1 Tuesday, 23 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: This is case number IT-08-91-T, the
6 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 appearances for today, please.
9 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
10 Matthew Olmsted, and Crispian Smith, case manager, for the Prosecution.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
12 Slobodan Cvijetic and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For
14 Zupljanin Defence, Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic and Miroslav Cuskic.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 WITNESS: VLADIMIR TUTUS [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE HALL
20 your oath.
21 Yes, Mrs. Korner.
22 Re-examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
23 Q. Mr. Tutus, just before we leave the parade, we can see painted on
24 the vehicles, in fact, Judge Harhoff raised it, the words "Milicija."
25 Just for the avoidance of any doubt, milicija was the name for the
1 police, it was not? It doesn't mean military?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Right. Next I want to move to the -- the "Glas" article that
4 was -- at least I hope I am. I now need to say I haven't got it with
5 me -- yes, I have. It was marked 1D032165 MFI. I don't think it was
6 tendered yet.
7 MS. KORNER: I am going to ask Your Honours, you remember I
8 raised this, that -- it is, in fact, an exhibit.
9 Q. Now, this is an article in "Glas," and you were asked about it,
10 of the 24th of April, and is this right: It -- it was the reaction to
11 statements apparently made by Mr. Muharem Krzic, who was the president of
12 the SDA in Banja Luka.
13 A. Could we please read what you are referring to, because I don't
14 really remember.
15 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't catch the answer. Can we just go back for a
16 moment to -- yes. Okay. If we go in the English to the second page, you
17 were asked about statements you had made. I think it's all on the same
18 page in the original. And in the article, about halfway through, the
19 reporter quotes you; is that right?
20 A. Could you please read the quotation you're referring to? The
21 letters are tiny, so I can't really read it.
22 Q. Sorry. That's my fault, Mr. Tutus. This is what the reporter
23 says that you said:
24 "Mr. Muharem Krzic has for a long time been systematically
25 attacking the CSB
1 a deliberate construction aiming to break up the unity and efficiency of
2 the service and so create a wartime atmosphere in the area."
3 Can you see that? I think it may be marked, about -- on the
4 right-hand column. If we go that way. Yes. Yes. Do you see it now?
5 A. Yes. Now that you've read it, I remember that's how it was, yes.
6 Q. All right. And what I want to ask you about is what the reporter
7 says you said.
8 "I shall just say, by way of illustration, that the declaration
9 of loyalty to the Serbian Republic
10 signed by 73 per cent of the Croats and 61 per cent of the Muslims of the
11 previous number of people employed in our SJB."
12 First, did you say that to the reporter?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. And from where did you get the statistics?
15 A. They were obtained for me by my -- at my request by the clerk. I
16 asked -- named Momcilo Savic. I asked him for this information so that I
17 would know how many people stayed. It refers not to the total number of
18 employees of the Banja Luka Public Security Station but the total number
19 of Croats and the total number of Muslims. So of that number, this is
20 the percentage that stayed.
21 Q. Well, are you able to tell us now what the total number of
22 Muslims in the three security -- in the SJB plus the -- the police
23 stations that came within its area of responsibility?
24 A. I couldn't say that. I don't know.
25 Q. All right. What about Muslims? Are you able to tell us that?
1 A. At that time? Is that what you mean?
2 Q. Yes. Well, no. You say 61 per cent of the Muslims had signed
3 the oath of loyalty. How many Muslims were there altogether working in
4 the SJB or the other police stations?
5 A. At this point in time I can't remember that.
6 Q. And this was your response, was it, to criticisms that had been
7 made by Mr. Krzic?
8 A. In a previous article, he put forward some incorrect information
9 concerning the numbers of Muslims and Croats in the Banja Luka Public
10 Security Station. He said there were only six. That was a lie, a
11 fabrication. Before that, he had said untruths in public. For example,
12 when there was an explosion near the mosque, and I remember that
13 "Oslobodjenje" published him saying everyone knows except the chief. So
14 it turned out that I had been informed of that event, and, in fact, I
15 hadn't. So those were all lies.
16 Q. What, nobody had told you about an explosion at the mosque?
17 A. There was an explosion at a mosque. A hand-grenade had been
18 thrown on it. And the Party of Democratic Action made a public
19 statement, signed by Krzic, saying that they had informed me personally
20 of this event. This was untrue. They had not informed me.
21 Q. So are you saying you did know about the explosion or you didn't
22 know about the explosion?
23 A. I learned about the explosion later on, but it wasn't true that
24 the Party of Democratic Action informed me about it.
25 Q. All right. I want to move on to religious --
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mrs. Korner, perhaps the witness remembers how
2 many -- how many persons, how many Muslims stayed and how many Croats
3 stayed. So the 73 per cent would represent how many persons, and the
4 60-whatever, 61 per cent would represent how many persons?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't know
6 that. I don't know those numbers. These percentages are obtained for me
7 by the service, but I don't know what the numbers were. I know that some
8 did remain and were -- went on working in that period and are still there
10 MS. KORNER:
11 Q. All right. Well, that's all I want to ask you about this
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, there have been a number of questions
14 on it. I would ask now that it be admitted and marked.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: We object. Thank you.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 MS. KORNER: Yes.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1095, Your Honours.
21 MS. KORNER:
22 Q. All right, next can we move, please, to the operative work plan
23 and the various questions that you were asked about it. Now, you were
24 only shown a part of these documents, I think, which was marked as
1 MS. KORNER: I don't know what the exhibit number was, but, in
2 fact, Your Honours, that document is part of a Prosecution document with
3 the 65 ter number 2680, and I'd like, because it's all one document,
4 this, and I'd like to look at it in that form. Oh, it's already an
5 exhibit, is it? 860.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Tutus, the first part of this document, which was all
7 one document when it was received or put together, is a report dated the
8 17th of April, 1992, on what's called "Security Incidents Increase in
9 Crime in the Area of Banja Luka SJB." And it contains a number of
10 documents. It does not appear to be signed by anybody, if we look at the
11 last page.
12 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, could we have the P, please. I don't
13 want the 1D exhibit, I want the P exhibit, which is P860. That's not
14 P860. That's the Milos
15 page. I don't think there's any signature on it. The last page -- the
16 last page of the document doesn't help, no. All right. Go back to the
17 first page, please, because it's two documents. Sorry, can we go back to
18 the first page in English?
19 Q. All right. Do you recognise, Mr. Tutus, this report? It appears
20 to come, in fact, from the CSB
21 SJB report -- area.
22 A. I'd have to look at the entire document. It's very hard for me
23 to say based on just one page.
24 Q. All right. Well, what it's saying is that in the statistical
25 period from the 1st of April to the 17th of April, 1992, there were
1 13 terrorist attacks on buildings in the Banja Luka area.
