1 Friday, 16 April 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
6 IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
7 JUDGE HALL
9 May we have the appearances, please.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours, Matthew Olmsted and
11 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery for Stanisic Defence.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
16 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE HALL
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 begins, I would remind you, you're still on your oath.
23 WITNESS: RADOMIR RODIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rodic.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. I want to continue where we left off yesterday in the
4 disciplinary process that existed between April and mid-September 1992,
5 but before I do, I want to clarify one answer you gave yesterday.
6 Yesterday you mentioned that you were unaware of cases where the CSB
7 chief did not authorise the initiation of disciplinary procedures against
8 a police officer. Sir, was your role as disciplinary prosecutor such
9 that you were informed about every decision the CSB chief made regarding
10 whether or not to permit a disciplinary case?
11 A. The chief could be aware of a disciplinary procedure if the
12 immediate supervisor of that officer who committed the offence initiated
13 the procedure. And I think that the chief never disregarded any such
14 case or failed to initiate proceedings.
15 Q. And I understand that's your view, but that was not my question.
16 My question is: You as a disciplinary prosecutor, were you privy to
17 every decision that the CSB
18 disciplinary matter?
19 A. I had knowledge only of such cases in which I was involved as
20 prosecutor. I was not aware of other cases managed by my colleagues.
21 Nobody informed me of that nor were they duty-bound to do so.
22 Q. And could you remind us how many disciplinary cases did you
23 personally handle that were assigned to you during this July through
24 mid-September 1992 time-period?
25 A. Three cases, and I believe that all disciplinary prosecutors had
1 the same case load, that is, three, excluding Pile who probably due to
2 the nature of his work did not take part. By "Pile," I mean
3 Predrag Radulovic. And I believe that all the other prosecutors were
4 charged with three cases each.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us during this time-period how
6 frequently did you meet with the chief of the CSB to discuss disciplinary
8 A. I can't remember any such meeting.
9 Q. And what about the CSBs -- the CSB chief's deputy chief,
10 Djuro Bulic, did you discuss disciplinary matters with him?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Let's return to the disciplinary procedures that we were
13 discussing yesterday. Where we left off yesterday was that after the CSB
14 chief authorised the initiation of disciplinary procedures against a
15 police employee, the disciplinary case arrived at the disciplinary
16 commission. And you explained to us that it was the commission's role to
17 decide the case and impose a disciplinary measure. Is that an accurate
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I would like you to look at Article 297 of the Law on State
21 Administration. This is 65 ter 10329. We can go to page 28 of the B/C/S
22 and 107 of the English. And we're interested in the Article 297, which
23 is at the bottom of the English, so scroll down a bit. Perfect.
24 This article lists the following disciplinary measures which
25 appears to be in order of their severity. First it lists reprimand, then
1 it lists public reprimand, and then redeployment to another position for
2 between three and 12 months. Next is a fine of 15 per cent of salary.
3 And if we can turn the next page just on the English and go to the top.
4 Yes. There's also mention of termination, which I assume would be the
5 ultimate disciplinary measure.
6 Mr. Rodic, were these disciplinary measures that the disciplinary
7 commission could impose against a police employee during this
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Are there any other --
11 A. A reprimand and public reprimand were measures of -- imposed by
12 the chief of the SJB for less-serious infringements. The disciplinary
13 commission was not seized with such cases; it dealt with only more severe
15 Q. Other than the disciplinary measures that are listed here, were
16 there any others available to the commission to impose against a police
17 officer who has committed an act of misconduct?
18 A. No.
19 Q. This article, 297, further states that:
20 "Reprimand and public reprimand are usually pronounced for light
21 derelictions of duty, while the measure of redeployment, fine, and
22 termination are pronounced for severe derelictions of duty."
23 Could you tell us for what types of violations was termination
24 the appropriate remedy?
25 A. The measure of termination was most often imposed when the police
1 officer committed a criminal offence or a severe type of misconduct.
2 Q. Could you give us some examples of severe misconduct that
3 wouldn't constitute a crime, but nevertheless would warrant termination?
4 A. I can mention the failure to report for duty for three days in a
5 row, then refusing to carry out an order, but that depends on the
6 specific circumstances. Then abandoning the police unit at the front
7 line, that is, going AWOL and similar kinds of misconduct.
8 Q. Were there acts of misconduct for which termination of an
9 employee was essentially mandatory, that the employee must be terminated
10 for what they have done?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And could you tell us what those acts would be?
13 A. All severe dereliction of duty, do you mean some specific
14 incidents or ...?
15 Q. Well, we won't go to specific incidents, but for instance a
16 serious crime of murder or rape, would that be an instance where
17 termination of the employee was mandatory?
18 A. Yes, certainly.
19 Q. After the disciplinary commission has rendered a decision, how
20 would the CSB
21 A. The decision of the disciplinary commission was dispatched to
22 five addressees. One of them was the officer against whom the procedure
23 was launched, the chief of the centre; then the chief of the finances
24 section; and I can't remember the others. Anyway, there were five
25 addressees, and among them there was also the chief of the centre. One
1 copy went to the personal file of the officer.
2 Q. After the disciplinary commission has issued its decision, did
3 the police officer involved have the right to appeal that decision?
4 A. [No interpretation]
5 Q. And where did this appeal go to?
6 A. The appeal would go to the disciplinary commission at the second
7 instance. It was at the MUP. It had four members who had deputies, and
8 the second-instance disciplinary commission was appointed by the cabinet.
9 I'm not sure what exactly it was called, cabinet of the Serbian
10 republic -- I'm not sure what the official name was.
11 Q. Was that cabinet the minister's cabinet at the level of the
12 RS MUP?
13 A. I think that the second-instance commission -- well, actually the
14 disciplinary commissions were autonomous in their work. They were
15 independent. And the second-instance disciplinary commission was in the
16 headquarters of the MUP.
17 Q. Yes, I understand that. But we were talking about who appointed
18 these commissioners and you said the cabinet did, and I wanted to
19 clarify. Was that the minister's cabinet in Pale?
20 A. Well, let me explain. The prime minister's cabinet, the
21 government, appointed the second-instance disciplinary commission, and
22 the members were proposed by the ministry. The MUP services, first and
23 foremost the personnel administration, selected officers who met the
24 conditions to be members of disciplinary commissions. The most important
25 criterion was professional training because not every professional was
1 equally suitable. The most desirable persons were lawyers, and in second
2 place there were people with a degree in the humanities.
3 Q. I would like to clarify a few additional issues with regard to
4 the disciplinary procedures that existed during this April through
5 mid-September time-period when the act of misconduct at issue was a
6 police crime. First, if a police employee committed a crime and a
7 criminal report was filed against the employee with the public
8 prosecutor, was it still necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings
9 against that employee?
10 A. Criminal accountability did not exclude disciplinary
11 accountability, or in other words, disciplinary proceedings would be
12 taken up also.
13 Q. In fact, it was obligatory in the case of a criminal act to
14 initiate disciplinary proceedings against that police officer; is that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What about the reverse situation. If a disciplinary proceeding
18 has been initiated against a police employee for committing a crime, was
19 it still necessary to report that crime to the public prosecutor?
20 A. If the disciplinary infringement also constituted a criminal
21 offence, then the disciplinary commission filed criminal reports
22 irrespective of whether or not disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: I do apologise, there was some error in the
24 translation because the witness say the criminal police not disciplinary
25 commission file criminal reports.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Criminal, yes.
2 MR. OLMSTED:
3 Q. Yes, so to clarify that, it was the criminal police or the crime
4 inspector police that would file a criminal report against a police
5 officer who had committed an act of misconduct that constituted a crime;
6 is that right?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the crime police who were
10 charged with criminal offences. The disciplinary commission did not file
11 criminal reports. It's not in the description of their tasks.
12 MR. OLMSTED:
13 Q. Can you explain to us.
14 [B/C/S on English channel]
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. Can you explain to us what was the purpose behind this parallel
17 system of criminal and disciplinary proceedings? Why institute both?
18 A. As I said, the criminal accountability of an officer did not
19 exclude his disciplinary accountability. That can be found in the law
20 too. If an officer commits a criminal offence on duty or off duty, the
21 crime police would investigate it and parallelly a disciplinary
22 investigation would also be launched because a criminal offence
23 automatically constituted a disciplinary infringement also.
24 Q. And that's clear, but I want to get behind this and what's the
25 policy reasons for this parallel system of criminal/disciplinary
1 proceedings. Are disciplinary proceedings merely to punish the police
2 officer, or do they also serve a preventative role within the police
4 A. If a severe criminal offence was committed, the police officer
5 had to be suspended. If -- in case of a serious dereliction of duty,
6 disciplinary proceedings were launched because only the disciplinary
7 commission could impose the measure of termination, and that was indeed
8 done if a serious crime was committed. I hope I understood you
10 Q. Not quite. Let me try it this way. By disciplining a police
11 officer who commits a crime, what message does that send to other police
12 officers within the police force?
13 JUDGE HALL
14 sure why you're pursuing this. Isn't it sufficient that the witness has
15 said that, in fact, this was the procedure in the territory at the time.
16 The historical reasons may be of incidental interest, but I'm not sure
17 that it is of assistance. The witness has indicated that this, in fact,
18 was the position. Need we go into the whys historically?
19 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I think so. I don't think it's a
20 historical analysis. It's an analysis why there was both criminal
21 proceedings and at the same time disciplinary proceedings, why both were
22 important and what purpose the disciplinary proceedings served above and
23 beyond the criminal proceedings. And that's what I'm trying to get to is
24 you have this system in place where someone commits a crime, they're
25 certainly going to be subject -- they should be subject to criminal
1 proceedings but they're also subject to disciplinary proceedings, and I
2 want to get behind that, and not historically but principally.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MR. OLMSTED: So let me ask the question again.
5 Q. By disciplining a police officer who commits a crime, what
6 message does that send to the police -- the other police officers within
7 the MUP?
8 A. Well, the message would be for them not to do these kinds of
9 things, to put it in the simplest terms.
10 Q. And how does this disciplinary process benefit the reputation and
11 public perception of the MUP?
12 A. I think it was two-fold. First of all, the public approves to
13 see the MUP fighting unprofessional conduct among their own ranks,
14 whereas on the other hand, they may be disappointed if they see the
15 police officers committing such kind of acts.
16 Q. And which were typically faster back in 1992, disciplinary
17 proceedings or criminal proceedings?
