Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8864

 1                           Monday, 19 April 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.

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

 6     number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 7     Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 9             Good afternoon to everyone.

10             May we have the appearances for today, please.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  I'm Tom Hannis along

12     with Belinda Pidwell for the Office of the Prosecutor.  We're here

13     primarily for a preliminary procedural matter that Mr. Zecevic wants to

14     raise, and Mr. Olmsted and Mr. Crispian Smith will be dealing with the

15     substantive matters for the rest of the day.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And may we add, welcome back to you.

17             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you very much.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

19     Slobodan Cvijetic, Ms. Deirdre Montgomery, and Ms. Tatjana Savic

20     appearing for Stanisic Defence this afternoon.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  For

22     Zupljanin Defence today, Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, Miroslav Cuskic,

23     and Jason Antley.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

25             The first thing is I gather that the Prosecution's motion needs

Page 8865

 1     to be heard in private session, so we'll now revert to private session.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  I guess we should, Your Honour, in the event that we

 3     have to mention scheduling for some protected witnesses.

 4                           [Private session]

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8866











11 Pages 8866-8871 redacted. Private session.















Page 8872

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

22             There is a brief oral ruling the Chamber now delivers.

23             On the 15th of April, 2010, the Prosecution filed a motion

24     requesting an extension of time beyond the 20 minutes ordinarily

25     permitted for the examination-in-chief of three Rule 92 ter witnesses.

Page 8873

 1     The Prosecution requests an additional 40 minutes for ST-43, an

 2     additional 2 hours and 40 minutes for ST-183, and an additional 1 hour

 3     and 40 minutes for ST-189.  ST-183 and 189 are scheduled to testify this

 4     week.

 5             The Chamber recalls its holding on the 22nd of March, that the

 6     Prosecution would have to give reasons for how much additional time it

 7     would need to present new evidence viva voce through a Rule 92 ter

 8     witness.  The Chamber considers that the Prosecution has justified its

 9     requests in respect of ST-43 and ST-189.  The total time allotted for the

10     examination-in-chief of each of these witnesses will therefore be one

11     hour for ST-43 and two hours for ST-189.

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24             JUDGE HALL:  Good afternoon to you, sir.  Before Mr. Krgovic

25     resumes his cross-examination, I remind you you're still on your oath.

Page 8874

 1                           WITNESS:  RADOMIR RODIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Rodic.  Unfortunately you

 5     had to stay here over the weekend, but considering the difficulties in

 6     traffic, you couldn't go back anyway.  So you have to spend some more

 7     time in the Netherlands than planned.

 8             I stopped my cross-examination at a moment when we were

 9     discussing the information that is missing and that we did not have the

10     chance to see so that your testimony would be complete.  So I will now

11     move to another category of people - let me put it that way - who were

12     leaving the police at the time when you were working there.  You're

13     certainly aware that in practice when there is initiative to initiate

14     disciplinary proceedings against someone, that the initiative usually

15     implies certain evidence on the basis of which the disciplinary

16     proceedings are initiated.  Isn't that so?

17        A.   Yes, that is right.

18        Q.   These are witness statements, records, documents, and they all

19     have to be enclosed with the initiative; is that so?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And the employee who has committed a breach of discipline, a

22     statement is taken from him as well; is that right?

23        A.   Yes, that is an obligation.

24        Q.   There were many cases when an employee was informed about this,

25     whether before or after such disciplinary proceedings have been

Page 8875

 1     initiated, that this person applies to consensual termination of service;

 2     isn't that right?

 3        A.   Yes, that usually happened.

 4        Q.   So as you mentioned the statistics, we should add those employees

 5     who have submitted such a proposal to consensually terminate service

 6     either before or after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings; is

 7     that right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   You certainly know that public security stations or public

10     security centres compiled reports about their work every three months,

11     every six months, annually, et cetera.  Specifically, your stations

12     provided some information for having such reports compiled; right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   I am going to show you one report of that nature.  I have a

15     binder here with documents, so I'd just like this binder to be handed

16     over to you so that you could follow this in hard copy.  Perhaps that's

17     going to be easier than if you follow it on the screen.  So you will look

18     at some data.  It's number 9 in the binder, P624 is the exhibit number.

19             You see the first page of this document.  This is a report on the

20     work of the Banja Luka security services centre from the 4th of April

21     until the 31st of December, 1992.  Isn't that right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Could you please look at page 8 now.  ERN number is 0098127 [as

24     interpreted].  I think that in the English version -- just a moment,

25     please.  It's the next page in English.

Page 8876

 1             Yes, please look at the second paragraph in the top.  In this

 2     report it says that:

 3             "In the area of the centre 39 policemen were dismissed because

 4     they had committed crimes from the 4th of April, 1992, two.  And for the

 5     same kind of offences after the 4th of April, 10 policemen.  Twenty-seven

 6     employees were dismissed because of other offences that made them

 7     ineligible for their work.  Criminal reports were filed after the 4th of

 8     April, 1992, against 11 employees; 6 for property-related crimes and 5

 9     for other crimes.  Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against

10     26 suspended employees."

11             You will agree with me that this is some additional information

12     that gives us a fuller picture, but it doesn't show actually how many

13     people were dismissed from the police because the reserve policemen are

14     not included.  Isn't that right?

