does not meet any criteria taken

 8     into consideration when an application like this is to be considered.

 9     The Prosecution has not shown good cause, whereas the lack of due

10     diligence is manifest and already elaborated in the response.

11             Therefore, we stay by our position stated in this, in respect to

12     the motion of 17th of March.  Thank you very much.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, may I just say this --

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Should we first hear Mr. Pantelic?

16             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, quite right.  Sorry.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

19             Just for the record, although these documents are not related to

20     our case, but as a matter of principle we absolutely support submission

21     of Stanisic Defence and as well as in our earlier response to, I think,

22     February 16 OTP motion.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

24             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, may I just say this:  It's effectively,

25     for each and every one, the Defence say the same thing, that it's too

Page 7982

 1     late and that we shouldn't be allowed to do it.

 2             The reality is, Your Honour, they cannot point to any prejudice

 3     which they're suffering.  And, equally, the Trial Chamber is enjoined to

 4     discover what the truth is.  And if these documents assist, as we submit

 5     they do, then, Your Honour, in the absence of the Defence being able to

 6     point to any prejudice they suffer, we submit that the documents should

 7     be allowed, and that's the reality.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you, Ms. Korner.

 9             I'm very sorry for the interpreters and the other people around

10     court, but there is still one matter we have to address.

11             We would like to come back to the issue of the estimated duration

12     of this trial.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

15             Can we go into private session, please.

16                           [Private session]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7983











11 Pages 7983-7985 redacted. Private session.















Page 7986

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  So we rise now until tomorrow, and I thank the

 8     interpreters for their indulgence for the extra time.

 9                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.57 p.m.,

10                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd day of March,

11                           2010, at 9.00 a.m.