2 From your --
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. In all fairness to the witness, he
4 should be shown the document, I think.
5 MS. KORNER: Okay. Yeah, certainly. I wanted -- didn't want to
6 waste time, but --
7 Q. We'll give you, Mr. Tutus, a copy -- oh, no, we won't, because I
8 didn't bring the B/C/S.
9 MS. KORNER: Is it possible to print this out so that the
10 B/C/S -- so that the witness can have a look at it?
11 Q. Perhaps you could just continue reading on the screen, Mr. Tutus,
12 while that's done. And let us know when you've read the first page.
13 MS. KORNER: Can we move the page down so Mr. Tutus can see it.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we can go on.
15 MS. KORNER: Yes. Can we go to the next page, please, just so
16 Mr. Tutus can read it.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, while the witness is consulting the
18 document, reading it, may I make, I don't know, an observation? I
19 don't -- I don't see how these -- this document is one document, because
20 it consists of obviously two completely different documents. One
21 document is this information which the witness is -- is reading right
22 now, dated 17th of April, 1992; and the second document is operative plan
23 of 25th of May, 1992. I don't -- I don't really understand. I mean, it
24 would be very difficult even for Your Honours to deal with such
25 documents. If two documents are combined into one exhibit, I really
1 don't see how are we -- are we doing --
2 JUDGE HALL
3 exhibited as one, given one exhibit number?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct. That is P860. Now, I have
5 exhibited the other part during my cross-examination as -- as one
6 document, which is definitely -- but I wonder how it happened that this
7 document was -- I probably didn't notice at the time when it was -- when
8 it was exhibited as 860, that it consists of two documents. I'm just
9 suggesting that this -- this situation --
10 JUDGE HALL
11 MR. ZECEVIC: -- might be creating a problem in the future. That
12 is all what I --
13 JUDGE HALL
14 of numbering that we have, the Registry night --
15 MS. KORNER: No. If Mr. Zecevic and Your Honours wait, there is
16 purpose to why I'm dealing with this in this way, because as you will see
17 there are some oddities about this whole document.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 number and just split it into A and B.
20 MS. KORNER: No. Your Honour, we're saying that this is how the
21 document came to us. And we're saying if you look at it, there are some
22 oddities about the whole sequence, and Mr. Zecevic waits and Your Honours
23 wait, you will see from my questions.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I will wait. Thank you.
25 MS. KORNER:
1 Q. Now, have you had a chance to read that document, Mr. Tutus, now?
2 A. Yes, I have read it.
3 Q. Is that a document that was prepared by your -- presumably your
4 crime police?
5 A. I don't think it was prepared by the crime police that was under
6 our control, that is, in the public security station. Can you go back to
7 page 1? I think it's a document issued by the security services centre,
9 Q. It is. It is. No, it's issued by the CSB, but would the
10 information contained therein have come from your crime police in the
11 SJB, or would it have been done by the crime section of the CSB?
12 A. Most probably some initial operative information was sent by the
13 crime prevention service to the centre, and I would not deny the fact
14 that that information might be included in this document.
15 Q. And one of the people this document refers to is Mr. Cavic, who
16 we discussed when we looked at the report of the paramilitaries, you'll
17 recall. You have to say yes or no.
18 A. Yes, I remember.
19 Q. All right. Well, it contains a list of attacks carried out with
20 explosives devices between the 1st of April and the 17th of April, 1992
21 and there's a handwritten -- now let's move, please, to the document
22 which is supposedly dated the 25th of May.
23 MS. KORNER: In English, six pages in. And I imagine it's
24 probably roughly the same in B/C/S. Page 7, thank you, in B/C/S.
25 Q. Now, this is the one about which you were asked a great number of
1 questions, I think, by both counsel for both accused. It begins -- and
2 this is the operational work plan on solving acts of robbery, terrorism,
3 et cetera, and it says:
4 "From the 2nd to the 3rd of April, 1992, to this day, the
5 25th of May," and it talks about the SOS and then THE -- and then it
7 "From the middle of August to this day, there have been
8 76 incidents of explosives devices ..."
9 Now, it was put to you this is August 1991, but that's not what
10 it says, is it?
11 A. Well, no, it doesn't say so. I don't see the year.
12 Q. No. And why would this report in May 1992, when the earlier,
13 17th of April, talked about explosions, go back to August 1991?
14 A. Quite frankly, I don't know.
15 Q. All right. Well let's move further into this document, shall we?
16 On page 2 in English, it deals with the incidents of explosions in the
17 area of Banja Luka SJB.
18 MS. KORNER: I hope it's on page 2. The next page in English,
19 and I hope the next page in B/C/S as well. And it's the paragraph near
20 the end of the page in English. Okay. It would be the next page in
21 B/C/S, it looks like. Yes. That's it. Thank you very much.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. If you allow me. The
23 previous question you asked, I can try to think professionally why they
24 go back to 1991. I can suppose that the service had certain statistics
25 about crimes for that period as well, back to 1991, then they received
1 information later about perpetrators and included the prior period as
3 MS. KORNER:
4 Q. The -- the list that went with it doesn't refer to anything in
5 1991. It refers to incidents in 1992, doesn't it? You went through that
6 with either Mr. Zecevic or Mr. Krgovic yesterday.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Well, let's just have a look at this paragraph then.
9 "In order to solve the incidents of explosion in the area of
10 Banja Luka SJB, work on solving a series of explosions which according to
11 intelligence were set off by a group of people headed by Vedran Mandic.
12 Information indicates that this group committed 27 crimes of causing
13 public danger by setting off explosive devices, hand-grenades and firing
14 rockets at buildings.
15 "The group consists of Draza Burnic; Drasko Mihajlovic, deceased;
16 Mr. Maric; and Nenad Kajkut, deceased."
17 Now, those are the two people who together with Mr. Mandic
18 launched the attack on or killed -- not launched the attack, were killed
19 in the course of an incident Mejdan police station; is that right?
20 A. Yes, I think that's true, the police station Mejdan.
21 Q. Yes. About which no report was put in, as we saw yesterday,
22 until June, I believe it is. June the 30th. Because you were directed
23 to a criticism by -- apparently written by Mr. Zupljanin that it had
24 taken so long to report. Is that right?
25 A. That incident and the on-site investigation and the investigation
1 was within the jurisdiction of the CSB
2 was not involved. The on-site investigation was carried out the very
3 next day. The investigating judge was present and all this was under the
4 supervision of the CSB
5 Q. And interestingly enough, Vedran Mandic was also killed in that
6 attack, wasn't he?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Well, then, why doesn't it say, "Vedran Mandic, deceased"?
9 A. I don't know that.
10 Q. You see, what I'm wondering is that -- is that date actually
11 correct of the 25th of May on this so-called operative work plan? Are
12 you able to assist?