15        A.   Yes, that's right.

16        Q.   Certainly -- well, the Prosecutor asked about the effect that

17     these disciplinary proceedings and punishments had.  In addition to that

18     there were some cautionary measures, preventive measures that were taken

19     in order to increase discipline among members of the police.  Isn't that

20     right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   If you look at page 24 you will see in the last paragraph the ERN

23     number is 009843 [as interpreted].  98143.  Page 24.  The ERN number is

24     0098143 in e-court.  Could we please have that on the screen.  This has

25     to do with problems in terms of discipline -- I think it may be page 26

Page 8877

 1     in English.  In the last paragraph here, there is reference about:

 2             "Inefficiency, lack of professionalism, and superficiality in the

 3     work of a number of SJBs and that that considerably contributed to the

 4     fact that some SJBs became more independent which seriously impeded the

 5     unity and social role of the organs and security services.  Parallel to

 6     that, some of these SJBs became linked to local politics and local

 7     political leaders, not taking into account their legal obligations and

 8     powers."

 9             It's Prijedor and Kljuc that this actually pertains to; isn't

10     that right?

11        A.   I think so, yes.

12        Q.   If you look at the next page, that is page 26.  So let's look at

13     the other paragraph -- no, sorry, it's page 25.  It's illegible here.  In

14     English it's the next page.  No, actually, in English it's the right

15     page.  It says here that:

16             "A number of SJBs ignored the centre's requests for information

17     on certain issues and failed to react promptly to certain requests by the

18     centre, thus jeopardising the unity of the security organs and services

19     and their ability to operate as a single security system."

20             Then the last paragraph -- the last sentence:

21             "Thus, by becoming independent, the SJB inevitably undermined the

22     integral security system of the region and the republic, that is, they

23     brought into question the integral function of the security organs and

24     services and weakened the entire defence system."

25             Essentially what is being said here, that some SJBs do not file

Page 8878

 1     reports on breaches of discipline and that in fact they became

 2     independent of CSBs.  Is that right?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Could you now please look at some of the documents that the

 5     Prosecutor showed you.  They are not in the binder that we prepared for

 6     you.  They will appear on your screen.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we please have P1002 on

 8     our screens.

 9        Q.   The Prosecutor showed you the first part of the document that has

10     to do with policeman Zeljko Stupar.  And further on you see that

11     Stojan Zupljanin in the last paragraph -- the second paragraph says:

12             "In relation with the above and other forms of illegal or

13     unprofessional behaviour of security service employees, in addition to

14     the measures mentioned in telegram number 11-114 of the 29th of April,

15     1992, which we sent you, it is necessary that senior SJB officers

16     urgently take disciplinary and other measures, including the measure of

17     removal from the SJB ... against those who break the law or violate other

18     regulations concerning the manner of work or imposing measures and in

19     cases of abuse and criminal offences and other cases of infringement of

20     discipline and damaging the reputation of the service."  Removal of the

21     SJB, there is suspension in parenthesis.

22             "Further, it is necessary to inform this centre of each specific

23     case in which facts have been established and documented."

24             Basically, this is an instruction given to the chiefs to take

25     measures in addition to the disciplinary proceedings that have started,

Page 8879

 1     that they should strictly abide by the law and other regulations; isn't

 2     that right?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Through the chief of the public security station and other

 5     superior organs, you were informed of that?

 6        A.   Yes, all employees were supposed to be made aware of this.

 7        Q.   Could you please look at the next document now that the

 8     Prosecutor showed you, that is, P1016.  It's the case that has to do with

 9     coffee.  Could you please look at page 2 of this document.  It's the

10     third paragraph from the bottom.  The head of the centre,

11     Stojan Zupljanin - how should I put this? - is suggesting that some

12     preventive measures should be taken, and he says:

13             "On the grounds of the above-mentioned, it is necessary to have

14     meetings organised immediately and to indicate what was done and to call

15     for professional work on the part of all employees.  As for the

16     identified perpetrators, measures should be taken including the measure

17     of removal from service and other measures that are envisaged by law.  As

18     for the content of this dispatch, it is necessary to familiarise

19     authorised SJB officials with it, and it is the chiefs of stations that

20     are in charge of the implementation of these activities."

21             This is an elaboration of the previous document, where public

22     security stations are asked to do specific things in order to prevent

23     that kind of abuse; isn't that right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Now that we're discussing this document, as you were answering

Page 8880

 1     the Prosecutor's questions when you spoke of the ethnic structure of the

 2     perpetrators, you made certain comments with regard to these two

 3     employees, and you were in a dilemma as to their ethnic background

 4     because Croat and Serb names and surnames may often be confused.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So in order to tell what a person's ethnic background is, it is

 7     important what that person himself has to say; isn't that right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Could you look at another document now.  The 65 ter marking is

10     3577.  It's going to show up on your screen.  I think that the Prosecutor

11     showed it to you as you were being proofed, and you talked about that

12     event.  Could you please say Zeljko Bursac and Robert Barusanin, what is

13     their ethnic background, both of them are Yugoslavs; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Because in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in addition to the categories, as

16     it were, of Serb, Croats, Muslims, et cetera, there were people who

17     usually came from mixed marriages who declared themselves as Yugoslavs;

18     isn't that right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   So this actually has to do with a crime that was committed by

21     these persons during their free time, not while they were on duty; right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   In the area of Prijedor when the chief of the public security

24     station in Prijedor was a Muslim, right, because it was only at the end

25     of May that there was a change of chiefs in Prijedor; isn't that right?