18 A. I think disciplinary because we had certain dead-lines within
19 which the proceedings had to be both launched and brought to a
21 Q. And what about the situation where a criminal case against a
22 police officer was dismissed in the courts, for whatever reason? Could
23 the police officer still be disciplined if the underlying conduct was
24 harmful to the interests of the MUP; in other words, it constituted an
25 act of gross misconduct nonetheless?
1 A. Irrespective of the case in point, the disciplinary proceedings
2 would go on except in cases -- if the infringement itself is directly
3 related to this crime, so if there is no such link, there is no
4 proceedings; and that is the case today as well.
5 Q. Now, if a police employee committed a criminal act, under the
6 reporting protocols that existed in 1992, who had to be notified of that
7 criminal act?
8 A. Well, I believe that there was an obligation. I don't know
9 according to the rule or instruction relating to urgent, regular, and
10 extraordinary reporting. It provided the names of people who have to be
11 notified. I think that when it came to criminal offences, even the
12 minister's cabinet had to be notified.
13 Q. So if a police officer committed a criminal act, say down at the
14 level of the police station, that information had to go all the way up to
15 the ministry?
16 A. Yes. There was this communication through dispatches, through
17 which the chief of the public police station was informed, maybe the
18 minister, all other heads of organisational units, just so to make them
19 aware of the existence of such conduct and that they should try and do
20 something about it.
21 Q. What should happen to an SJB chief or even any other superior
22 officer who fails to report to the CSB
23 was committed by one of their subordinates, what should happen to that
25 A. Well, in this system of communication through dispatches, I think
1 that the original notification went from the duty operations officer to
2 all these addressees, and then perhaps the public security station chief
3 would then send a more extensive dispatch containing more details to the
4 chief of the centre and the minister. If something like that happened
5 out of working hours or during night, the duty operations officer would
6 be informed and then he would immediately send a PD or some other type of
7 dispatch to those to whom they're intended.
8 Q. Yes, but I want you to focus on the question that I asked, which
9 is: A situation where a superior police officer fails to report a
10 criminal act by one of his subordinates, in such circumstances what
11 should happen to that superior officer? Should he be subjected to
12 disciplinary procedures?
13 A. Well, he would then definitely be committing a dereliction of
14 duty, if his intention was to cover up the act.
15 Q. And what about a superior officer who refuses to provide
16 information to his superiors about a criminal act of one of his
17 subordinates. Would that also be subject to disciplinary procedures?
18 A. I'm not aware of such cases, but that would constitute sufficient
20 Q. To whom within the RS MUP did the disciplinary procedures which
21 you have described for us apply? In other words, who could be subjected
22 to them?
23 A. All the employees.
24 Q. Would that include reserve police officers?
25 A. Yes. They were also subject to disciplinary sanctions.
1 Q. And what about members of special police units, were they subject
2 to disciplinary procedures if they were, for instance, found to have
3 committed an act of misconduct?
4 A. Being MUP employees as well, that means that they were subject to
5 the same procedures.
6 Q. I would like to give you a hypothetical. Let's assume that a
7 reserve police officer was temporarily assigned to military duties. And
8 while performing these military duties he committed one or more crimes.
9 When the police officer returned to his regular police duties within the
10 MUP, could he be subject to MUP disciplinary proceedings for those
11 criminal acts?
12 A. If it happens that a reserve police officer while on the front,
13 that is probably what you referred to, committed a criminal offence, a
14 criminal report would be filed against him, whereas a disciplinary
15 sanction imposed on him would be to remove him from the war time
16 assignment of the MUP and he would then be transferred to the war time
17 assignment within the defence, which would then be followed probably by
18 his being assigned to a military unit.
19 Q. And again, that would be pursuant to the disciplinary procedures
20 which we've just described?
21 MR. KRGOVIC: This is leading.
22 MR. OLMSTED: I'll rephrase it.
23 Q. Would this be then done pursuant to the MUP disciplinary
24 proceedings -- procedures that we've been discussing?
25 A. That could be qualified in the sense that his job here with the
1 MUP was terminated, because the fact that the other disciplinary
2 sanctions could not be imposed on reserve police officers in the same way
3 as they were imposed on regular policemen such as fine or transfer to
4 other jobs, it meant that only the most severe sanction, which is
5 termination, could have been imposed on them. That would happen the
6 minute he was removed from the war time assignment in the MUP and
7 transferred to the war time assignment in the defence.
8 Q. Yes, I understand that. But did the military have the authority
9 to terminate a police officer from the MUP?
10 A. If there was a crime, a criminal report had to be filed, and the
11 criminal proceedings will proceed regardless of the disciplinary measure
12 that imposed to him. As to what happened later in the military, I don't
14 Q. And I think we're getting too far from my hypothetical. We're
15 talking about a situation where a reserve police officer has gone to
16 perform military duties. Now he's returned to the police force, he's
17 back to his regular duties, for instance, as an SJB. And the question
18 is: With regard to his criminal acts while he was performing military
19 duties, could he be subject to disciplinary proceedings within the MUP
20 for what he had done while he was at the front? And that is the
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The witness already responded by
23 saying that he would be removed for the war time assignment in the MUP
24 and that he would be transferred to the defence. That was the only
25 measure applied to the reserve police officers. He already answered this
1 question twice.
2 MR. OLMSTED: I don't think he has. I think we need to have it
3 clear because we're in a situation where he's saying that in the
4 military -- what the military does he doesn't know what they'll do, but
5 we want to focus on what the MUP can do in that circumstance, so I just
6 want to make sure the record is clear. So if I can have a little bit of
7 leave here.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 without addressing the objection articulated by Mr. Krgovic, I'm
10 wondering how far you're going with this hypothetical because the
11 assistance that the witness can give is in terms of what in practice
12 happened. So the -- I would have thought that your hypothetical would
13 have been limited to identifying the underlying principle and then you
14 would have moved on.
15 MR. OLMSTED: It's not -- Your Honour, I see your point. But
16 what I'm focusing on is the procedure, actually, aspect of it. I was
17 actually going to ask him a question about what happened in practice, but
18 right now I just want to establish the procedure. Someone goes to the
19 front, they come back, it's known that they committed the crimes, would
20 they be subject to the disciplinary procedures that we have been going
21 through yesterday and today?
22 JUDGE HALL
23 for the Tribunal if you would ask the question directly about the
25 MR. OLMSTED: Yeah.
1 Q. I'll ask again, exactly what I just told Judge Hall. A reserve
2 police officer committed a crime while on military duty, he comes back to
3 the police force. At that point in time would he under the procedures be
4 subject to disciplinary proceedings within the MUP?
5 A. Criminal proceedings have their own course. A disciplinary
6 measure that would be imposed on such person would at any -- in any case
7 would be to remove him from the war time assignment of the MUP. As far
8 as I understand your question, that would be the answer. So that was a
9 summary procedure. His military file would be transferred to the
10 Ministry of Defence as part of the disciplinary measure imposed on him.
11 Q. Okay. I think that's as far as we can go on that. Now, are you
12 aware of any police officers who were disciplined for crimes that they
13 committed during combat operations in 1992?
14 A. You're referring to their committing crimes while on the front in
15 the combat areas or in war?
16 Q. I'm referring to committing crimes while on the front, engaging
17 in combat activities.
18 A. I'm not aware of any officers from the Banja Luka public security
19 stations where I used to work committed any criminal offence of that
21 Q. What happened to the disciplinary procedures in mid-September
23 A. In mid-September, well at that time the rules that were in force
24 back in April was still in force. Only if you were referring to the
25 rules that were adopted on the 19th of September, 1992, relating to the
1 declaration of general threat.
2 Q. Let's take a look at 1D54. I believe you're referring to the
3 rules on the disciplinary responsibility of the Ministry of Interior
4 workers of the Serbian republic under war time regimen; is that correct?
5 A. Immediate threat of war, yes, that's it.
6 Q. And if you can look at the document that's on the screen. Are
7 these the war time disciplinary procedures?
8 A. Yes. These rules were in force as of the second half of
9 September until I think April 1994.
10 Q. Yes, and let's move -- let's advance one page -- two pages in the
11 English, and I believe one page in the B/C/S.
12 I think we saw on the cover page, but who issued these war time
14 A. The majority of the rules were issued by the minister, so
15 including this one.
16 Q. And under these war time procedures, what happened to the
17 disciplinary prosecutors and disciplinary commissions?
18 A. The most striking novelty, or rather, the reason for the adoption
19 was the introduction of a summary procedure. The chief of basic
20 organisational units, i.e., heads of administrations and CSBs, were
21 treated as the first-instance disciplinary organs; and it was the
22 minister who dealt with the appeals as a second-instance disciplinary
24 Q. And I think you've already stated, but just to confirm. These
25 war time procedures were in effect to -- until April 1994?
1 A. Yes, as much as I can remember.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 2390.
3 Q. Sir, we've reviewed a few documents from this disciplinary case
4 file, and this is the Ivica Gagula case that you served as disciplinary
5 prosecutor on; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was this decision, this -- it appears to be a decision on appeal,
8 was this decided pursuant to the regular procedures or the war time
9 summary procedures?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, I believe in the -- in all fairness to
11 the witness, the whole document should be shown to him if the question is
12 such as my learned friend is posing.
13 MR. OLMSTED: That's a good suggestion. Why don't we turn to the
14 next page in the decision.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we see that the first-instance
16 decision was rendered according to the previous rules that was in force
17 until 19 September 1992, whereas the employee lodged an appeal because he
18 was transferred to another job for six months, but since in the meantime
19 new rules were adopted the second-instance decision was rendered on the
20 basis of the new rules of the 19th December, in which the minister acted
21 as the second-instance organ. And I think this was all right.
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. And if we look at the last paragraph on this page it states:
24 "In accordance with the provisions under Article 16 of the Rules
25 on disciplinary Responsibility of Employees of the Ministry of the
1 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
2 decision is final and there can be no appeal."
3 So this is an example of the minister himself deciding a
4 disciplinary case under the war time summary procedures on appeal?
5 A. I wouldn't look at it that way. As I see it, the second-instance
6 disciplinary organ delivered a decision, and in this particular case that
7 was the minister.
8 Q. Okay. I think we're in agreement then.
9 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence?
10 JUDGE HALL
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1288, Your Honours.
12 MR. OLMSTED:
13 Q. Sir, when a request to initiate a disciplinary procedure was
14 filed with the CSB
15 A. Such a request -- well, it is well-known to whom it should be
16 forwarded. It should be sent to five addressees, to the disciplinary
17 commission, to the employee in question, to the trade union for
18 information only, and I can't remember who else.
19 Q. Let me be a little bit more direct so that you understand my
20 question. When a disciplinary procedure has been initiated, is it logged
21 somewhere, into some book or something?