13 A. You mean that incident.
14 Q. No.
15 A. When it happened?
16 Q. No, no. The -- this report, this operational work plan about
17 which you've been asked so much which allegedly is the 25th of May. Can
18 you help us whether that date is actually right?
19 A. I can't remember the exact date.
20 Q. Next I want to move to the question of religious destruction in
21 Banja Luka, in the Banja Luka area. You were asked to look at document
22 1D01130 --
23 JUDGE HALL
24 extent that the witness, as I understand his evidence, has not assisted
25 in clearing up this curiosity, for want of a better word, about the date,
1 does that still not leave us with the possible confusion to which
2 Mr. Zecevic referred? And I come back to my suggestion about separating
3 the number between an A and a B so when we come to look at this, we don't
4 confuse ourselves.
5 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, we can't say one way or another
6 where the -- how accurate all of this is. What we can say is that when
7 we received the document or the documents, they were one document.
8 That's how we got it, and that's why it's together and it was translated
9 together, and it bears the ERN numbers together.
10 Just a moment, Mr. Zecevic.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.
12 MS. KORNER: Mr. Zecevic has decided to separate them up and put
13 that in as a separate exhibit. I'm not sure that that is the right way
14 of looking at it. And therefore, we suggest that -- there's already a
15 separate copy, but this is the way the document was, and we suggest it
16 should stay together. We may get some elucidation later about whether it
17 is actually produced at the time which it is said and represents
18 something that actually happened. So that's all I can say.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mrs. Korner, if your point is that the two
20 documents were actually conceived at the same time, either in April or
21 May --
22 MS. KORNER: Or later. Your Honours, we're suggesting later
23 because we're not sure the reference to August is actually a reference to
24 August 1991.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: In any case, for the Chamber to make an
1 assessment of whether there's anything to it, we need to be shown the
2 reasons why you think that they may be conceived simultaneously. And
3 thus, my question is: If your suspicion hangs only on the facts that
4 Vedran Mandic was not indicated as deceased, as were the two other
5 gentlemen who were killed apparently at the same date, then I am not sure
6 that I am convinced by your argument that there is any possibility that
7 these should -- two documents should be drafted together at the same
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it's not just that. The report on the
10 death of the three men at the Mejdan police station, as Your Honours saw
11 yesterday, was not actually sent until the 30th of June. Our possible
12 suggestion, and I can put it no higher than that, Your Honour, and all
13 we're dealing with at the moment is whether this exhibit should stay as
14 one exhibit or two exhibits, because it is already an exhibit in the
15 case, is that if you look at that plus the reference to August, it may
16 well be that those documents were drafted at a later date, and that's the
17 only suggestion which, on the face of what's there, we're entitled to
18 make at the moment.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 you're headed. My only question is: Inasmuch as this is a matter for
21 argument and there will be -- of some controversy, what level it will
22 reach it remains to be seen, whether to the extent that it appears on the
23 face of it to be from the dates, two documents, whether we should not,
24 for ease of reference, just so identify them. I don't see how it would
25 harm your -- the case that you will put at the end of the day.
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I'm perfectly happy if it -- if
2 it makes Your Honours happier, that we mark it A and B.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not mean to
5 object at this stage of Mrs. Korner's examination, but I do have to
6 object now.
7 Mrs. Korner is misleading the witness and misrepresenting the
8 document, creating a confusion which really doesn't exist concerning the
9 status of Vedran Mandic.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel is now too far away from the
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The document speaks about a group
13 led by -- that was led by Vedran Mandic. In all the other passages we
14 see references such as "led by," and this one is the only exception. The
15 group was led by Vedran Mandic. So there is really no confusion. At the
16 moment of the creation of this document, it is clear that he no longer
17 leads that group, that he was its leader, and then follow indications who
18 is dead and who is alive.
19 Look at the name Palackovic. It says "is leading the group."
20 Vedran Mandic is the only one who finds himself in the past tense. So
21 there is really no doubt.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 MS. KORNER: Yes. All right.
24 Q. Could we have a look at 1D208 about which you were asked during
1 Now, this is the -- the note from Mr. Bulic, the head of the
2 crime police, I think, number 2 to Zupljanin in the CSB, talking about:
3 "The Banja Luka Bishop's Ordinate has informed us there had been
4 fire at the convent building and parish church in Bosanski Aleksandrovac.
5 Since attacks of religious buildings are also occurring in other places
6 in the area, it is necessary to take steps in order to stop such events
7 and identify the perpetrators of the act reported so far."
8 And you were asked about this at page 7823 on Friday, and you
9 said you didn't remember the attack on the church and the convent
10 building in Bosanski Aleksandrovac. Is that right, you don't remember
12 A. That's true. Bosanski Aleksandrovac is in the area of another
13 public security station, not Banja Luka, but either Laktasi or Gradiska.
14 It's not in the Banja Luka SJB area.
15 Q. Yes, I know, but surely somebody firing on a Catholic convent
16 building and a parish church was worthy of note in Banja Luka. You don't
17 remember anything about it at all?
18 A. Well, there were such incidents. There were more serious
19 incidents. One pushed out the other from our focus. There were many
20 such events. At the time I was informed, but I no longer remember
22 Q. Yes. That's right, wasn't it? Although the major explosions
23 of -- as against mosques in Banja Luka happened in 1993, that is to say,
24 the Ferhadija mosque, and I think the Arnaudija mosque; is that right?
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to object.
1 How is this -- what is the reason for this question? It's outside the
2 period of the indictment, and the question goes beyond the scope of
3 cross-examination. It concerns an explosion from 1991. I don't remember
4 anyone asking any questions about this event from 1993 in
5 cross-examination, plus it's outside the period of the indictment.
6 MS. KORNER: I haven't even finished the question before the
7 objection. The -- first of all, it's nothing to do with 1991. This
8 document is dated July 1992, and I was setting the scene for the
9 question, which I was in the middle of, and I will repeat the question.
10 Q. Although the major destruction took place in 1993, in 1992,
11 Mr. Tutus, there were a number, weren't there, of serious attacks against
12 religious institutions in the Banja Luka area?
13 A. Unfortunately, yes.
14 Q. All right. Now, this says you must take steps in order to stop
15 such events, and your response when you were asked about this, the
16 question was at page 7823:
17 "As part of your responsibilities in the Banja Luka SJB, did you
18 take any steps and measures in order to prevent religious facilities,
19 religious buildings from being attacked, and did you take measures to
20 identify perpetrators of crimes that had been reported at the time?"
21 Your response:
22 "We certainly acted in accordance with this letter, and at
23 meetings we conveyed the order issued."
24 Now, I'm going to ask the same question that you were asked, I
25 think, by Mr. Zecevic. Did you take any steps and measures in order to
1 prevent religious facilities or religious buildings from being attacked?