Page 8881

 1        A.   I think that that is the case.

 2        Q.   Mr. Rodic, the Prosecutor asked you quite a few questions about

 3     the disciplinary proceedings themselves, how certain breaches are

 4     qualified and how decisions are made on suspension.  On the basis of the

 5     documents that I've seen, I see that basically it is the party initiating

 6     the proceedings or the initiative that states what the breach is,

 7     et cetera.

 8        A.   Yes, that is the case.

 9        Q.   Also, the party that starts the initiative proposes the measure

10     of suspension if applicable; right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   As you were answering the Prosecutor's questions, you said that

13     as far as you know - and the Prosecutor focused on those three

14     cases - Stojan Zupljanin never rejected any initiative; right?

15        A.   That's right.

16        Q.   An initiative is put forth in writing; isn't that right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And every such document by Stojan Zupljanin, if he were not to

19     agree with an initiative, would have to be logged in that book that you

20     commented upon; right?

21        A.   I think so, yes.

22        Q.   And in that book that you looked at, you did not find any case

23     when Stojan Zupljanin did not agree with the initiative or when he sent

24     it back?

25        A.   I did not find any such case.

Page 8882

 1        Q.   Now that we're on the subject of Stojan Zupljanin's efforts with

 2     regard to disciplinary proceedings, I'm going to show you a document.  It

 3     is marked as tab 5 in your binder, and the 65 ter number is 1451.

 4             Please have a look at page 2.  The Prosecutor asked you about the

 5     name of this man who was the presiding of the disciplinary committee

 6     Bosko Nunic; is that right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Can you please have a look at paragraph 2.  What is discussed

 9     there is a meeting of all committees of the first-instance disciplinary

10     committee which was attended by the chief of CSB Banja Luka,

11     Stojan Zupljanin.  And I will read this to you.

12             "Considering that in the work of some of the disciplinary

13     committees and the prosecutors, there were some omissions because they

14     did not timely conduct the proceedings, and we have the information that

15     there was sometimes even obstruction of the proceedings, the proceedings

16     were prolonged unnecessarily, so that it would" --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the date.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic.

19             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yes.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  You're being asked to repeat the date, if you

21     would be good enough to do so.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The 31st of July, 1992, was the

23     date on which the meeting was convened.  It is page 1, the previous page

24     of this document, both in the Serbian and the English versions.

25        Q.   And the last sentence:

Page 8883

 1             "At the meeting, the performance and behaviour of some

 2     disciplinary organs members was criticised, and they were warned that

 3     such a behaviour would not be tolerated further."

 4             Do you remember that at the meeting Stojan Zupljanin was the one

 5     who sharply criticised the work of the disciplinary organs and requested

 6     that the newly-formed committees should take on their work more seriously

 7     and begin to operate normally.  Isn't that so?

 8        A.   I remember that there was dissatisfaction with the work of the

 9     previous disciplinary committee; but as for the specific meeting, even

10     when I talked with the Prosecutor I could not remember it.  On several

11     occasions the Prosecutor insisted that I should remember the meeting, but

12     I couldn't remember any details.  However, I can see from this memo why

13     the meeting was held and so on.

14        Q.   During your work as a disciplinary prosecutor, Stojan Zupljanin

15     never called you or turned your attention to a memo so that he would

16     obstruct you or influence your work in any way whatsoever; is that so?

17        A.   No, he never did that throughout the time when I served in

18     disciplinary organs.  No one ever called me with the intention to exert

19     an influence and meddle with any of the cases.

20        Q.   In response to one of the Prosecutor's questions you said that

21     the disciplinary committees and prosecutors were independent organs who

22     were working in accordance with the rules and did not pay any attention

23     to influence; is that so?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Another question.  When responding to a Prosecutor's question

Page 8884

 1     about suspensions, when the 70 per cent deduction of pay for suspended

 2     employees was mentioned, you said that the document probably was not sent

 3     to the finance department.  The reason was that at the time the inflation

 4     was huge so that practically the effects of the deduction were not

 5     visible; right?

 6        A.   I'm not certain that I said that they were not sent to the

 7     finance department, and then I did say that inflation at the time was

 8     really high so that, for example, for my salary I could not even buy a

 9     matchbox.  Unless you spent your salary within the hour of receiving it,

10     in the next hour its value was reduced by one-half.  Therefore, I don't

11     know what was the exact period after that, but I think that

12     Chief Zupljanin was the one who proposed that we should not keep

13     receiving salaries at all.  And in a certain period we received no

14     compensation at all.  But I couldn't remember what exact period that was.

15        Q.   Mr. Rodic, I will move to another subject now, and it is one that

16     has no direct connection with disciplinary proceedings.  And it has to do

17     with part of your testimony when you talked about certain incidences.