22 A. The secretary of the disciplinary commission kept record of the
23 proceedings. As I said yesterday, it was a technical service attached to
24 the centre, or rather, to the personnel department within the centre.
25 Q. Let's take a look at 65 ter 2355.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I have a hard copy of this log-book
2 for the witness to refer to. It's going to be easier so he's not having
3 to flip back and forth on the computer screen to look at things. And I
4 apologise, I should have gotten a hard copy for the Trial Chamber as
5 well. Just so you know, the English translation is only a partial
6 translation. It translates the portions of the log-book that I will be
7 discussing directly with this witness. It's quite a large book, as you
8 can see, so I didn't want to burden our translation staff with that
10 Q. Sir, do you recognise the log-book that's in front of you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell us what it is, in fact?
13 A. It's a log-book of disciplinary cases with the CSB of Banja Luka
14 for the period from 1992 through 1997.
15 Q. Now, to your knowledge was there any other log-book at the CSB
16 Banja Luka in which police disciplinary cases were recorded during this
18 A. Not as far as I know.
19 MR. OLMSTED: If we can look at page 23 of the B/C/S.
20 Q. And, sir, I have handwritten in the top right-hand corner page
21 numbers that correspond with our documents on the computer screen to help
22 you find it. And perhaps I've gotten the numbers wrong. We'll see.
23 Yes, I've got the numbers wrong --
24 A. Yes --
25 Q. I've got the numbers wrong. Let's turn to the next page, page
1 24. And in the English it would be page 2.
2 Sir, according to this log-book, which is the first disciplinary
3 case filed after the creation of the RS MUP in April 1992?
4 A. You mean the disciplinary -- the first disciplinary case?
5 Because I heard you say "criminal," but I think you meant disciplinary.
6 Q. Thank you. Yes, I meant disciplinary cases.
7 A. It was received on the 23rd of April, 1992, for an event that
8 took place on the 13th of April, 1992. Zeljko Bursac and Robert
9 Barusanin were reported.
10 Q. And this is entry number 3 on this log-book?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell us, and we'll kind of go through, but -- we don't
13 need to go through each one necessarily, but can you tell us what kind of
14 information is contained in the various columns of this log-book.
15 A. Well, in the first column you'll find the number, then in the
16 next column there's a name and surname of the employee against whom the
17 procedure is initiated. In the following column the date of the
18 violation, then further to the right the date of receipt of the
19 initiative and request, then the date of submission of the file to the
20 prosecutor, then the number under which the request was logged, then the
21 name of the president of the disciplinary commission, then there is the
22 qualification of the violation, then whether there was an appeal and if
23 so on which date. And the following column -- well, I can't make it
24 out -- well, of the date and place of the hearing in chief. Then the
25 decision or disciplinary measure, its type and severity. Then the record
1 number of the decision and what it was served to the parties.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please go back. We haven't
3 caught everything.
4 MR. OLMSTED:
5 Q. Sir, can you pause there. Just a second.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. There's a technical
7 problem. What the witness is reading is -- cannot be seen on the screen,
8 so it's difficult to follow. It's probably on the following page of the
9 document because the last part of what you have read out was not visible
10 on the screen. Now it's all right.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Very good. Let's see where we were.
12 Q. But perhaps we could just be more general because I think the
13 Trial Chamber can read the headings themselves. The second page dealt
14 with the hearings as well as the appeals process in the disciplinary
15 measures. Is that what it does?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Can we return to the previous page.
18 Q. And the eighth column contains a couple abbreviations, and in
19 particular it refers to a ZOUP, and if we look down along the eighth
20 column - we want to scroll a little bit over in the English and the
21 B/C/S. There for the English and there for the B/C/S.
22 It refers to ZOUP, and then if you look down what it does it
23 refers to this Article 114. Can you tell us what law this is referring
25 A. Yes. That column contains the qualification of the infringement,
1 and ZODU stands for Law on State Administration, although I believe that
2 this is not the correct acronym. But the secretary of commission -- of
3 the commission used it; whereas, ZOUP stands for Law on Internal Affairs.
4 Q. Prior to testifying here today, you had the opportunity to review
5 this disciplinary case log-book for 1992 through 1997, and we also asked
6 you to compile some statistical information from this log-book. And I'd
7 like to ask you some questions about what you were able to find. Based
8 on your review, what was the total number of disciplinary cases for acts
9 of police misconduct which occurred between 1 April and 31 December 1992
10 according to this log-book?
11 A. In the time-period from the 1st of April, 1992, through the 31st
12 of December, 1992, according to the records I had a chance to review, I
13 found out that there was a total of 27 disciplinary proceedings against
14 32 police officers in all.
15 Q. Out of those 27 cases, how many of those cases involved Serb
16 police employees?
17 A. Out of that total number, 17 disciplinary proceedings were
18 launched against 22 police officers of Serb ethnicity for serious
19 derelictions of duty. It is possible that in one or two cases I may have
20 made a mistake because Croats and Serbs can have similar names, but I
21 don't believe that the mistake -- or the margin of mistake goes beyond
23 Q. So am I correct to assume that the remaining ten or so cases
24 against police officers were cases against either Muslim or Croat police
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And just so we're clear as to what your statistics include, do
3 they include disciplinary cases processed under both the regular
4 procedures as well as the war time summary procedures?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do they also include disciplinary violations that occurred in
7 1992 but weren't processed until 1993 or later?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I want to review these 17 cases against Serb police employees
10 that you've identified. But before I do, were you asked by the ICTY
11 Office of the Prosecution to assist in tracking down the files for these
12 disciplinary cases before testifying here?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you entirely successful in that endeavour?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Why not? What happened to these case files?
17 A. As a matter of fact, it was a crime police of the crime police
18 administration of the RS MUP who collected those files. I was involved
19 too. In 2006 these disciplinary case files were destroyed pursuant to an
20 instruction on archiving those files. For such files the stipulated
21 period of keeping them is five to ten years, but that does not apply to
22 the log-book itself. It is kept permanently, and I indeed found it.
23 Q. So let's return to this first disciplinary case, the one against
24 Zeljko Bursac and Robert Burusanin, as it's listed as entry number 3 --
25 A. Actually, it's Barusanin.
1 Q. Yeah, thank you for the correction.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Maybe if we can scroll a little bit over to the
3 left in the -- yeah, there we go. Same thing -- yeah.
4 Q. First of all, can you tell us what the ethnicities of these two
5 police employees were?
6 A. I'm certain that Zeljko Bursac is a Serb. I suppose that Robert
7 Barusanin is a Serb too, but he could also be a Croat judging by the
9 Q. And what police station were these two police officers from?
10 A. Zeljko Bursac was a police officer of the Ivanjska police station
11 not far from Banja Luka, whereas Robert Barusanin worked at the Centar
12 police station in Banja Luka.
13 Q. What disciplinary offence did they allegedly commit, these two
14 police officers?
15 A. They were charged for murder.
16 Q. And can you tell us what the ethnicity of the victim was?
17 A. The victim was Djuradj Knezevic, and I believe that he was a
19 Q. Can you tell us what was the outcome of these disciplinary
20 proceedings? And if you have to refer to the log-book, please do.
21 A. The outcome of the disciplinary proceedings was termination of
22 service for both of them. Zeljko Bursac appealed the decision, but the
23 appeal was refused and the initial decision was confirmed, and that is
24 termination of service.
25 Q. When -- what date was their employment contract terminated or at
1 least the decision to terminate their contract made?
2 A. On the 13th of October in the district court in Banja Luka
3 they were in custody, a disciplinary hearing was held on that day, and I
4 suppose that it was then that the first-instance decision on the
5 termination of service was passed.
6 Q. So on the date of the decision of their termination, they were
7 being held at the district prison, would that be the Tunici [phoen]
9 A. Yes. Because both -- the -- they were subject to disciplinary
10 proceedings and parallelly to criminal proceedings.
11 Q. So a criminal report was filed against these two police officers
12 with the basic -- or the public prosecutor's office?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what was the result of their criminal case?
15 A. Their criminal case had as an outcome that Zeljko Bursac was
16 sentenced to 11 years in prison and Robert Barusanin to four years and
17 six months in prison.
18 Q. Now, let's move -- let's go back one page and go to the next case
19 listed on this page, the log-book page, and we see it's a disciplinary
20 case against Slobodan Maksimovic. Who was his -- what is his ethnicity?
21 A. I believe he was a Serb.
22 Q. Do you recall what SJB or what organisational unit within the
23 police he worked for? And if you don't know, that's fine.
24 A. I cannot remember.
25 Q. Let's look at the column that describes the articles under the
1 law on internal affairs and Law on State Administration that he was
2 charged with. If we can scroll over just a little bit on the computer
3 screen. There, yes, on the B/C/S and the English. Perfect. Now we see
4 under column 8 that Maksimovic was not charged under Article 296,
5 paragraph 2, item 1 of the Law on State Administration, which as we saw
6 before, was the provision regarding disciplinary violations for
7 committing a criminal act. He was not charged with that, so what does
8 this tell us about his disciplinary violation?
9 A. As far as I remember, under Article 114, paragraph 1, item 9 of
10 the Law on the Internal Affairs, and that referred to conduct that was
11 detrimental to the reputation of the ministry. His violation could not
12 be put under a heading of -- that was to be found in the Law on State
13 Administration, so a provision of the Law on Internal Affairs was chosen
14 instead. That was not the only such case.
15 Q. So his offence was not a criminal act according to this log-book?
16 A. Well, it could have been. I cannot tell based on this.
17 Q. And that's where I was going with this and maybe it's just a step
18 of logic. But if you look at the case above it, the one that we've just
19 talked about, they're charged under this Article 296, paragraph 2, item
20 1, of the Law on State Administration. And we saw that that is the
21 provision that dealt with criminal acts by an employee. But we see
22 Maksimovic is not charged with that. And what I was asking you is
23 whether that would imply that he was not being disciplined for a criminal
25 A. I don't know, probably.
1 Q. Let's move to the next case on this page, which is against
2 Zeljko Stupar. What was his ethnicity, or what is his ethnicity?
3 A. Serbian.
4 Q. And what disciplinary violation did Mr. Stupar commit in 1992?
5 A. He committed a criminal offence. He smuggled weapons and
7 Q. Let's take a look at P1002. And this appears to be -- well, it's
8 labelled a telegram, and it's to all SJBs, and it's coming from the CSB.
9 If we can turn to the -- and it's dated 30 April 1992. And if we could
10 turn to the second page of I believe it's just the English.