2 A. Our specific task was to use police patrols to tour these
3 buildings more frequently. I remember issuing an order that every police
4 station in its own area should pay special attention to religious
6 Q. Most of these attacks on the religious buildings, which in 1992
7 included, did it not, the -- sorry, let me just get my -- the Pecinska
9 A. I don't remember the names.
10 Q. The Petricevac Franciscan monastery? Do you remember that?
11 A. I remember that convent, yes.
12 Q. The premises of the Islamic Community, which is close to the
13 Ferhadija mosque?
14 A. Yes. In that case those explosive devices were thrown, as I
15 said. I believe a hand-grenade was thrown on that mosque.
16 Q. And is it right that most of these attacks took place at night?
17 A. I suppose so, but I'm not sure.
18 Q. Did you place police officers or reserve police officers of whom
19 you had a number, as we've discussed, on guard at these places to prevent
20 these attacks?
21 A. I don't know how the station commander assigned the staff and how
22 he gave them specific tasks, but he had received an order from me to pay
23 special attention and give special protection to religious buildings.
24 Whether they assured constant presence and security details, I don't
1 Q. Let's go to the next topic you were asked about, please. You
2 were shown the document P367, I think it is, the record of the meeting of
3 the 6th of May at the CSB
4 MS. KORNER: And we need to move to the page, which I think is
5 probably the fourth page in English, where Mr. Zupljanin says: "In all
6 our activities we are obliged to abide by." Thank you very much. And I
7 think it's probably in the second page in the B/C/S. Paragraph 23. Yes.
8 Thank you very much. If you can just highlight a bit.
9 Q. Now, it was suggested to you that that referred only to
10 disarmament. Now, obviously you can't say what was in the mind of
11 Mr. Zupljanin when he made this statement, but is it your evidence that
12 the words "in all our activities we are obliged to observe all measures
13 and apply all procedures ordered by the Crisis Staff of the autonomous
14 region," applied only to disarmament?
15 A. I don't think it concerns only disarmament.
16 Q. Thank you. Next, you were asked about Simo Drljaca, and you
17 described how Mr. Zupljanin had said he would -- I'm paraphrasing, he
18 would pay for what he had done in Prijedor, and it was suggested to you
19 that that was said as a -- during or as a result of the 11th of July
21 Now, in meetings that you attended at the CSB in -- towards the
22 end of August and later, was there discussion of the killings that had
23 taken place at Koricanske Stijene, Vlasic Mountain, by the Prijedor
25 A. There was no discussion of that at the meetings.
1 Q. Was it ever discussed at all at any of the meetings which the SJB
2 chiefs attended at the CSB
3 A. I don't mean it the way you said. Chiefs of the CSB, that may
4 mean the senior collegium --
5 Q. I mean chiefs --
6 A. -- but I don't remember it was discussed at the professional
7 council meetings that I attended.
8 Q. All right. So you don't recall any discussion at meetings you
9 attended, which is where the SJB chiefs were, of what had happened at
10 Mount Vlasic
11 A. I don't recall that.
12 Q. But weren't the SJB in Banja Luka crime police assigned to
13 investigate the case?
14 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
15 Q. So can you now recall in what context Zupljanin make that remark
16 to Simo Drljaca?
17 A. Well, I told you. He criticised Simo and told him he would be
18 held responsible for what had happened in Prijedor, but he didn't say
19 precisely what he meant by that.
20 Q. Okay. All right. And now finally, can we move to the question
21 of the SOS
23 It was put to you at one stage that you couldn't say that all the
24 members of the SOS
1 A. Yes, I remember that something like that was asked of me, yes.
2 Q. And do you know, one way or another, whether all of the SOS were
4 A. Well, I don't know that. I know what I was told by my
5 colleagues. They told me that there were individuals who were well-known
6 criminals and who had criminal records.
7 Q. I'd like you to have a look, please, at the report that you did
8 put in to the public -- or what was put in by the CSB to the public
9 prosecutor's office on those three men who were killed at Mejdan police
10 station. I'm afraid I've forgotten what the exhibit number is but it's
11 1D010230. 1D57. 2D57.
12 And this is the one where you say you recognised -- do you
13 recognise the writing or is it just Zupljanin's initials?
14 A. All the handwriting is his.
15 Q. And he says he wants to know why you've had to wait so long.
16 Now, it says on the 30th of June, 1992, you received our report.
17 Vedran Mandic; Nenad Kajkut, son of Nikola; and then Drasko Mihajlovic.
18 This is, is it not, a different Kajkut to Nenad Kajkut, although the
19 name's the same, to the gentleman who's in the Special Police.
20 Obviously, as we'll see, because that person is still alive and kicking,
21 but do you know?
22 A. I know of only one Nenad Kajkut.
23 Q. Well, in that case he did a remarkable return from the grave, but
24 anyhow. What I want to ask you about is this: If you look, please --
25 now -- yes, okay. In English it's the ninth page in English. And in the
1 B/C/S it is the fourth page.
2 MS. KORNER: No. No. No. Whatever that is, I don't know. In
3 English, starting with that it's one, two -- that's it. Top paragraph.
4 And in B/C/S, as I say, it should be -- sorry, it's the eighth page in
5 B/C/S. Yes. Sorry. Eighth page. My fault.
6 Q. Now, this is where -- this is where the -- the witness whose
7 statement this is, and I think you looked at part of it, it's the -- it's
8 the Official Note - sorry - provided by Mr. Petar Tanazovic, and you were
9 asked about this, is recording what Mr. Vedran Mandic is saying to him.
10 "He told me that he was a member of the SOS and that he was at
11 the barricades when it was necessary to be there because that was what
12 the politicians demanded, but now when they did not need us, nobody was
13 taking care of us. I told him that he was wrong and that he had the
14 opportunity to report to the district TO staff, just as the rest of his
15 comrades had done. However, he brushed this aside, saying he did not
16 trust anyone and that he acted only on Nenad Stevandic's orders ..."
17 Now, do you know whether at any stage any investigation was
18 carried out by the SJB, you, or the CSB
19 A. That was not within the competence of the Banja Luka Public
20 Security Station. As to whether the centre or the National Public
21 Security Service did something about this, I don't know.
22 Q. Now --
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. The witness says whether the national
24 state security or CSB
25 wasn't recorded.
1 MS. KORNER: Oh, I see. Right. Thank you.
2 Q. And is that because, to your knowledge, Mr. Stevandic was a part
3 of, you said the state security service, which I think was still in those
4 days the SDB as opposed to the SNB
5 Mr. Stevandic was a part of that?
6 A. I didn't know that he was a part of that service, and that's not
7 the reason, but the reason is it was not within our competence.
8 Q. But then why did you mention, as Mr. Zecevic had just said, why
9 did you mention the state security if you didn't know Mr. Stevandic had
10 anything to do with it?