18     You remember that yesterday I asked you about your professional

19     experience, and now I want to present you with a document because I think

20     you're the right person to explain to the Trial Chamber how the

21     proceedings were conducted from the moment a report was received by the

22     police and then processed, and then what was the final result -- criminal

23     report that was submitted to the prosecutor.  So it is your tab 1, and it

24     is Exhibit 2D02-1662.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is a diagram

Page 8885

 1     showing how the police works when an incident occurs, what are the

 2     channels, what are the activities that are carried out when investigating

 3     the incident.  So I want to go through the diagram with the witness so

 4     that you would know if I ask the witness if a certain procedure was

 5     conducted in accordance with the regular procedure, that you would have

 6     an idea of what the procedure was.  And I think this witness can answer

 7     this well because the witness is a lawyer by profession.

 8        Q.   So you can see information is the first, and then you can see in

 9     the first box is the report which is received by the policeman on duty.

10     Isn't that so?

11        A.   Yes, usually when a party comes to the entrance, there the

12     policeman on duty sits is he's the first one that the party addresses.

13        Q.   Then the duty policeman may note two different situations, the

14     situation that the party reported an incident which is not prosecuted

15     ex officio, but which would be prosecuted in the role of a private

16     person, or if it is something that is prosecuted ex officio.  Is that so?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   This is the third box.  If the policeman notes, as in the

19     left-hand box, that it's a criminal act prosecuted by private lawsuit,

20     then he would give legal advice to the party what to do next; is that so?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   So these crimes, I will mention some of them that are prosecuted

23     by private lawsuit, are minor damage to other person's property or

24     breaking into somebody's apartment, and so on; is that right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 8886

 1        Q.   As for the crimes which are prosecuted as part of the regular

 2     police official duty, it has to do with soldiers, if it's a member of the

 3     army who committed a crime, then military authorities are informed about

 4     that.  Is that so?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And if it is a criminal offence for which police is in charge,

 7     then there are categories of less-serious or more-serious crimes; is that

 8     so?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   For minor offences the report for the record is filed; is that

11     so?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And for more serious crimes, then uniformed police is sent to the

14     scene; is that so?

15        A.   Yes, so that they would see what this is about, maybe secure the

16     scene, and so on.

17        Q.   And the two left columns below the offences that are officially

18     prosecuted, this is where the work of the police ends; is that right?

19        A.   Yes, the work of the regular police.

20        Q.   And then if the police is sent to the scene, the police confirms

21     the accuracy of the report, and parallelly, if necessary, an

22     investigation team is set up; is that so?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   So what do the policemen do once they come out to the scene?

25     That's the right column.  They stay there and secure the scene, they help

Page 8887

 1     the wounded, they hold witnesses, they arrest suspects, and they protect

 2     traces; is that so?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And if it's necessary to set up an investigation team, then the

 5     duty policeman informs the criminal police and the chief or the duty

 6     operations officer informs the Prosecutor, and the investigation team

 7     comes out onto the scene; is that so?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And parallel with this we can see that there's the investigation,

10     on-site investigation report, and the crime police officer collects

11     information; is that so?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   That's when a dispatch is written, at the end of the on-site

14     investigation; is that so?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Now, the incident itself, if the team came out to the scene, it

17     is registered in the on-site investigation log-book and also in the

18     expert log-book if it's necessary to carry out an expert investigation;

19     is that so?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And after that it is sent to the forensic investigation centre

22     for their expertise; is that so?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Parallelly with that, a sketch of the scene is made as well as

25     the production of photo documents and report of the forensic technician.

Page 8888

 1     And after that the on-site investigation record is produced; is that so?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   The persons who are in charge of the photo documentation, it says

 4     here that it's the investigative judge, police inspector, the forensic

 5     technician, so these are the persons who conduct the on-site

 6     investigation; is that right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Then the record is completed, and it is recorded in the crime

 9     register; is that so?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   After that, as you can see here, a criminal report is filed in

12     two copies to the district public prosecutor.  One copy goes to the

13     files.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And it is also sent to the operative unit; is that so?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So in fact that is the end of the work that the police has to do

18     about a specific incident.  So until the moment when they submit criminal

19     report to the prosecutor, and then the further conduct of the proceedings

20     is determined by the prosecutor; is that so?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   As for the on-site investigation, it is managed by the

23     investigative judge; isn't that so?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   So certain on-site investigation activities can be carried out by

Page 8889

 1     the MUP organs.  For example, the police can conduct the on-site

 2     investigation without his presence or take a statement from a person and

 3     the like; is that so?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   The only two investigation activities which the investigative

 6     judge cannot be carried out by the MUP only are the forensic examination

 7     and exhumation; is that so?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   A decision of the investigative judge is necessary for that;

10     right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   I will now show you a case from the area of the Banja Luka

13     centre, specifically from Banja Luka itself.  It's your tab 20, and it's

14     Exhibit 1D00-5990.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you will probably

16     remember the testimony of Witness Danilo Kajic who talked about an

17     incident when in front of the drill ground at the Manjaca camp there were

18     some persons brought in by the police and killed with blunt weapons and a

19     knife.  Using this example I will try to illustrate everything that I

20     just covered with the witness and to try and confirm it all.