11 On the second page it states that:
12 "At Kljuc SJB it was established that active-duty policeman
13 Zeljko Stupar had sold and smuggled a certain number of fire-arms and a
14 quantity of ammunition, thus committing a criminal offence."
15 Is this the crime for which Mr. Stupar was submitted to
16 disciplinary proceedings?
17 A. It was both a criminal and disciplinary.
18 Q. Are you aware whether he was -- whether criminal charges were
19 filed against him?
20 A. I think so.
21 Q. If we look at the next paragraph it discusses the murder
22 committed by SJB Banja Luka police officers Robert Barusanin and
23 Zeljko Bursac in the Prijedor area. Is that the disciplinary case that
24 we discussed or we talked about earlier?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Let's move -- let's go back to the log-book, the previous
2 exhibit --
3 JUDGE HALL
4 point to take a break?
5 MR. OLMSTED: It would be a very convenient time, Your Honour.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
10 MR. OLMSTED: May I continue, Your Honour?
11 JUDGE HALL
12 MR. OLMSTED:
13 Q. While we're on this document I might as well ask you, this case
14 against Zeljko Stupar, do you recall the facts of this case, in
15 particular, to whom he was selling the weapons?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Let's go back to -- go ahead.
18 A. He was a police officer at the Kljuc SJB. He was not in Banja
19 Luka, so I'm not familiar with the details.
20 Q. Fair enough. Let's go back to 65 ter 2355, which is the
21 disciplinary log-book. And if we can go back to page 2 of the English
22 and basically the page you're on which is technically page 24 on e-court.
23 And we can see the next case after Zeljko Stupar is a case against Zeljko
24 Vukovic. And we can see from column 5 that you are mentioned there,
25 Radomir Rodic. Does that mean that you were disciplinary prosecutor for
1 this case?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What was the ethnicity of Mr. Vukovic?
4 A. I think he was a Serb.
5 Q. And what police station was he from?
6 A. Skender Vakuf, which today is called Knezevo.
7 Q. What was his disciplinary offence back in 1992?
8 A. In this particular case the grounds for initiating disciplinary
9 proceedings against Zeljko Vukovic were not a criminal -- it wasn't a
10 criminal offence. It was a dereliction of duty. In a short time-period
11 he committed three severe instances of dereliction of duty. In late
12 March 1992 he reported to work drunk, then in early April 1992 at a
13 traffic check-point he shot at a traffic sign and destroyed it, and then
14 in early May he sat in an official vehicle and abandoned his official
15 work-place without permission.
16 Q. What was the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings?
17 A. As far as I could tell from the records, the sanction imposed was
18 a deduction of 15 per cent of his salary for six months.
19 Q. Let's turn to the page 4 in the English version of this log-book,
20 and it will be the next set of entries in the B/C/S version which begin
21 on page 26.
22 Mr. Rodic, we see on this page the next six entries in this
23 log-book. Could you tell us which of these disciplinary cases were
24 against Serb police officers?
25 A. On this page I would say that only the entry or entry number 11,
1 Milutin Buksa who was a police officer at the time was the only Serb.
2 Q. And what police station was he from?
3 A. He was in charge of traffic safety in the police station in Banja
5 Q. What was his disciplinary offence? What was his act of
7 A. He was processed disciplinary --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
9 repeat the date.
10 MR. OLMSTED:
11 Q. Sir, if you could just stop and maybe start again because the
12 interpreter missed the date. If you could just explain again what was
13 the disciplinary offence.
14 A. Yes, I will.
15 His disciplinary offence or proceedings were conducted due to an
16 act that he committed on the 16th of June, 1999 [as interpreted], at the
17 check-point where he worked together with another six reserve police
18 officers and two military police officers from a citizen who I believe
19 was from Knin confiscated unlawfully 15 kilogrammes of coffee and
20 distributed it among themselves.
21 Q. And was -- what was the ethnicity of the citizen who they took
22 the coffee from?
23 A. He was a Serb.
24 Q. And what was the outcome of Mr. Buksa's disciplinary proceedings?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, just before the witness answers, line 12
1 says 16th of June, 1999, I believe it was 1992. Thank you.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you for that correction.
3 Q. Sir, just to clarify the record, the disciplinary offence at
4 issue which Mr. Buksa was involved in, that occurred on -- in June 1992;
5 is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And what was the outcome of Mr. Buksa's disciplinary proceedings.
8 And the information may be on the next page of the log-book.
9 A. Yes, yes, I have just turned the next page. He was fined by
10 15 per cent of the net salary in the previous three months -- received in
11 the previous three months and to be applicable in the next six months.
12 Q. Let's turn to the next page in the log-book, page 28 of the B/C/S
13 version and page 6 of the English. Now, we see on this page entry number
14 14, the Ivica Gagula case. That's the case that we have been talking
15 about -- looking at a few documents about; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you tell us on this page which of the police officers were
19 A. Under number 13, I think that Drago Serval was a Serb; and number
20 17, Petar Tanazovic and Zoran Davidovic; and number 18, Slobodan Miljus.
21 Q. We can see -- let's first turn to Drago Serval, and we can see
22 from the fifth column that your name is mentioned there. Does that mean
23 that you were disciplinary prosecutor for that case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What police station was he assigned to?
1 A. The police station centre in Banja Luka; however, I'm not quite
2 sure whether he was a Serb or a Croat.
3 Q. And do you recall what his disciplinary offence was?
4 A. Serval was subjected to disciplinary procedure because on the
5 29th of July, 1992, he was given a day off from the unit that was
6 somewhere on the front line, but he failed to return over the next few
8 Q. What was the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings?
9 A. During the disciplinary proceedings, Serval asked for an agreed
10 termination of service, if I remember correctly, but I also see from the
11 documents that he lodged an appeal against the original decision that was
12 probably relating to termination. And I see that his appeal had been
14 Q. Very good.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Could we move to the previous page listing the
16 names of the cases, so back to page 28 of the B/C/S and 6 of the English.
17 Q. And let's look at the next case against a Serb police officer
18 that you identified, which is entry number 17. Could you tell us who
19 were Peter -- or Petar Tanazovic and Zoran Davidovic?
20 A. Petar Tanazovic was deputy commander of the Majdan police station
21 in Banja Luka. Zoran Davidovic was a police officer in that same police
23 Q. And what was their disciplinary offence?
24 A. They committed a criminal offence and were subjected to
25 disciplinary procedure because on the 23rd of September, 1992,
1 Petar Tanazovic at the check-point in the village of Vrbanja
2 Luka killed a reserve police officer from the station Bosko Kavic. Zoran
3 Davidovic was with him, but he did not prevent him from committing that
5 Q. Can you tell us what the ethnicity of Bosko Kavic was?
6 A. Bosko Kavic was a Serb.
7 Q. What was the outcome of their disciplinary proceedings?
8 A. Termination of service. I think that Davidovic filed a complaint
9 to the second-instance disciplinary organ, but it was rejected.
10 Q. And were they also subject to parallel criminal proceedings?
11 A. Yes. The security services centre filed criminal reports against
12 them to the district prosecutor's office in Banja Luka. Petar was
13 sentenced to 14 years in prison and he was released recently -- actually,
14 two or three years ago, while Davidovic was sentenced to two or three
15 years in prison.
16 Q. Very well. We'll talk about entry number 18, Slobodan Miljus in
17 a little bit. But if we can turn -- yes, turn back to that -- the
18 previous page, page 26 -- or, I'm sorry, 28 of the B/C/S, 6 of the
20 Can you tell us according to this log-book what happened
21 procedurally to the cases against Tanazovic, Davidovic, and Miljus? And
22 perhaps while he's doing that we could scroll a little bit over in the
23 English. Yes. It says:
24 "File returned to the submitter of the initiative of the
25 procedure," ... et cetera, et cetera.
1 Could you explain what happened with those cases?
2 A. Yes. Since the event took place in those days when the new rules
3 on disciplinary liability in war time came into force, the disciplinary
4 prosecutor or the official who distributed files to disciplinary
5 prosecutors did so. But as I said, since those days the new rules came
6 into effect the case was returned to be processed according to the new
7 rules rather than the old ones. It was returned to the commission's
8 secretary, and in this instance, it was acted according to the new rules
9 in which the chief of the centre was the first-instance disciplinary
10 organ and the minister was the second-instance disciplinary organ.
11 Q. Let's turn now to page 30 of the B/C/S, and we don't have an
12 English translation of this page.
13 And, sir, if you're looking at the numbering at the top it's page
14 29 for the numbering I gave to it, but just add one number to all my
15 numbers. Essentially it's just the next page. I'm sorry, the next page
16 after that.
17 So we see that the log-book jumps from 1992 with the initiation
18 of the war time summary procedures and it goes to 1994 -- in fact, it's
19 going to April 1994. Why does it do that?
20 A. Are you asking me why we have 1992 and then 1994?
21 Q. Yes. What was happening between September of 1992 and April of
22 1994 that we're jumping ahead to 1994 here?
23 A. This looks a bit confusing, but I think that the reason for that
24 is because the secretary of the commission who kept the records, and in
25 my view he did that for economical reasons because I don't know if you
1 know that in that period the police stations and the centre and the
2 Ministry of the Interior, there was an enormous shortage of stationery.
3 And you can see if you look at the beginning of this log you can see that
4 this was kept in the books that were envisaged to be used for persons
5 remanded in custody. So we had to adapt these books. Maybe you will
6 find it difficult to understand that, but we didn't even have pencils,
7 let alone all these proper books and records. Therefore, I think that
8 the commission's secretary used every blank paper to keep the records.
9 Q. Well, let --
10 JUDGE HALL
11 wish to note for the record that the accused Zupljanin is now present in
12 court. Thank you.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. When we flip ahead some of the pages, let's go to page 54 of the
15 B/C/S and page 8 of the English, and, sir, if you could just flip through
16 the pages. We have 1994, the first entry being April 1994, and then we
17 flip through the pages and we get to this page, page 54 of the B/C/S, and
18 it jumps back to 1992. Under which procedures -- some of these cases
19 look familiar. Under which procedures were these disciplinary cases
20 processed in 1992?
21 A. Yes, according to this I would say that these procedures were
22 finalised according to the new rules that were in force during an
23 imminent threat of war. Some cases were started according to the
24 previous rules, but also recorded are the cases that were finalised
25 according to the new rules.
1 Q. And why don't we now flip ahead to page 56 of the B/C/S and page
2 10 of the English. And here we see that after 1992 we go to 1993. Can
3 you tell us, are these the disciplinary cases processed in 1993 under the
4 war time disciplinary procedures?