11 A. I mentioned the National Security Service because I felt that
12 armed rebellion fell within their purview. They were tasked with
13 gathering information on such things.
14 Q. But are you saying this incident was armed rebellion?
15 A. I don't know how else to describe it. If a group of 20 --
16 200 armed men suddenly turns up in the streets.
17 Q. I see. You're back to -- all right. You're back to the SOS. I
18 was talking about this incident here at Mejdan police station.
19 All right. Finally, last topic, thank you, Mr. Tutus, back to
20 the Special Police. Now, you were asked a number of -- you were shown
21 Mr. Dubocanin's card which appears to show that he was a member of the
22 military, and then you were asked a number of questions about the list of
23 the Special Police and also the payroll for August. And it was suggested
24 to you that these people, under some agreed deal, although they were not
25 members of the police, had received payment in August.
1 Now, I want you to look, please, at a document which relates to
2 three of the people.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it's dated -- sorry, I can't just find
4 it. Yes. Now, Your Honours, this one, although it was on my original
5 list, we noted that it had not -- it was not on our 65 ter list, and it's
6 part of the application we made in February, February the 18th, to add.
7 The document number bears -- the old number is 65 ter 275 and it appears
8 in schedule E, and we haven't had a response to it but I'm going to ask
9 whether I can use it subject to your response. It was on my original
11 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I vigorously object to that because we
12 had the ruling about the using documents which is not in the 65 ter list,
13 so I vigorously object to that.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 is to merely use it at this point, not admit it.
16 MS. KORNER: No. Exactly. I'll use it and have it marked for
17 identification subject to Your Honours' ruling. I mean, can I say we've
18 given enough notice that we wanted to use it. It's February the 18th.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 MS. KORNER: Thank you. Could you have a look, please, at
21 65 ter 275. Oh, we need, sorry, page 2 in English and page 2 in B/C/S.
22 Q. This is dated the 31st of December, 1992. It's addressed to the
23 chief of the National Security Service sector and then to the police
24 brigade command. Firstly, by the end of 1992, had a police brigade been
25 set up?
1 A. On the 31st of December, is that what you said?
2 Q. Yes. By the 31st of December, 1992, had a police -- an actual
3 police brigade been set up?
4 A. Well, that's what follows from this order. The command was being
5 set up as well.
6 Q. No. I'm asking whether you were aware of it as a police officer
7 in Banja Luka, please. Not what this order says. We can all read that.
8 A. Well, if you're asking me, I can't recall.
9 Q. All right. Now, the order is:
10 "In order to improve the quality of execution of combat tasks in
11 the Banja Luka CSB
12 "Ljuban Ecim, as commander of the 1st Battalion;
13 Zdravko Samardzija, assistant battalion commander; and Nenad Kajkut,
14 commander of the 1st Company of the 1st Battalion. And then the chief of
15 the national security sector must appoint an assistant."
16 Now, would Mr. Zupljanin have been able to appoint people --
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection. First, the
18 Prosecutor should ask the witness whose signature this and whether the
19 document was signed by Stojan Zupljanin, and then she could put this
21 MS. KORNER: I don't think it is. I think it's signed on his
22 behalf by Mr. Bulic, but if you want to take that point.
23 Q. Can you just tell us?
24 A. Could you repeat your question, please?
25 Q. Are you able to say who signed this document on -- over
1 Mr. Zupljanin's typed signature?
2 A. It was signed by Djuro Bulic, the chief of the public security
3 sector, the CSB
4 Q. Does it say "za" somewhere, "on behalf of"?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Well, if there's any point -- any further point that
7 needs to be taken on that.
8 What I want to know is: Whether it was signed by Mr. Bulic on
9 behalf of Mr. Zupljanin or not, would it appear that these three men,
10 including, I would suggest, a different Mr. Kajkut from the one that was
11 killed at Mejdan, were appointed by Mr. Zupljanin?
12 A. I would say they were appointed by the security services centre.
13 As to what the result of their agreements and talks was, I wouldn't be
14 able to say with any precision.
15 Q. All right.
16 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, may I have that marked for
17 identification pending Your Honours' ruling?
18 JUDGE HALL
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1096, marked for identification,
20 Your Honours.
21 MS. KORNER: Right.
22 Q. And then finally, let's just have one last look, please, at the
23 payroll for August document and the attached list of Special Police.
24 Again I've forgotten the exhibit number. I've got 65 ter 23 --
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise. Just
1 to clarify a point linked to this document. Is it the position of the
2 Prosecution that this document has something to do with the Special
3 Police, the document shown previously, because if that is the OTP
4 position, then this document is being misinterpreted. It does not refer
5 to the Special Police or any special unit of the police.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, this is [indiscernible]. This is
7 argument. We are saying three members, and I'm just going to confirm, of
8 the ex-Banja Luka Special Police, including the two leaders, are still
9 under the command of Zupljanin by the end of 1992. That's what we're
10 saying. Still connected with the CSB. The suggestion was made at length
11 and rather boringly, for which, quite honestly [indiscernible]
12 Mr. Krgovic did it, that none of these people stayed in the police. That
13 is not the case, we say.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 matter for argument. What I thought Mr. Krgovic's objection was going to
16 be - and I know when you were putting the question, this is immediately
17 before the document was marked for identification - that Mr. Krgovic had
18 begun to rise and apparently had a change of mind. And I, too, was
19 wondering - I don't know whether the objection that he was considering
20 making was what was running through my own mind - that the document not
21 being exhibited, merely being shown to the witness, you were asking the
22 witness to comment on this -- on this, on the accuracy of the contents of
23 this document which you would have known at that point would not have
24 been exhibited at this point. But then the witness's answer of not being
25 able to assist, to my mind, made that -- that any such objection of no
1 consequence, and for that same reason the -- as you say, at this point
2 everything is a matter of argument, so we move on.
3 MS. KORNER:
4 Q. Could you have one last look, please, at Exhibit P1092. Number 4
5 on the payroll is Nenad Kajkut. Do you agree? And it's signed for.
6 A. Yes, I agree.
7 Q. So clearly there are two gentlemen pottering around Banja Luka at
8 this time called Nenad Kajkut, unless he didn't die in Mejdan.
9 You were taken through a number of people on the list of
10 Special Police.
11 MS. KORNER: Which we need to go, please, to the one, two, three,
12 fourth page in English and pretty much the same, I hope, in B/C/S.
13 Actually, I think it's the fifth page in B/C/S. Sorry, it's the seventh
14 page in B/C/S and the -- oh, no, sorry, not the fourth page in English.