21        Q.   Now, sir, please have a look at this Official Note, it is

22     1D00-6003.  Because this copy's bad, in e-court it's 6003.  So we will

23     show how the proceedings were initiated in this instance.  1D00-6003.

24                           [Defence counsel confer]

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  We have a technical

Page 8890

 1     problem.  We seem to have a problem.  My case manager says that we have a

 2     problem in view of the page that I asked for.  In e-court it's page 14,

 3     1D00-5990.  Just a second, please, because I see that it doesn't seem to

 4     match.  I do apologise.  I apologise for the confusion.  I apologise,

 5     Your Honours.  We're looking at the wrong document.  1D00-5990.  It's

 6     page 14 of that document.  That's it.  So it's page 14 of this document.

 7        Q.   I apologise for the confusion, Mr. Rodic.  Please look at this

 8     Official Note.  The 7th of August, 1992, Karanovac, it had to do with

 9     checking an official vehicle.  It's page 14 in the English version as

10     well, I think -- 15, sorry.

11             The policeman at the check-point compiled an Official Note.  He

12     saw that some policemen had passed by.  He checked the vehicle, became

13     suspicious, and he noticed that these people had thrown corpses out of

14     the truck.  He immediately informed the police.  He sent two policemen

15     from the check-point to secure the scene.  And he in this way secured the

16     scene, if I can put it that way.  And he informed the duty officers.

17     Isn't that right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Precisely in accordance with the procedure that we discussed.

20     After that -- actually, could you please look at page 2 of this document

21     now.  This is a record of an on-site investigation.  Yes, that is the

22     document.  We're waiting for the English version now.  The next page.

23             This is a document dated the 8th of August.  The investigative

24     judge went to the scene, and we see here that the investigative judge was

25     informed by the public security station duty service.  And paragraph 3

Page 8891

 1     says that Nebojsa Pantic, the public prosecutor from Banja Luka, and

 2     inspectors Jelisavac and Markovic, inspectors of the Banja Luka security

 3     services centre, a forensic technician, and we see that policemen Babic

 4     and Popovic from your police station, from Banja Luka, actually secured

 5     the site; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   The investigative judge stated what was to be found there.  And

 8     the last sentence says that:

 9             "Dr. Savijak of Banja Luka, medical centre pathology department

10     was ordered to conduct an external examination of the body and to

11     establish the cause of death of all of them, and a separate record will

12     be compiled on this."

13             So that is what we already discussed, that it is the pathologist

14     that does his work on the basis of an order issued by the investigative

15     judge.

16        A.   Yes, this is an example of how things should be done.

17        Q.   What follows -- what follows is a few records on the examined

18     corpses.  They were all examined.  And after that a criminal report was

19     filed.  That was the first document, page 1.  The criminal report was

20     filed with the Banja Luka prosecutors office, and it had to do with the

21     crime of murder, and it was established that the persons were killed by

22     knife and a blunt object.  Furthermore, what was established was what the

23     MUP would do.  Of course now it is to -- up to the public prosecutor to

24     determine what course of action will follow.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 8892

 1        Q.   You will see if you look through the document that these persons

 2     were identified, the persons whose bodies were found, that is; isn't that

 3     right?  You see here that the necessary expertise was carried out,

 4     page 14 or 15.

 5        A.   Yes, yes, I see that.  I see that.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, when you reach a convenient point we'll

 7     take the break.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps we could take

 9     the break now because I need to put the documents in order.  They're not

10     in the same order in which they are in e-court, so perhaps I can use the

11     break for that, and then we can deal with the document after the break.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13                           --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 4.09 p.m.

15             JUDGE HALL:  While the witness is returning to the stand, the

16     Chamber has a comment on the matter that was canvassed by counsel on all

17     sides about this new material which may be relevant for the witness to

18     come, and the comment that we're making, and we use the word "comment"

19     deliberately inasmuch as there is no formal motion before us, is that it

20     appears to us that the material - and I think Mr. Hannis did confirm

21     this - may, once translated, turn out to be material that they -- that

22     the Prosecution themselves would also wish to rely on.  But the relevance

23     of this material, it appears to us, would only become apparent once it is

24     translated.  So it appears premature to consider delaying the calling of

25     the next witness, which is the proposition that I understand the -- had

Page 8893

 1     been raised by Mr. Zecevic.  It seems that once the material is properly

 2     translated and its content assessed by all sides, that then counsel would

 3     be in a position to move the Chamber as to how it should deal with that

 4     material because it may very well be that despite the obvious

 5     inconvenience to witnesses having to return to The Hague - and I alluded

 6     earlier to the cost of running the Tribunal - in practice, it turns out

 7     to be more economical to bring witnesses back.  But the -- it may be

 8     apparent to all sides that not only the witness who is scheduled to

 9     follow the witness presently on the stand, there may be earlier witnesses

10     whose testimony this material would impact.  So therefore, the Chamber

11     would not hold it against -- and couldn't, actually, hold it against any

12     side having regard to the recency of the discovery of this material for

13     an application to re-call any witness whose testimony would have been

14     completed by the time this material has been fully assessed by counsel.