5 A. I would say yes.
6 Q. Now why don't we flip ahead to page 72 of the B/C/S. We don't
7 have this in the English translation, but it's self-explanatory from the
8 heading, I think. And here we see 1994, and we have entries beginning
9 January 1994. And if you just flip ahead from the pages from that point,
10 can you tell us whether these are the disciplinary cases that were
11 processed under the war time disciplinary procedures up until the time
12 that the RS MUP returned to the regular procedures in April of 1994.
13 A. If we turn to the next page.
14 Q. Yes, why don't we do that.
15 A. One can see that these are the records of disciplinary
16 cases - rules on disciplinary liability of MUP employees during a war
17 time regimen, which means that they were conducted according to those
18 specific rules.
19 Q. Very well.
20 A. You can see that near the top of the page.
21 Q. And I think if you flip ahead through these pages of the
22 log-book, eventually you will return I think to 1995 or you will advance
23 to 1995 under the regular procedures. But let -- let's see if we can
24 explain this log-book because I think you're right that it is a bit
25 unusual because it's a bit out of order. But tell me if this is possible
1 here. We have the log-book for 1992 and then up in September we have the
2 new war time procedures. Then the log-book goes to April 1994, which is
3 where the regular procedures were implemented again. And then we go back
4 to 1992, 1993, and 1994 and we see the cases from the war time
5 procedures. Is that an accurate summary of what we've just looked at?
6 A. Yes, and this precisely confirms what I said earlier about the
7 secretary of the commission. We saw different handwriting in 1992 and in
8 other years, which means that there was a new secretary of the commission
9 whose task was to keep this log-book. He did that in order to save paper
10 as much as possible because nobody could provide stationery for us at
11 that time.
12 Q. Let's return to page 54 of the B/C/S, which is page 8 of the
13 English. And these are the war time disciplinary cases from 1992. And,
14 sir, if you could tell us which of the disciplinary cases on this page
15 were against Serb employees who committed disciplinary violations between
16 the 1st of April and the 31st of December, 1992?
17 A. We have Petar Tanazovic, Zoran Davidovic, Ljubisa Nikolic, and
18 others - it doesn't say who the others are, then we have Slobodan Miljus,
19 I think that Zoran Vukojevic was also a Serb, Dusan Pasic, and Sasa
20 Maksimovic. Shall I go on, or shall I stop here on this sheet?
21 Q. Yes, stop there. And if we can look at Sasa Maksimovic, what was
22 the date of his act of misconduct?
23 A. I would have to go back --
24 Q. Sir, maybe I can help you, if you can look at column -- if you
25 look --
1 A. Yes, yes, it says the date when violation took place, 21st of
2 February, 1992
3 Q. All right. We won't focus on that one because it's before April
4 of 1992.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If you could look at entries 3, 4, and 6, are these the same
7 cases that appeared earlier in the log-book that we've already talked
9 A. Yes, Petar Tanazovic, Zoran Davidovic, and I also think that
10 refers to Slobodan Miljus, but let me check. Yes.
11 Q. So we've already talked about the case of Tanazovic and
12 Davidovic. Can we turn to Slobodan Miljus, and could you tell us what
13 disciplinary offence he allegedly committed.
14 A. Slobodan Miljus committed a criminal offence. On the 11th of
15 November, 1992, he falsified identification paper for three non-Serbs,
16 while the Sanski Most public security station had filed criminal reports
17 against those three individuals for the crime of armed rebellion. After
18 providing false IDs for them, Miljus drove those three individuals to the
19 UNPROFOR base in Dvor in the Republic of Croatia
20 Q. What police station was Mr. Miljus from?
21 A. He was from the Prijedor public security station. I don't know
22 which police station.
23 Q. Do you recall what the outcome of his criminal proceedings were?
24 If you don't know, that's fine.
25 A. His service was terminated.
1 Q. Yes, that was his disciplinary proceedings. What about his
2 criminal proceedings? Perhaps you didn't follow them, but do you know
3 was he eventually convicted of his crimes?
4 A. I'm not familiar with that fact.
5 Q. Now, the entry above Miljus we have Ljuban Nikolic.
6 A. Ljubisa Nikolic.
7 Q. Yes, you are correct. I did it wrong.
8 Now, he was -- he has a similar classification number to Miljus.
9 Was this the same disciplinary case or a different one?
10 A. I believe that was a different case because he was a member of
11 the police station or the public security station Gradiska. And I
12 believe that these two cases are totally unrelated. If there is
13 something that might lead one to such a conclusion, it might be ascribed
14 to a mistake made by the commission's secretary because I cannot see any
15 link between the two offences.
16 Q. Then we have under entry number 7 we have Zoran Vukojevic. And
17 if we look at the next page, could you tell us what was the disciplinary
18 measure imposed against this police employee?
19 A. A fine amounting to a deduction of 15 per cent of his salary, but
20 there is no specific time-period during which this punishment was to be
22 Q. Okay. Let's return to the previous page. And the next entry,
23 entry number 8, is Dusan Pasic. Can you tell us what was this police
24 officer disciplined for in 1992?
25 A. Dusan Pasic worked at the Bihac SJB, which was relocated to the
1 village of Ripac near Bihac. On the 29th of November, 1992, he, with
2 another active-duty police officer and 18 reserve police officers,
3 refused to carry out a task after which a disciplinary sanction was
4 imposed to the effect that his service be terminated. He appealed but
5 the appeal was refused.
6 Q. Can you explain in more detail what task he failed to carry out.
7 Was it failing to report to duty or report to war time assignment?
8 A. As far as I know the police went to the front line like other
9 citizens did, and that was also a work duty of ours. And he refused to
10 go to the front line - I don't know exactly where - together with the
11 others. They refused, and he was subject to disciplinary procedure, and
12 the other police officers were taken off the war time assignment schedule
13 of the MUP.
14 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to page 56 of the B/C/S, page 10
15 of the English.
16 Q. And these are the, as we've talked about before, the 1993
17 disciplinary cases that were processed under war time procedures. And we
18 see I think ten entries, but can you tell us based on column 4 how many
19 of these cases on this page involved acts of misconduct in 1992?
20 A. I'm not sure I understood your question fully.
21 Q. Sure. I'll repeat it then. If you look at column 4 you see the
22 date of when the violation took place, and you see some dates are in
23 1993. Those for the purposes of your testimony I'm not interested in.
24 I'm only interested in the ones from 1992, and can you tell us which
25 ones -- which entries are for violations that took place in 1992?
1 A. In the column with the date when the violation was committed
2 there are some cases where the violation was committed in 1992.
3 Q. Yes, and could you just -- for the record could you provide those
4 numbers, entry numbers.
5 A. From the register for 1993 you want me to enumerate the cases
6 which have to do with the violations that were committed in 1992? Is
7 that what you mean?
8 Q. Exactly. Could you just give us the entry numbers.
9 A. Number 1, Drago Letic, date of violation 4 October 1992; then
10 Nura Hodzic, 7th of December and 30th of November, 1992; then Drasko
11 Acic, 10 October 1992
12 Q. Thank you.
13 A. And then there is Zeljko Vukojevic, 14 May 1992; Djuras Bosnjak,
14 31 December --
15 Q. Sir, let me stop you there. Let's just focus on this first page.
16 We'll go to the second page in a bit. I think you've identified entries
17 numbers 1, 2, 4, and 10. Could you tell us of these four cases which
18 were against Serb police officers out of these four?
19 A. Letic may also have been a Croat. Nura Hodzic is not a Serb.
20 Drasko Acic is a Serb. Petko Djukic is a Serb.
21 Q. Okay. Let's --
22 A. These are the four cases.
23 Q. Thank you. And let's go -- let's just -- let's talk about Drago
24 Letic. I know you're not certain whether he was a Serb or a Croat. You
25 mentioned he committed acts of conduct in -- misconduct in 1992. Did he
1 also engage in misconduct in 1993 as well?
2 A. Yes. 4 October 1992
3 Teslic SJB. I don't know him at all.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, we appreciate the evidence that has
5 been offered by this witness in respect of the disciplinary procedures
6 that were taken in response to offences committed by servicemen of the
7 MUP. I think you've made your point, that we have now received a pretty
8 good idea of how it worked and what the offences were and how they were
9 handled. And so I'm wondering how much further down this line do you
10 wish to go? And I'm asking of course in respect of the time that you
11 have asked for. I think you indicated that you would seek to reduce the
12 time that you had actually asked for. And so if these considerations are
13 still possible, then I'm just curious to know how further you wish to
14 pursue this.
15 MR. OLMSTED: I do want to go through -- he identifies 17 cases
16 against Serb police officers, and I do want to go through them. And I'm
17 trying to do it as quickly as possible just to give an understanding of
18 what those offences were so that we know about the entries in this
19 log-book because this is the log-book that covered the time-period of
20 this indictment. I will endeavour to go much faster, though.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do we need to go through all 17 of them? Is that
22 really necessary?
23 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I think so because I think we need to
24 understand what the offences were, whether they fall within our
25 indictment or not.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would assume that the picture that is emerging
2 from the cases that we have gone through is pretty consistent, and so is
3 there anything new coming out of the remaining cases?
4 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I'm not sure the Defence is going to
5 stipulate that all these cases -- these 17 cases do not fall within our
6 indictment. So I think it's important that the record reflect what
7 they're about. I think I am moving through them fairly quickly, and
8 there actually isn't too many more to go.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Round up as quickly as you can, sir.
10 MR. OLMSTED: I appreciate that. Thank you.
11 Q. And just to move from this Drago Letic case, the disciplinary
12 proceedings in this case were commenced in February 1993; is that
14 A. Yes. On 24 February a disciplinary sanction was imposed, his
15 service was terminated. On the 29th of February he appealed but the
16 appeal was refused, so that the decision became final --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the date.
18 MR. OLMSTED:
19 Q. Could you repeat the date that it became final.
20 A. I said the decision became final on 12 June 1993.
21 Q. Let's move to the next entry against a Serb police officer. This
22 is with regard to Drasko Acic. Can you tell us what SJB he worked for.
23 A. It was the Drvar SJB.
24 Q. Now let's move to the entry of Petko Djukic. Can you tell us
25 what was the disciplinary violation of Mr. Djukic?
1 A. Petko Djukic worked at the Prnjavor SJB. On 8 September 1992 he
2 failed to report for carrying out a task and disciplinary sanction was
3 imposed, his service was terminated.