15 Eighth. It's eighth page in both.
16 This appears, does it not -- I think we've been through this
17 before and you've been asked, but this is a list of the Special Police
18 detachment as it was before it was abolished and effectively what
19 happened to them since the abolition. Is this -- is that right? Where
20 they went to.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection. This is a
22 leading question, because from this document the movement of members of
23 this detachment after it was disbanded cannot be seen, because there are
24 notes on their movements while the unit or the detachment was actually in
1 MS. KORNER: I don't know on what possible basis you can say
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MS. KORNER: Yes. Can I just -- can I just say, Mr. Krgovic, not
5 helping matters. You went through this document at length for your
6 purposes. I now propose to try and correct the impression you made.
7 Q. Right. Now, if we look, please, at number 11,
8 Mr. Vojislav Burgic, he apparently is at the SJB in Laktasi as a reserve
9 policeman. Number 14, Mr. Borjan, SJB Novi Grad, active policeman;
10 Mr. Zarko Bulaja, SJB, active policeman; Mr. Predrag Bodiroza, SJB
11 Banja Luka, training course graduate; Mr. Blagojevic, CSB Banja Luka,
12 active policeman.
13 You went -- were taken through this. Does it appear that numbers
14 of the special unit remained in some form or other in the police service,
15 some indeed in the CSB
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, you -- you were asked to look at a number of criminal
18 complaints that were brought against, in particular, members of the SOS,
19 and you provided to the Office of the Prosecutor when you were
20 interviewed numbers of documents relating to the Special Police and also
22 Now, first, are you able to recall whether there were any
23 criminal prosecutions in respect of the various members of the
24 Special Police that you named in your various reports?
25 A. Yes, yes, there were criminal prosecutions, prosecutions.
1 Q. Right. And where are, please, the documents that relate to those
3 A. They should be in the court and in the operative records of the
4 crime prevention police of the present security service.
5 Q. All right. When you provided to the Office of the Prosecutor
6 interviewer in 2004 copies of various documents, where did you get those
7 documents from? You declined to tell the Office of the Prosecutor then,
8 but I'm asking you now.
9 A. I don't understand. What do you mean by declining to tell
11 Q. You turned up with a whole pile of documents which you handed
12 over to the Office of the Prosecutor. Do you remember that in your
13 interview? Mr. Sebire, the investigator, was asking you questions, took
15 A. Oh, yes, I remember that. And I wish to tell Their Honours that
16 I was at that time suspected of being a member of a joint criminal
17 enterprise. I was told of my rights, and I was offered the opportunity
18 to have a defence counsel present. I did not feel I needed to have
19 counsel. I agreed to be interviewed. I had certain documents with me
20 which I used for my defence. During the break, there was a lady there
21 from the OTP, and there was this gentleman. I think his name was
22 Nicholas. And they looked at the documents to see where I was getting my
23 information from, and they asked me to give them those documents, which I
24 did, and that is correct. Yes, all of that is correct.
25 Q. Absolutely. You're quite right, Mr. Tutus. And it's a simple
1 question. Where did you get the documents from that you gave to
2 Mr. Sebire?
3 A. I happened to have those documents there because I was still --
4 when I was still the chief of the station.
5 Q. Right, but where in the station did you get those documents from?
6 A. I didn't find them in the station. When I received the summons
7 for the suspect interview, I prepared for that.
8 Q. I quite understand, Mr. Tutus. You're going around the houses
9 now. Just tell us where you got those documents from that you gave to
10 the investigator.
11 A. I had them. They were in my possession.
12 Q. I'm sure you did. And how did you get them?
13 A. Well, ask me about a particular document and I'll tell you. Most
14 of them were given to me by Zoran Jusic, the chief of the crime police.
15 Q. Right. That's all I'm asking. And is he still at the SJB in
16 Banja Luka?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Tutus. That's all I ask.
19 Questioned by the Court:
20 JUDGE HALL
21 This bundle of documents that you received, did you exercise -- did you
22 decide what to select, or you just received these and handed them over to
23 the investigator?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the most important
25 piece of information from 1993, which we compiled at the request of Tomo
1 Kovac, the chief of the public security sector, it contained all the
2 information I had with me, and there was no reason to deny the OTP that.
3 And there was a dispatch concerning the attack at Tunjice and a criminal
4 complaint where we took into custody a member of the Special Police
5 detachment and that was it. But I didn't make an overview.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 Mr. Tutus, is what, if anything, are we to make of the fact that
8 apparently this bundle of documents didn't include any records of
9 prosecutions of persons in respect of whom complaints -- either you made
10 complaints or you're aware that complaints were made. What -- is there
11 anything that we should make of that absence or gap?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not deal with
13 the archives. I didn't feel I needed to have that.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when this witness
16 started to answer, there was a small imprecision in the interpretation
17 which led to confusion, so if you'll allow me to clarify this point
18 during the cross-examination, because the witness said something that was
19 not interpreted correctly and throws a different interpretation on the
20 whole matter.
21 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tutus, when you were answering the question
23 there was some confusion. When you answered the question as to how you
24 came into possession of that document, you said:
25 "Those documents happened to be in my office while I was still
1 chief of the Banja Luka Public Security Station." That's what you said,
2 didn't you?
3 A. Yes. And when Mrs. Korner asked me who gave them to me, I told
4 them the chief of the crime prevention department, Josic.
5 Q. And he gave them to you at the time that these documents were
6 actually compiled?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So in 1993, not after you left the public security station?
9 A. No, no. In that period, because they were characteristic and I
10 felt I needed to have them with me because I felt they were important for
12 Q. And Mr. Josic is now a lawyer in Banja Luka and has nothing to do
13 with the public security station; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's how I
16 understood this.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MS. KORNER: I'm very grateful to Mr. Krgovic because there was a
19 misunderstanding. I had understood that Mr. Josic had given them to him
20 for the purposes of the interview. Your Honours, may I just go back over
21 this for a minute then.
22 Further Re-examination by Mrs. Korner:
23 Q. Why did you keep -- when you left Banja Luka S --
24 JUDGE HALL
25 gone past the break thinking we would finish this witness. And we've
1 reached the point now, at 10.32, whether, in fact, we shouldn't take the
2 break and just complete this witness when we come back.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's all I -- I mean, this is the
4 only point that I still want to get cleared up, but if Your Honours have
5 more questions then it would --
6 JUDGE HALL
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. Mr. Tutus, just a -- it's a really simple point this, now that
13 we've cleared up the misunderstanding thanks to Mr. Krgovic.
14 When you left the SJB Banja Luka, you took with you, did you,
15 copies of a number of documents from the period you'd been there?
16 A. I didn't do it for any particular purpose, but as events
17 unfolded, the crime police brought me copies of documents that were
18 typical in their opinions for my information, for the purpose of
19 informing other prosecution organs. There was one, for instance, typical
20 criminal report concerning the murder of Milan Kocic. Sometimes I
21 brought them home and left them there. All the copies of various
22 articles from the "Glas" newspaper I also kept.