15     So the -- in short then, we propose -- we will continue as according to

16     the schedule as it presently exists, and wait to hear from counsel as to

17     where we go from there.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Mr. Rodic --

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Or actually, Your Honours, before I

23     start I would like to have 2D02662 [as interpreted], the one I showed

24     just a moment ago, be assigned an exhibit number.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

Page 8894

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 2D70, Your Honours.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Rodic, could you please look at number 19.  It's the

 4     one-but-last document.  224/92 is the KT number.  It's what we have on

 5     the screen; however, it's actually page 19 in the B/C/S version.  We see

 6     here that the prosecutor's office received this criminal report, and on

 7     the basis of that they are asking for necessary information to be

 8     compiled.  That is to say, to have this case processed from a crime

 9     operative point of view.  And once this is done it should be submitted

10     for a decision to be made.  The police acts accordingly, so could you

11     please look at number 11 then, of the same document, that is.  Again, the

12     prosecutor's office receives the necessary documents, interviews with the

13     two mentioned policemen --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the names of the

15     policemen.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... as well as an Official Note.

18     Number 11 in the B/C/S version.  Or rather, page 11 of this document.

19     You have it on the screen in front of you, so you can have a look.

20     Again, action is taken on the basis of the request of the prosecutor.  So

21     please look at the next page of this document.  So it's page 12 then.

22     The police submits Official Notes concerning this incident.  They're

23     working on uncovering the matter.  So the person who made the statement

24     on the basis of which the Official Note was compiled says that they --

25     that they arrived --

Page 8895

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot follow, and we

 2     cannot find the reference.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... "buses were parked near the

 5     camp.  People slept on buses.  And he and Sobot were in an official Golf.

 6     In the morning they were told that during the course of the night several

 7     persons died.  He and Sobot informed the lieutenant-colonel about that,

 8     and he said that it would be best if they put the dead in a vehicle and

 9     took the bodies and threw them into the Vrbas river.  They obeyed

10     lieutenant-colonel, believing that it was a kind of order, and then they

11     put these bodies, he doesn't know how many there were exactly, five or

12     six, on the truck and escorted it in the police Golf.  After reaching

13     Karanovac they threw the bodies into the water.  On the way there they

14     went through a police check-point at Karanovac where the police stopped

15     and checked them suspiciously."

16             So the police did part of their work.  They informed the

17     prosecutor, but they continued to work on the matter.

18             So could you please now have a look at number 16 attachment

19     number 16.  Rather, that is page 16 of this document, that is the plan of

20     work.

21             After all the instructions of the prosecutor, the plan of work

22     was made here.  This was the practice in larger cases when it was more

23     difficult to discover the perpetrators; wasn't that so?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Here this was the murder of several persons which could be

Page 8896

 1     punished even by death at the moment.  We can see that the plan of --

 2     plan for work was made.  And if you look at who drew it up, you can see

 3     that it was the inspector Dragomir Markovic.  Do you know this person?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   The plan is approved by the chief of the ZSK department.  Can you

 6     tell me what this abbreviation stands for, ZSK for the suppression of

 7     crime?

 8        A.   Yes, yes, at the security services centre.

 9        Q.   So this is the crime suppression service.  This is how it was

10     called?

11        A.   Yes, I think that was its name.

12        Q.   So you can see the plan is also approved by Djuro Bulic, the

13     chief of ... ?

14        A.   Sector of public security services.

15        Q.   And finally the chief of the centre, Stojan Zupljanin; right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   What is envisaged here is a series of activities that need to be

18     carried out, expert analysis of the dermal ridge, and that eventually the

19     collected material should be submitted to the public prosecutor in the

20     form of a special report; wasn't that so?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   This is a typical example of the method and way of work of the

23     police at the time; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And further activities are up to the investigative organs, the

Page 8897

 1     investigative judge, and the prosecutor.  The police have done their job.

 2     Is that so?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see -- could we

 5     please tender this document into evidence.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 2D71, Your Honours.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Rodic, the Prosecutor asked you a series of questions about

10     the barricades which were put up in Banja Luka in early April.  You

11     mentioned that you heard about some incidents where gold, jewellery, and

12     money were seized at these check-points by the people who were

13     controlling them.

14        A.   On the road leading to the Vrbanja settlement, I heard that

15     that's where that happened, not that others.

16        Q.   Can you please then have a look at a document which you have

17     under tab 19, and it's Exhibit 1D201.  It is a criminal report against

18     Brane Palackovic and others.  It is noted here that they are in custody.

19     So I would ask you to have a look at page number 7.  The 25th person,

20     Josic Mladen, one of the persons covered by the criminal report, it says

21     there that on the road leading to the Vrbanja settlement he took a person

22     from a bus, a Muslim woman, and he robbed her of two gold rings.  This is

23     one of the incidents that you talked about; is that so?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   One can see from the criminal report that these persons were

Page 8898

 1     prosecuted; is that so?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And that the security services station managed to throw some

 4     light on these incidents, they were not something that was never

 5     resolved; is that so?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Mr. Rodic, the Prosecutor also asked you a series of questions in

 8     connection with special police detachment.  And during the proofing he

 9     showed you some documents.  Do you remember if this special unit, the

10     special detachment, was set up by the Assembly of the autonomous region

11     of Banja Luka?