4 Q. Let's turn now to page 58 of the B/C/S, page 12 of the English.
5 And can you tell us very quickly which entries on this page were for acts
6 of misconduct committed between April and December 1992 by Serb police
8 A. Zeljko Vukovic, that's the case we've already spoken about.
9 Djurasin Bosnjak, Zivana Babic, Desimir Moconja, and Mico Trninic, but
10 they committed the violation, the last four, on 31 December 1992 through
11 4 January 1993
12 was less severe because they were fined only. The duration of the fine
13 was three months and it isn't a high fine.
14 Q. Let's turn to page 60 of the B/C/S, page 14 of the English. And
15 if you could identify on this page which of the disciplinary cases are
16 against Serb police officers or Serb police employees for acts of
17 misconduct between April and December of 1992.
18 A. Drago Runic, December 1992; and Bosko Vukobrat, December 1992.
19 We've already spoken about Drago Serval.
20 Q. Then let's focus on the cases against Drago Runic and Bosko
21 Vukobrat, entries 23 and 24. I notice that the columns -- though the
22 classification number is different, when we look at the date of the
23 violation, when we look at the date of receipt of the request we see that
24 there's similar information in the columns. Does this mean that the
25 cases were related?
1 A. Not necessarily because it says that the violation was committed
2 in December of 1992 for both. The request was received on the same date
3 for both. On the 24th of April, 1993, Runic -- Runic's service was
4 terminated and the same measure was imposed on Vukobrat only two days
5 later. It says for Vukobrat that he worked at Petrovac SJB; whereas,
6 Runic there is no information about where he worked. So I cannot
7 establish a link between them with any certainty.
8 Q. Now, other than the ones we've looked at today, are there any
9 other disciplinary cases in this log-book involving Serb police officers
10 for acts of misconduct between 1 April and 31 December 1992?
11 A. You mean those registered in this log-book but not yet mentioned
12 here, or did you mean people working for the police who committed
13 violations but were not registered here at all?
14 Q. Well, no, my question is, as we've now gone over 17 cases and I
15 believe that they're the ones that you identified when you were making
16 your statistics, and I just wanted to make sure that we covered them all
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. And just generally, these 17 cases that we've identified, based
20 on the information you have available to you, can you tell us whether any
21 of these crimes involved victims who were non-Serbs, to your knowledge?
22 A. I don't know of any such cases.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this log-book into
25 JUDGE HALL
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1289, Your Honours.
3 MR. OLMSTED:
4 Q. Sir, I want -- now I want to move away from this log-book, and I
5 want to talk about the Banja Luka special police detachment. Were you
6 aware that this Banja Luka special police detachment was formed in or
7 around May 1992?
8 A. I think so.
9 Q. And based on what you knew, where did the members of this
10 detachment come from?
11 A. I think they were from Banja Luka and the surrounding area.
12 Q. Did they come from the police force? Were some police officers
13 moved from regular police force into the special police?
14 A. I think that it was on a voluntary basis and that a number of
15 active-duty police officers as well as some reserve police officers
16 joined that force.
17 Q. And to your recollection, who was the commander of the special
18 police detachment?
19 A. I don't remember.
20 Q. Did you ever hear the name Ljuban Ecim?
21 A. Ljuban Ecim, yes, I heard the name. I believe that many
22 inhabitants of Banja Luka heard of him because he was from a family of
23 medical doctors in Banja Luka which enjoyed high esteem. He worked in
24 the department for aliens and later on he joined the state security. But
25 if you wanted to ask me whether he was a member of the special police
1 force, I don't know. But I believe that I met him occasionally with some
2 members of the special police force, but I'm not sure whether he himself
3 actually was a member of the special police.
4 Q. Do you recall a security day parade that was held at Banja Luka
5 in the middle of May 1992?
6 A. While preparing to give evidence here, I was reminded of some
7 things. The 13th of May was a police day in Bosnia-Herzegovina, possibly
8 in all of Yugoslavia
9 on the day before, that is, on the 12th of May.
10 Q. And did you attend that parade?
11 A. Not directly, certainly not as a participant. As for the rallies
12 before the war or during the war, I never tried to be near the place
13 where the speakers were because those speeches never really interested
14 me. I kept aside and kept clear of the crowd.
15 Q. And just so we're clear, I believe what you're telling us is that
16 you attended the parade but you didn't participate in it and you were
17 just amongst the crowd. Is that what you're telling us?
18 A. Well, I wasn't in the immediate vicinity. I stayed at a distance
19 because there were very many people there. I may have been in a nearby
20 cafe actually.
21 Q. Do you recall whether any dignitaries attended this parade?
22 A. While I was preparing at first I wasn't sure, but when you showed
23 me the video-clip I saw that some dignitaries were present, and I didn't
24 know that they had been there before I saw the video-clip.
25 Q. Do you recall whether Milan Martic was there?
1 A. Let me make myself clear. I never saw any of those dignitaries
2 in person, but I believe I heard rumours that Milan Martic was present.
3 Q. And what about the CSB
4 A. I didn't see him -- or rather, I saw him in the video-clip later,
5 but it would have been logical for him to be there.
6 Q. Well, perhaps I can refresh your recollection because in your
7 interview statement you do state that, "Stojan Zupljanin was there
8 attending, that he was in some dignitary place from which he attended it.
9 And I think that they reported to him at that time on this occasion," and
10 that's page 29 of his interview transcript. Does that refresh your
11 recollection whether you recall that Zupljanin was there?
12 A. I said that I wasn't close to that place where the dignitaries
13 were, but I heard accounts of Stojan's presence. But I've already said
14 that I steered clear of such crowds and mass gatherings.
15 Q. Let's take a look at the footage from the parade. This is P1080
16 and it's going to be on Sanction.
17 Okay, let's roll the footage, and I just want you to see this
18 first part with the vehicles coming forward.
19 [Video-clip played]
20 MR. OLMSTED:
21 Q. Do you recall seeing these armoured personnel carriers and other
22 military-style vehicles at the parade that day?
23 A. No.
24 MR. OLMSTED: If we can stop it right there.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a vehicle I saw. I don't
1 remember seeing tracked vehicles, but I did see this type of vehicles
2 with the wheels.
3 MR. OLMSTED:
4 Q. And other than the parade, did you see these vehicles anywhere
5 else in Banja Luka?
6 A. I think I saw this vehicle once or twice in the repair workshop
7 parked behind the CSB
8 stands for centre of the security service.
9 Q. That repair workshop, did that belong to the centre?
10 A. The workshop provided services to the CSB and the SJB of Banja
12 MR. OLMSTED: Can we put up on the screen --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly the police stations.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Let's put on the screen 65 ter 10331.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Sir, can we say the date when the witness saw this
17 MR. OLMSTED: Sure.
18 Q. While we're bringing up the next exhibit, Mr. Rodic, could you
19 tell us approximately when you were seeing these APC vehicles at the
20 police repair workshop? Do you have an approximate date in 1992?
21 A. I'm not sure whether I saw them in 1992. It may have been in
22 1993, 1994, 1995, but it was during the war.
23 Q. What we have on our screen is a still photograph taken from the
24 parade video that you were looking at, and just to confirm, is this the
25 type of APC
1 A. It is possible.
2 Q. And let's --
3 MR. OLMSTED: May that be tendered into evidence?
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE HALL
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE HALL
8 MR. OLMSTED: No, but it's actually a still of P1080, so it's
9 already in evidence, and this is just a still shot of it. So he was
10 identifying a particular type of vehicle during his testimony, and so I
11 think it will be better for the record if we actually have the actual
12 vehicle that he recalls seeing at the parade --
13 JUDGE HALL
14 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1290, Your Honours.
16 MR. OLMSTED:
17 Q. I'd like to return to the parade footage --
18 JUDGE HALL
19 this video, it's 12.06. We'll take the break now, and you can continue.
20 I would also alert you that when we return you're required to complete
21 your examination-in-chief of this witness by the time we rise at 1.45.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
1 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry, Your Honours?
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: We were told you had a matter to discuss before
3 the witness is brought back.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Oh, I was going to discuss it after he's done, but
5 I can do it right now. I just wanted to clarify something with regard to
6 this witness and how we approached this witness as far as the evidence
7 he's giving. I think it's -- what we went through with the log-book was
8 a painful experience indefinitely, but really part of our case is to
9 prove the negative, that there was a system in place, whether it was
10 criminal or disciplinary, but it wasn't used when it should have been.
11 And to do this with regard to the disciplinary procedures required going
12 through the log-book and going through the entries that would be
13 potentially relevant to this case but we have to establish that they're
14 not. So that's why I went through that somewhat time-consuming process
15 of going through entry by entry. Of course this will all be explained in
16 the final submissions, but I just wanted the Trial Chamber to be aware of
17 this so that they don't think we're intentionally trying to take up time.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 his way back into court.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. OLMSTED:
22 Q. Sir, I just want to return briefly to P1080, which is the parade
23 footage, and we've moved ahead to 3 minutes and 14 seconds. And if we
24 could just play the video from this point.
25 [Video-clip played]
1 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could pause it right there.
2 Q. What we're looking at is three men or three individuals giving a
3 salute to a number of men in police uniforms. Can you identify the man
4 in the middle wearing the blue uniform?
5 A. It is difficult to identify this person from behind. I assumed
6 that this might be Stojan Zupljanin, but I'm not sure.
7 Q. Mr. Rodic, are you personally aware whether the disciplinary
8 procedures that we have talked about were initiated against any members
9 of the Banja Luka special police detachment for crimes that they
10 committed in 1992 against members of the non-Serb population?
11 A. As far as disciplinary procedures conducted in that period are
12 concerned, I specifically know only about the three cases that were
13 allocated to me as the disciplinary prosecutor, and those were the ones
14 that we discussed. I know nothing about any other cases.
15 Q. Let's take a look at P1092. And to assist you, sir, I want to
16 hand you the B/C/S version of this document. It's a list of members of
17 the Banja Luka special police detachment.
18 Sir, prior to testifying today -- here today, you were asked to
19 review the disciplinary log-book that we just looked at to determine
20 whether any persons appearing on this list of special police members were
21 among the Serbs -- Serb employees against whom disciplinary proceedings
22 were initiated from acts of misconduct in 1992. What was the result of
23 your review? Were you able to identify any?
24 A. Concerning the period between the 1st of April, 1992
25 31st December, 1992
1 Q. Were you aware of a group operating in Banja Luka in April 1992
2 calling themselves the Serbian Defence Forces or SOS?
3 A. I have heard of them.
4 Q. Do you recall hearing whether any members of the SOS joined the
5 special police detachment?
6 A. I can't give you any reliable answer because I don't know for
7 sure, because I never socialised with any members of the special police.