23 Q. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. Is it because the crime
24 police and you felt that things were not being done as they ought that
25 they were giving you copies of these various documents?
1 MR. KRGOVIC: Objection, leading.
2 MS. KORNER:
3 Q. Well, I want to know what you mean by: "The crime police brought
4 me copies of documents that were typical in their opinions for my
6 A. Well, for example, let me give you the example of one document.
7 A copy of a criminal report against one group of former members of the
8 Special Police detachment who kidnapped Milan Kocic near the
9 Internacional Hotel. They killed him, threw the car in the river, and
10 then when their houses were searched, a certain amount of weapons was
11 found. The crime police did all the work. These perpetrators were
12 detained, and they brought me this file as an example of how they -- how
13 successfully they had dealt with this job.
14 Q. All right. So can we take this -- because I don't want to spend
15 so much time on this. You provided to the -- the investigator during the
16 course of your interview documents 2506, 2507, 8, 9, 10, all matters
17 connected with the Special Police. So you had kept or been given copies
18 of matters which related to the Special Police. Why was that?
19 A. Well, I cannot tell you precisely why, because it was in the
20 jurisdiction of the CSB
21 of it in the possession of the CSB
22 it is certainly in the CSB
23 Q. But why were you concentrating, certainly as far as the interview
24 was concerned, so heavily on the documents that you had somehow acquired
25 that related to the behaviour of the Special Police?
1 A. I believe the conduct of some members of the Special Police to be
2 problematic, and perhaps for that reason I kept some of those documents
3 so that I can substantiate my arguments to that effect at the
4 professional council meetings.
5 Q. All right.
6 MS. KORNER: Now, Your Honours, I'm really sorry but I need to go
7 back, if I may, with your permission, to this question of the 25th of May
8 document, because in the break something has been drawn to my attention I
9 think which puts this in the light which may make it clearer. May I have
10 that permission?
11 JUDGE HALL
12 going to say for the record when this witness had completed his
13 testimony, and that is, having been so advised by the Registry, the
14 proposal of separating this number between an A and B is technically not
15 workable, so we're left with the original number.
16 MS. KORNER: Well, can I -- Your Honours, can I ask, please,
17 because I think this will deal with it, that the document which is 2D57
18 be put back on the screen, and can we go in both B/C/S to page 14 and in
19 English to page 14.
20 Q. Now, this is part of the file on the killing of the three men,
21 Mr. Kajkut, Mr. Mandic, and Mr. Mihajlovic, that we've looked at quite
22 often. And this is --
23 MS. KORNER: Could we have it in English, please. All right.
24 Q. This is to the public prosecutor's office, dated the
25 22nd of September, 1992. And I don't know why they're bothering when
1 there are three dead men, but certainly it seems to be taken further.
2 Can we look --
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, we don't have the Serbian --
4 MS. KORNER: Is that not it?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: No, that's not it.
6 MS. KORNER: It should be page -- you're quite right. 22nd of
7 the 9th, 1992? Is that not the thing to the public prosecutor's office?
8 No, it's not.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: It is. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm terribly sorry.
10 MS. KORNER: Can we go to the next page in each, please -- oh,
11 no, stay on that page in B/C/S. No, sorry, sorry, go back. It's the
12 page I want in B/C/S. Sorry. And could we go to the next page in
13 English. And it's the second paragraph in English about these three men.
14 Q. "They committed these crimes between the 3rd of April, 1992
15 the 16th of June, 1992, when they were killed during an armed attack on
16 the Mejdan police station."
17 And indeed I think you told us originally it was June that the
18 attack took place. Is that right, Mr. Tutus?
19 A. I don't know the exact time. I really don't know the exact time.
20 Q. But the point that I want to make, and I don't want to have that
21 document up again on the screen, is that report, allegedly dated the
22 25th of May, refers to these two men being -- two out of the three being
23 deceased. Now, that is not possible, is it, because they weren't killed
24 until the 16th of June.
25 MS. KORNER: Who said that?
1 MR. KRGOVIC: I mean, it's obviously misleading. Not leading,
2 misleading completely, Your Honour. If you look at the rest of this
3 document, you will see when this -- 6th of May.
4 MS. KORNER: Well --
5 MR. KRGOVIC: I don't have here this document in front of me, but
6 if you go further to this document, you find the exact date of this and
7 when these men was killed.
8 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I know that's -- I had
9 originally worked on the 6th of May and then I realised that's not right
10 apparently. But anyhow, I don't think we can take this matter any
11 further at the moment.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Ms. Korner, with all due respect, it might be a
13 typo. It might be a typo in this document.
14 MS. KORNER: Anything might be.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I agree with you but I'm just suggesting.
16 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that's why -- can I say it's now
17 a matter for argument and comment and we'll see where we get to, but
18 that's in effect what this report says.
19 And, Your Honours, thank you very much. That's all I do ask this
21 Further Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tutus, I just have a small question for you
23 in relation to something you told us yesterday in response to a question
24 put to you by Mr. Krgovic.
25 And if anyone wants to follow your testimony yesterday, it was
1 yesterday's testimony at page 54, if you want to click back to the place.
2 And let me read out to you what was entered into the transcript.
3 Mr. Krgovic is saying the following to you:
4 "I see that both you and the centre, the security services
5 centre, filed a large number of criminal reports containing
6 qualifications of these criminal offences, and I see that you are using
7 the qualifications from the Criminal Code, murder, robbery, and you
8 qualify them as regular crimes; is that right?"
9 And your answer was:
11 And then Mr. Krgovic then goes on to say:
12 "When my learned friend Mr. Zecevic and the Prosecutor were
13 putting questions to you concerning dispatches concerning war crimes, you
14 thought that as Banja Luka was not in the war theatre, you described
15 these crimes the same way you would as in peacetime; is that correct?"
16 And your answer was:
18 Mr. Krgovic then went on to say:
19 "Regardless of the fact that persons of other ethnicities were
20 the victims of the crimes, this did not, in your view, make it a war
21 crime; is that correct?"
22 And your answer is then that:
23 "Well, we thought we should do the job in the way we did, but
24 that doesn't mean that the prosecutor could not have altered that. As we
25 were not actually in the war theatre, on the battle-field, we thought
1 that this was the proper way to go about it."
2 That's the testimony of yesterday. My question to you now is
3 this: Would it have made any difference if you, as the police, had
4 classified these documents right from the beginning as war crimes?
5 A. It would have made no difference.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: So your testimony is that the procedure you would
7 follow and the authority to which you would submit your reports would be
8 the same regardless of whether it was a peacetime crime or a war crime;
9 is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let me just clarify one question with you, then.
12 If in wartime a crime that could be characterised as a war crime was
13 committed by a member of the armed forces, to whom would you report or
14 what would the procedure be that would have to be followed in case of a
15 war crime being committed in wartime? Would the police be involved at
16 all, or would it be the military police who would assume the
17 responsibility to investigate the crime?