12        A.   Yes, in a document which the Prosecutor showed me, I read that.

13        Q.   Inter alia, the detachment consisted of active-duty personnel and

14     of reserve personnel; is that so?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   You also told the Prosecutor that a part of the active-duty

17     policemen from Banja Luka became members of that detachment; is that so?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   In case of breach of discipline or improper behaviour,

20     active-duty personnel would then be in disciplinary proceedings; is that

21     so?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And for the reserve ones, the procedure would be abbreviated and

24     they would be off the roster of duty in police, and they would be

25     transferred to the defence ministry in order to be redeployed; is that

Page 8899

 1     so?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And if such persons committed any sort of breach, their names

 4     would not figure in the book that relates to the policemen; is that

 5     right?

 6        A.   Yes, they would not be registered there.

 7        Q.   Because in fact they would be sanctioned by being taken off the

 8     duty roster in the special police detachment; is that so?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And as a man hailing from Banja Luka who did his work during the

11     war time in 1992, can you confirm that in principle active-duty

12     policemen, professional policemen who were permanently employed and who

13     were professionally trained, committed criminal offences or breached

14     discipline very rarely; isn't that so?

15        A.   Yes, I say that with full responsibility.

16        Q.   The greatest number of problems were made with the members of the

17     reserve police forces; isn't that right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Precisely because in this period when the war broke out, a number

20     of people were put on duty in the police through the Ministry of Defence,

21     and they had not been checked as they would be in normal times; wasn't

22     that so?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And considering that they were not permanently employed but this

25     was only their war time deployment, they would just be taken off the duty

Page 8900

 1     roster, and this is how the police cleansed its ranks much more

 2     efficiently than if it initiated disciplinary proceedings; wasn't that

 3     so?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   The Prosecutor also asked you questions to which you responded

 6     that had to do with a number of such members of the special unit against

 7     whom the public security station did file criminal reports.  Do you

 8     remember that you said that?

 9        A.   I think I did.

10        Q.   So when we discuss the conduct of the special police unit

11     members, we're not talking about the special police as such, but just

12     about individuals and precisely about those from the reserve forces who

13     committed certain criminal offences or breaches of discipline; isn't that

14     right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Can you please have a look at 1D00-6033.  It is your tab 21.

17     Please take a look at page 3 of this document of this criminal report

18     which was signed by your chief, Zoran Josic; right?

19        A.   Yes, he did.

20        Q.   Here is a previous criminal report which existed.  It was

21     supplemented in the month of August with some new information, and I will

22     ask you to have a look at page 16 of this document.  I apologise, it's

23     page 15, the previous page.  My apologies.

24             We can see here that in reaction to the criminal report submitted

25     by your superior Zoran Josic -- have a look at the screen, it will be

Page 8901

 1     easier.

 2        A.   Well, I've found it here.

 3        Q.   A warrant has been issued that a search be conducted in order to

 4     capture these persons, Boskan and Dragojevic.  We can see that this

 5     Dragojevic is a member of the military police.  He was already a member

 6     of military police at the time, and he was not there; therefore, this

 7     document was sent to the security organ of the Banja Luka corps; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And it is signed by --

10        A.   Djuro Bulic, chief of sector.

11        Q.   You're certainly aware that at one point this special detachment

12     was disbanded, and he came under the responsibility of the army.  I think

13     it was in August at some point; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I tender this document

16     into evidence.  Could a number please be assigned to it.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 2D72, Your Honours.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And at the end, Mr. Rodic, during the time you worked in the

21     crime department and when you were the commander of this police station,

22     as far as you know from your work, whenever a criminal report was filed

23     and an incident was noted, do you know whether your police station or

24     your sector always processed it and every instance was recorded and

25     something was done about each criminal report?  Wasn't that so?

Page 8902

 1        A.   As far as I know, it was like that.

 2        Q.   So you don't personally know that you ever received instructions

 3     from your immediate superior, Josic, or from Tutus Vlado as the chief of

 4     the security station or Stojan Zupljanin?  In writing or orally, you

 5     never received instructions that you should do nothing about any of these

 6     reports; wasn't that so?

 7        A.   That is right.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no more

 9     questions for this witness.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

11             Re-examination?

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13                           Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:

14        Q.   Mr. Rodic, at the start of the session today you were given --

15     you discussed a couple of issues with regard to -- about a police officer

16     who resigns during the process of disciplinary proceedings, and therefore

17     the disciplinary proceedings are cancelled.  Do you recall that at the

18     beginning of the session?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   I want to focus on the instance of a police who -- a police

21     officer who committed a crime.  If a police officer committed a crime,

22     could he avoid the disciplinary measures or the disciplinary procedures

23     by simply resigning from his post, or was he still subject to

24     disciplinary procedures that should result in his termination?

25        A.   In any case the criminal proceedings would be regularly

Page 8903

 1     conducted.  You probably have in mind the case of Zeljko Stupar from the

 2     Kljuc public security station, in which case he terminated his service

 3     and he was not taken over by the Banja Luka security services centre,

 4     because I think that earlier the Kljuc public security station did not

 5     fall under the Banja Luka security services station; it was later

 6     attached to it.