8 We were not friends. I only knew some of them by sight, and we just
9 greeted each other by nodding heads when we met in the street.
10 Q. As a crime police inspector, do you recall personally
11 participating in any investigations of members of the SOS or special
12 police with regard to crimes committed against the non-Serb population in
14 A. I remember the first time I heard about these Serbian Defence
15 Forces, that it was sometime in early April when some check-points
16 appeared that had been set up by members of that formation. I remember a
17 specific event -- or actually, I think there were three instances when
18 non-Serb citizens came to report that at the check-point in Vrbanja money
19 had been taken from them and maybe some jewellery that they had with
20 them --
21 Q. Let me stop --
22 A. -- that was the criminal investigation police where I worked
23 received these reports, but I cannot say with any degree of certainty who
24 acted on these reports, which particular inspector dealt with it, and
25 whether these cases were solved or not.
1 Q. Thank you, and I think that last bit gets to my question which
2 was: Do you recall personally, yourself, participating in any of these
3 investigations -- any investigations of members of the SOS for crimes
4 committed against non-Serbs, you personally?
5 A. Not me personally.
6 Q. And let me ask the same for the special police. Did you
7 personally -- were you personally involved in any investigations of
8 special police detachment members for crimes committed against non-Serbs
9 in 1992?
10 A. No.
11 Q. I want to move on to the last topic. In the summer of 1992 were
12 you aware whether police officers from Banja Luka, either the SJB or CSB,
13 were sent to interview detainees at Omarska camp?
14 A. I am aware of that, and I remember that because I was among those
15 who was supposed to go to Omarska to interview the detainees, non-Serb
16 men more specifically. The then-chief of the criminal investigation
17 police, Zoran Milosevic, removed me from the list of those individuals.
18 I think that up to ten members of the CID from the Banja Luka
19 security station went there. On several occasions they stayed there for
20 a couple of days. They would go to Omarska in the morning and then they
21 would come back in the afternoon after they had finished the interviews.
22 Q. In your last answer you mentioned that the then-chief of the
23 crime -- criminal investigation police, the CID, was Zoran Milosevic.
24 Was it Zoran Milosevic or was it Zoran Josic?
25 A. No, not Milosevic. Josic, yes, I see it's recorded as Milosevic.
1 I don't know any Milosevic.
2 Q. And what were the purposes -- what was the purpose of these going
3 to Omarska and interrogating these non-Serb men?
4 A. Well, probably to document and record possible criminal offences
5 because criminal investigation inspectors went there to conduct such
6 interviews who had experiences in that domain. Those were not regular
7 and ordinary policemen.
8 Q. And what were the ethnicities of the crime inspectors who went to
10 A. Well, I cannot remember their names at the moment, the names of
11 the inspectors, but I presume that they were Serbs.
12 Q. And other than these up to ten members of the crime police
13 service from the SJB --
14 A. Less than ten.
15 Q. Less than ten then, were other persons, other employees of the
17 A. I suppose that there were inspectors from the centre and also
18 inspectors from the State Security Service. I am personally not privy to
19 this investigation. That is as much as I can remember. I don't think
20 that only inspectors from the public security station went there.
21 Q. Now, the inspectors -- the crime inspectors that went to Omarska,
22 when they came back from the camp, what did you hear from them as far as
23 what was going on -- what possible crimes were going on at the camp, if
25 A. Well, let me put it this way. I cannot remember these
1 conversations in detail. There may have been some general conversations,
2 but in my opinion if things happened at the Omarska camp - let's call
3 them some bad things - that probably could not have been noticed by those
4 inspectors because they would come, as I said, in the morning. They
5 spent time in the offices where they interviewed people, and after they
6 had finished they would get into their cars and back -- went back to
7 Banja Luka. So if there was anything happening in terms of something
8 being committed by the camp personnel, they most definitely didn't do
9 that in front of the inspectors.
10 Q. Well, didn't they tell you, at least informally, that guards of
11 the camp were killing one or more detainees?
12 A. I cannot say anything without any degree of certainty.
13 Q. But that wasn't my question. My question is: They came back
14 from the camp and I believe you mentioned previously that, perhaps it was
15 during proofing, that you had a meeting with Zoran Josic or it was an
16 informal situation where the crime police who had gone to Omarska had
17 mentioned the guards had killed one or more detainees at that camp. Did
18 that actually happen?
19 MR. KRGOVIC: That's leading.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 MR. OLMSTED:
22 Q. Do you recall any time when you and Zoran Josic were together
23 where you were speaking to the crime police who returned from Omarska and
24 they mentioned anything about what happened at Omarska?
25 A. First of all, I never attended any formal meeting with those
1 members of the criminal investigation police who went there. Secondly,
2 it may have happened that over the morning coffee these things were
3 mentioned. But I think that in that period we had much more serious
4 problems than that and we had higher priorities to discuss than what they
5 did when they went to the camp. Because that was not part of our regular
6 job, I mean the service that I worked in.
7 Q. In August and September 1992, do you recall hearing anything
8 about the killing of a number of non-Serbs at Koricanske Stijene?
9 A. I can't remember the exact period, but I heard of the Koricanske
10 Stijene incident, but then again I cannot say exactly how. It was
11 alleged that a large group of non-Serbs had been killed and that their
12 bodies had been thrown. Only some ten of them survived, and they reached
13 Jajce on that same evening, that was at the time under the Muslim
14 control. And those people gave their accounts of what had happened
15 there. Now, whether I heard about that in a conversation with someone or
16 maybe I heard it from the Federation media -- but anyway, I did hear of
17 the Koricanske Stijene incident, maybe not containing all the details
18 initially. And I learned about some details later.
19 Q. You mentioned the media, and I want you to think back. Do you
20 recall hearing about this incident on the media, and in particular you
21 mentioned that you heard accounts by those who survived the killing
22 incident, did you hear those on the -- over the media or did -- can you
23 tell us whether you just heard them from around town?
24 A. I can only certainly say that I did hear that, but it's been 18
25 or 19 years ago. Therefore, I cannot say anything definitely.
1 Q. Was anything mentioned about the Prijedor police being involved
2 in that incident?
3 A. Well, I know that the police was involved, but whether I know
4 that from a later period or from that particular period I cannot be sure.
5 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 were able to keep yourself within the time-limits indicated.
8 Yes, cross-examination.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: May I, Your Honours?
10 JUDGE HALL
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Rodic, I'm going to ask you a few questions,
14 but first of all, let us clarify certain things that you commented in
15 your answers to the questions put to you by my learned friend. Namely,
16 it is true that an initiative for conducting a disciplinary procedure was
17 launched by a direct supervisor of an employee of the MUP who had
18 committed more- or less-serious violation of duty; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In that sense, that kind of initiative that comes from the direct
21 supervisor carries the most weight which will determine whether the
22 disciplinary procedure would be launched by the chief of the CSB; is that
24 A. If it is not initiated by the direct officer, then the rest
25 needn't know about it at all.
1 Q. Very well. Yesterday and today you reviewed in detail the
2 log-book of disciplinary procedures of the Banja Luka CSB covering a
3 period of several years. Let's just clarify the following for the
4 Chamber. This log-book relates to disciplinary procedures that were
5 conducted against members of the MUP who were active-duty policemen; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Members of the reserve force, though, against whom - as you
9 said - only one disciplinary measure could be applied and that was to
10 remove them from the ministry's register, these members of the reserve
11 forces were not subject to disciplinary procedures -- or actually, were
12 subject to these procedures but were not recorded in this book; is that
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Very well. That means that if such a disciplinary procedure, or
16 rather, the measure of removing a reserve police officer from register,
17 was carried out by the Banja Luka CSB
18 in the book any longer?
19 A. No.
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Just for the sake of transcript, let us be perfectly clear. The
23 log-book of disciplinary procedures does not contain a single
24 disciplinary measure pronounced against a reserve police officer of the
25 Banja Luka CSB
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. Do you know whether there was any register kept for
3 such measures of removal from the registry of the MUP relating to the
4 reserve police officers?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. I presume that this was kept in the personnel department, and
7 this department would automatically transfer their personal files to the
8 Ministry of Defence; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that if those reserve police
11 officers while they were carrying out their duty as reserve police
12 officers committed a criminal offence, that criminal offence would have
13 been processed in line with the Law on Criminal Procedure which was in
14 force at the time; correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. I suppose that you will again agree with me when I say that this
17 would apply irrespective of who was the victim of that criminal offence?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. I meant the ethnicity of the victim.
20 A. Yes, that's how I understood the question.
21 Q. Yes, thank you. When an active-duty or reserve police officer,
22 in keeping with the defence act, is resubordinated to military command to
23 carry out a certain military task, a military assignment, and during that
24 time this person commits a criminal offence, he will be processed in
25 keeping with military regulations and by the military judiciary; is that
2 A. I'm not sure of that. I don't know.
3 Q. Do you know that at the moment when an officer of the MUP,
4 active-duty or reserve, is resubordinated to a military unit, that person
5 as of that moment forfeits all his official powers and becomes a member
6 of the armed forces like anybody else?
7 A. I don't know. But talking about SJB Banja Luka, when police
8 officers went to the front line when we had the company of -- sorry, the
9 command of the company or up to battalion level, yes, but then I don't
10 know about the rest.
11 Q. Certainly if they're resubordinated person to the orders of a
12 military unit, then their supervisor is one of the military -- or rather,
13 they are led by their commander. When they are resubordinated to the
14 military unit, that commander is also resubordinated to the military
15 commander there and then; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. There is one more thing, sir, that I believe you
18 should be familiar with and it has to do with what we discussed, namely,
19 the initiative of the immediate supervisor. It's a fact, isn't it, that
20 the direct supervisor is duty-bound to write a report about every
21 instance when force had to be used; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see P530, Article
24 58. That's the Law on Internal Affairs of the Republika Srpska. If I'm
25 not mistaken, that's on page 8 of the Serbian version.
1 Q. Article 58 in its last paragraph reads that:
2 "An authorised official, who executing their duties within a unit
3 or group, may use fire-arms only at the behest of a senior officer of a
4 unit or group ..."
5 And that "the orders to use fire-arms shall be issued only in
6 cases regulated by provisions of this law?"