18 A. All this would have been done by the military justice and the
19 military prosecutor, or perhaps they would have only asked us for
20 assistance in terms of resources and technical assistance.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if you were then investigating a crime
22 starting out from the assumption that this was a peacetime crime but
23 reaching the conclusion that because of the nature of the crime and the
24 circumstances under which the crime was committed you would end up
25 finding that this could and should be treated as a war crime, would you
1 then have submitted your report to the military police or to the military
3 A. Well, if military organs were involved in the crime, then we
4 would defer the case to the military security organs; and if we reached
5 such conclusions in the course of the investigation, we would submit it
6 to the military prosecutor. We would have done the same, basically.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
8 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I don't want Your Honours or the
9 witness to mislead himself. He actually gave us a document which I
10 didn't trouble to use but which is on this point. Can I ask that be it
11 put up on the screen? It's 65 ter 2393. This is a document that he gave
12 to us in interview.
13 Further Re-examination by Ms. Korner:
14 Q. Mr. Tutus, these are instructions on the implementation of the
15 Law on Internal Affairs; is that right? Going back to 1986?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And which you -- do you remember giving those to the
19 A. I remember that.
20 MS. KORNER: Can we look then, please, at the third page --
21 fourth -- third page in English, and in B/C/S also it's the third page.
22 Q. Does that show in paragraph 5:
23 "The centres act on crimes for which the penalty provided by law
24 is a prison sentence in excess of ten years ..."
25 And then halfway through that paragraph:
1 "Crimes against humanity and international law."
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. KORNER: It was Your Honour's question, so I just thought you
4 better have a look at this.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, I understand that Ms. Korner was trying
6 to assist the Trial Chamber on that, although I don't -- I don't know how
7 it fits with the -- with the procedural rules, but in any case, I don't
8 think, Your Honours, that it was exactly your question. Your question
9 was quite different than this.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: My question sprang out of the question that was
11 left with me when the witness had offered his testimony yesterday,
12 because I thought that it was somehow strange that these crimes would be
13 characterised only as civil crimes while the whole thing was going on
14 in -- at a time which was clearly wartime.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand that quite clearly, but what I'm
16 trying to say is that this document does not correspond or it does not
17 assist the Trial Chamber in that respect with what your question was. I
18 mean, we will, of course, explain during the course of the trial the
19 nature of this document. Thank you.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much. I have no further
22 JUDGE HALL
23 the Tribunal over the past several days. Your testimony's now at an end.
24 You're released as a witness, and we wish you a safe journey back to your
25 home. The Usher would now escort you from the courtroom.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL
5 whether it is to articulate what you alluded to yesterday, that you would
6 be making an oral application to -- yes. Could we hear you, please.
7 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honours, can I -- the oral application
8 that I'm going to make can be made in open session. The oral application
9 that Mr. Olmsted will make on behalf of the next witness will have to be
10 done in private.
11 Your Honours, yesterday you delivered a ruling in private session
12 because part of it related to timings for the trial, but this part, I
13 take it, I can refer to in open session because it was an order to us.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 MS. KORNER: Thank you. Your Honours, the order read that if for
16 one or more of the 92 ter witnesses, more time in chief is needed than
17 20 minutes, in parenthesis because it doesn't occur on the transcript
18 there, specifically to present new evidence for that part viva voce, as
19 it were, the Trial Chamber expects the OTP to file a written motion with
20 the reasons why, and it reads "how many extra time should be allotted,"
21 but I think that should be "how much extra time should be allotted."
22 Your Honours then later said that because of the fact that two witnesses
23 were due very shortly, we could deal with this orally.
24 Your Honour, the witness who will come after the next witness,
25 Mr. Mandic, Your Honours will know until Your Honours decided that it
1 would be 20 minutes, we had put down six hours for, despite the fact that
2 he's 11 days of transcript in the Krajisnik trial, a part of the 92 ter
3 package. Accepting, therefore, that Your Honours will have read the
4 11 days of transcript, it is not proposed to go over with him what he
5 said in that transcript. However, the trial of Krajisnik was not
6 specifically geared towards the police. It was geared towards a member
7 of the Presidency.
8 We have therefore -- you will have seen, Your Honours, we
9 provided a list of some 120 documents which we thought we might have to
10 deal with through him. In actual fact, having gone -- may I say
11 Mr. Mandic is at present, because he saw the Defence on Sunday, he is
12 still ploughing his way through the various documents, but on the basis
13 of my review yesterday evening, at present there are 33 documents which
14 are not yet exhibited. I'm leaving out all the ones on our list which
15 are already exhibits which he can speak to. And therefore, I would wish
16 to call him to deal with those documents.
17 That -- working on a rough average of ten minutes per document,
18 33 documents, give or take, is something in the region of between three
19 and four hours. Therefore, my application is that I may have four hours
20 with him on top of his 92 ter package.
21 Your Honours, can I say he's the last witness, really, who apart
22 from being part and parcel for a time of the police, then the Ministry of
23 Justice, and has intimate knowledge of Mr. Stanisic and other members of
24 the Bosnian Serb leadership, that I would ask for that amount of time.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Five hours?
1 MS. KORNER: Four hours.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Four hours --
3 MS. KORNER: We originally asked for six and I'm reducing it to
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Four plus the half hour or the 20 minutes?
6 MS. KORNER: I suppose it takes -- it takes 20 minutes just to
7 establish that they've said all this before. Four hours -- I would say
8 four hours in total, give or take.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, my maths is terrible. That would be
11 5.5 hours, but, Your Honour, I would hope to do it in 4. I'm told that
12 my maths on 33 documents, 10 minutes each, works out to 5.5, not 4. But
13 one way or another, I will just have to try and keep it under 4.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Korner, I'm a bit lost here. I'm unsure
15 about whether you're asking for four hours, four and a half hours, or
16 five hours, or still six hours.
17 MS. KORNER: I'm not asking -- I'm not asking -- well --
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: All inclusive.
19 MS. KORNER: Can I have an all-inclusive six hours in the hopes
20 that I can do it in a lot less?
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, one of the documents I know for
23 sure is a video that we're going to play, so that always takes a little
24 bit more time.
25 JUDGE HALL
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: All inclusive.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MS. KORNER: Then, Your Honour, I think we need to go into closed
5 session --
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can we redact? Yes, Your Honours, can
8 we -- can we go into private session, then closed, and Mr. Olmsted will
9 deal with that. And, Your Honours, would Your Honours then excuse me
10 once Mr. Olmsted has made his application.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 8033-8034 redacted. Private session.
7 [Closed session]
11 Pages 8036-8075 redacted. Closed session.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 24th day of
19 March, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.