7 Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Which means that should a police officer apply any means of
10 coercion and especially fire-arms, his direct superior is duty-bound to
11 write a report about the application of any means of coercion, including
12 fire-arms, and submit it to the CSB
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If in that case in the opinion of the direct supervisor a severe
15 dereliction of duty was committed in connection with the application of
16 means of coercion, then an initiative would be made to launch
17 disciplinary proceedings; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Irrespective of that, if in such a situation a criminal offence
20 was committed, certainly the direct superior or the crime police would
21 launch or would file a criminal report to the public prosecutor's office
22 or court that has jurisdiction against that person for the offence
23 committed; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Sir, in this document, P530, please go to page 13, Article 113,
1 the paragraph about disciplinary accountability, 113. We see here that
2 this article provides that:
3 "The minister or an official authorised by" him "may appoint one
4 or several disciplinary prosecutors."
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In Article 115, there is also a provision that the request for
8 disciplinary accountability may be issued by an official, authorised by
9 the minister, a request for establishing disciplinary accountability;
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At the moment the regulation about the disciplinary
13 accountability of MUP officials was passed, that is, on the 19th of
14 December, 1992, which is something you spoke about. This shortened
15 procedure was laid out; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see Exhibit 1D54.
18 Q. When we say "shortened procedure" or "summary procedure," the
19 function of the disciplinary body, or rather, the body in charge of
20 disciplinary infringements was the disciplinary commission in normal
21 circumstances, but now the function of this first-instance body was
22 transferred from the disciplinary commission to the chiefs of
23 administrations in the ministry, the commanders of police detachments,
24 and the chiefs of CSBs; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Any of these authorised first-instance bodies based on this
2 regulation acts as a disciplinary body with regard to its own
3 subordinates, that is, the territory covered by the CSB or when we speak
4 about police detachments [as interpreted] then it's the commander of the
5 police detachment; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Just to be completely clear, I said commander of the police
8 detachment in the singular, I mean the special brigade of the police of
9 the MUP of Republika Srpska commanded by Milenko Karisik; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So this refers to one special police detachment only; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In the second instance, based on this regulation, the
14 second-instance body was the minister of the interior, and my learned
15 friend showed you a document with -- that has to do with that; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So this regulation shortens the procedure in such a manner that
18 the first-instance procedure was conducted by the chiefs of the CSBs or
19 the commander of the detachment or the chiefs of the administrations in
20 the ministry; whereas, the second-instance body was only the minister of
21 the interior; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. This measure of shortening the disciplinary proceedings was
24 introduced to make that procedure more efficient; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. It is also true that this regulation, apart from shortening
2 disciplinary proceedings, in Article 17 which is on page 5 of the Serbian
3 version in e-court, also provides for the extension of the statute of
4 limitations for disciplinary procedure; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The more or less of the statute of limitations is introduced
7 because no one more- or less-severe disciplinary violation was meant to
8 remain unpunished; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that was especially because communication was more difficult
11 and the imminent threat of war; correct?
12 A. Well, yes, probably.
13 Q. On page 3, Article 2 of this regulation, some additional new
14 severe derelictions of duty are introduced. I will especially single out
15 one I consider important for this trial. It's the fourth from the top.
16 It says:
17 "The display of ethnic, religious, or other intolerance is
18 considered a severe dereliction of duty."
19 Can you see it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I will not enumerate the other measures because they can be found
22 in Article 2, but let's establish that this kind of dereliction of duty
23 was not to be found in the Law on State Administration or the Law on
24 Internal Affairs before 1992?
25 A. Well, yes, they -- it was not contained therein.
1 Q. Thank you. Article 5 of this regulation widens the authority to
2 initiate the procedure to establish disciplinary accountability to any
3 employee of the MUP, that is, not only to officers, supervisors, as
4 previously, but now any employee if he or she has such knowledge can
5 initiate the procedure to establish disciplinary accountability; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Doubtlessly, this provision of Article 5 too was introduced
8 exclusively because the desire was that any dereliction of duty, more or
9 less severe, should not remain unpunished; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And lastly, in Article 12 which is on page 4 in e-court, it says
13 "In accordance with these rules, the procedure for establishing
14 disciplinary responsibility shall be an urgent one."
15 Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can you just please give me a
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
22 further questions for this witness.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Rodic. My name is
4 Dragan Krgovic, and on behalf of Stojan Zupljanin's Defence I'm going to
5 ask you a few questions relating to your yesterday's and today's
7 Mr. Rodic, one question before that. When you spoke about your
8 career and you finished your testimony when you became commander of the
9 Majdan station.
10 A. I was the Majdan station commander until early April 1996. After
11 that, I moved to the criminal investigation police, where I had used to
12 work before. And then on the 1st of September, 1997, I was re-instated
13 as the commander of the police station Obilic formerly known as Majdan.
14 On the 1st of January, 1999, I moved to the police administration as the
15 chief inspector. After that I was the head of the department for
16 development, reconstruction, and training. And after that I was the
17 deputy head of the inspectorate for internal control. And over the past
18 two or three years I was the head of the inspectorate department of the
20 Q. If I understood your career pre- and post-war, you were generally
21 involved in criminal investigation work, you are a criminal investigation
22 inspector, and you are well familiar with all the methodology relating to
23 the procedure of receiving a criminal report and everything else that
24 happens in the police station, so from the moment you receive information
25 up to the phase when you submit criminal reports?
1 A. Yes, I was engaged on this kind of assignment.
2 Q. When you responded to the questions put by the Prosecutor, one of
3 my objections related to the year 1992 when you were involved in the
4 disciplinary procedure and that happened from the moment when you became
5 the disciplinary prosecutor until the new rules on disciplinary
6 accountability came into force; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In other words, that was slightly more than two months in 1992
9 were you engaged in these tasks. You were disciplinary prosecutor and
10 you had direct knowledge about how disciplinary procedures were conducted
11 during that period; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Would you explain to my learned friend the Prosecutor relating to
14 certain periods prior to the date when you became the prosecutor was more
15 based on your general experience and your general knowledge and your
16 reading of certain documents; is that the fact?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And when the Prosecutor asked you certain questions relating to
19 specific cases, you were able to remember some of those cases but then as
20 for the others you were able to provide answers based on the log-book; is
21 that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. During proofing the Prosecutor also showed you a number of
24 documents relating to certain cases which also jogged your memory, I'm
25 speaking specifically about the Barusanin and other cases shown to you
1 during proofing; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In your response to the Prosecutor's questions and based on some
4 previous conversations, you provided a certain number of proceedings
5 conducted by the Banja Luka CSB
6 of the log-book that was shown to you today; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you mentioned the number of cases that were processed during
9 that period -- actually, you mentioned two numbers, if I understood you
10 correctly. One was the number of cases and the other number referred to
11 the number of policemen who were subject of the proceedings?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what I noticed in your answers today, in several places in
14 this book next to the name we have an addition which says "and others";
15 is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Which means that the number of the perpetrators is actually
18 larger than the one that is noted in the log-book and the one that you
19 provided to the Prosecutor roughly; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. There could have been one more, there could have been ten
21 more than that.
22 Q. And the figure that you mentioned or the statistical data, just
23 like any other statistics, is only a framework number and is not an exact
25 A. Yes, the statistics is a compilation of inaccurate data.
1 Q. Just as is the case with the majority of these log-books, when we
2 have several individuals involved and covered by one report or by one
3 case, the usual procedure is just to note the name of the first person,
4 whereas the others are just denoted by saying "et al.," or "and others"?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now speaking about the statistics, you said to the Prosecutor
7 that the CSB
8 with serious duty -- violations of duty in your work; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Whereas minor violations that carried reprimand or a public
11 reprimand were dealt at the level of the public security station; is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you tell me, was there any separate book containing all these
15 disciplinary measures, or were these disciplinary measures only written
16 in individual personal files?
17 A. Well, the police stations and public security stations did keep
18 their records, but I never managed to get hold of them. I don't know
19 whether they are preserved or not.
20 Q. Also answering the Prosecutor's question you said that the very
21 disciplinary files had been destroyed sometime in 2006 because according
22 to the applicable law the dead-line for keeping them was between five and
23 ten years; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, the Prosecutor tried through your evidence and through this
1 material to demonstrate and depict the situation and how the disciplinary
2 procedures were conducted and what was the state of discipline in police
3 in 1992. In order for us to have a complete picture about all the
4 measures and procedures, we need to have in addition to all the documents
5 provided by the Prosecution, we need to have the books and minutes of
6 meeting from the stations and also personal files from the reserve police
7 officers who were removed from the registry; is that correct?
8 A. Definitely so.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the counsel please
10 slow down.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, you are required to slow down and to
12 formulate your questions in a shorter fashion.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: I apologise, Your Honour.
14 [Interpretation] I apologise. I speak fast because I would like
15 to wrap up one topic until the end of this day, but in all likelihood
16 we're going to meet again on Monday.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 minimum of five minutes before we rise today because there's a matter the
19 Prosecution wishes to raise. So you can work your way down to a
20 convenient point where you can pause.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: I'll do my best, Your Honour.
22 Q. [Interpretation] In order for us to have a full picture of the
23 state of discipline in the MUP, we would require these personal files for
24 you to be able to give your assessment about that?
25 A. Yes, for me to give a full assessment.
1 Q. In the absence of these documents and these figures, any
2 conclusion or any presumption about the situation and the measures taken
3 by the executives of the Banja Luka CSB are incomplete and are kind of
4 pointless; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, they are incomplete, that's for sure.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to move
7 now to a different topic which will require a longer period of time, and
8 I will have to show a number of documents. So I think this is a good
9 time for me to finish with this witness for today.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 yet at an end and we're about to take the adjournment for the weekend to
12 resume on Monday afternoon. So you're now excused. You're not released
13 as a witness, and I remind you of what I said yesterday. So we will
14 resume in this courtroom at 2.15 on Monday afternoon. We wish you a safe
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE HALL
19 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Yesterday -- I believe it was yesterday, Ms. Korner raised the
21 issue with regard to the next witness, who's a protected witness, so we
22 don't want to mention any details about him. But the concern that she
23 raised was that he is in the process of reviewing extensive materials for
24 his 92 ter testimony and that it's unlikely he'll be ready to take the
25 stand until Tuesday. Perhaps I'm raising an issue before it really is an
1 issue. But I am expecting that Mr. Krgovic is going to finish his
2 cross-examination before the end of Monday?
3 MR. KRGOVIC: I think so. I have two hours, I think.
4 MR. OLMSTED: And I know that Judge Delvoie raised the issue:
5 Well, it looks like you're going to go all Monday anyway, so it's really
6 not an issue yet, but I think perhaps if we could re-raise that issue and
7 alert the Trial Chamber to the possibility of recessing early on Monday
8 so that we can start with the new -- next witness on Tuesday.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 And we now rise until Monday afternoon at 2.15. I trust everyone
11 has a safe weekend.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.37 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of
14 April, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.