 7        Q.   I wasn't talking about a particular case.  I'm just talking

 8     generally.  Let's take a police officer who murdered someone.  Certainly

 9     he'd be subject to criminal proceedings before the public courts, but

10     could he simply avoid disciplinary procedures being terminated from the

11     police force by simply resigning, or did he still have to be subject to

12     disciplinary proceedings in that situation?

13        A.   In case of major offences, then the disciplinary proceedings were

14     conducted.

15        Q.   Now, we also heard -- you testified earlier today about the

16     situation where initiative is filed and the disciplinary proceedings are

17     conducted.  If those proceedings are cancelled, then the log-book would

18     record that those proceedings were cancelled.  I want to focus on the

19     initiative at the very beginning of the process.  Now, you've testified

20     during your examination that it was -- the initiative was given to the

21     secretary of the commission whose responsibility it was to log it into

22     the disciplinary case log-book; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   So if the secretary never received an initiative or was told not

25     to process initiative, that wouldn't show up in the log-book; is that

Page 8904

 1     correct?

 2        A.   Well, that's only logical.  That is the only logical conclusion.

 3        Q.   Now, you also were shown a report from 1993, a report on the work

 4     of the Banja Luka CSB from the 4th of April to the 31st of December,

 5     1992, and that was P624.  Mr. Rodic, can you tell us during that

 6     time-period how frequently did you perform police work outside of the

 7     Banja Luka municipality?

 8        A.   Not a single time, speaking for myself personally.

 9        Q.   And given your position with the crime police, at least from

10     April through November 1992, did you attend the enlarged centre council

11     meetings between the CSB chief and the SJB chiefs?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   So is it correct that you were not personally aware of the

14     problems that SJBs outside of Banja Luka were facing during this

15     time-period?

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Objection.  Leading.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, either he is or he isn't, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed.

19             MR. OLMSTED:

20        Q.   Sir, can you answer the question.

21             Were you aware of the problems that SJBs, for instance, in

22     Kotor Varos or Donji Vakuf or other places --

23        A.   [No interpretation]

24        Q.   I'm sorry.  Could you repeat your answer.

25        A.   [Interpretation] No.  Officially, no.

Page 8905

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But unofficially?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand the question.

 3     What kind of problems does he mean?  At the time I was not in a senior

 4     position, so I did not attend meetings related to the centre or with the

 5     chief of the centre.  My work had to do with the town of Banja Luka only.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:

 7        Q.   Mr. Rodic, in 1992 were you ever part of a police war unit or

 8     company that was sent to assist in combat operations?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   When was that?

11        A.   I think it was from the 15th of December 1992 until the 1st or

12     2nd of January, 1993, at the corridor at the part of the Rasko front

13     line.

14        Q.   And who ordered you to perform those duties?

15        A.   Zoran Josic, my chief, whereas he was informed by Vladimir Tutus

16     chief of the public security station.

17        Q.   And when you were performing those duties in late 1992, did you

18     still consider yourself a member of the MUP?

19        A.   Well, at that point in time I didn't really think about that.

20        Q.   Did you still -- did you forfeit any of your rights as a member

21     of the MUP, or did you forfeit any of your obligations as a member of the

22     MUP while you were on that war assignment?

23        A.   Well, during that period of time, those 15 or 16 days, I was

24     physically absent from Banja Luka and from my actual work-place.

25        Q.   Yes, but did you still consider yourself entitled to all the

Page 8906

 1     benefits as a police officer at that stage while you were gone for those

 2     15 days?

 3        A.   Well, let me tell you.  At that time I did not have any benefits.

 4        Q.   All right.  I'm going to move on to another issue.  Were you

 5     aware -- were there other reasons, besides disciplining a reserve police

 6     officer, for sending them to perform military duties, were you aware?

 7        A.   I don't think I actually understood your question.  But the

 8     answer I can give is that people knew in advance when they were going out

 9     into the field - that's what it was called when you went to the front

10     line.  So I'm not aware of anyone being sent by way of punishment or

11     something like that.  Quite simply, there were lists that had been

12     established because most people tried to evade that, they tried to avoid

13     going to the front line; that's why these schedules were made.  And then

14     when your turn would come, then you would go.

15        Q.   So I just want to clarify your last answer.  Are you saying

16     you're not aware of any instances where a reserve police officer was

17     sent, for instance, to the front lines because -- as a form of

18     punishment?

19        A.   I personally am not aware of any such example.

20        Q.   Can we take a look at 1D201 which you were shown just a little

21     while ago.

22             Sir, did you have a chance to take a look at this criminal

23     report?  I know you answered a couple of questions on it, but did you

24     have a chance to kind of thumb through it?

25        A.   No.  This is the first time I see it.

Page 8907

 1        Q.   Yes, I know you saw it earlier today, but -- and I'm not sure if

 2     you had an opportunity to kind of flip through it and look at the various

 3     crimes that these individuals were charged with.  Did you have an

 4     opportunity to look at them?  I think they're enumerated 1 through 37.

 5        A.   I don't know what you meant by what you said, that I actually had

 6     seen it earlier.  Today is the first time I see this criminal report.

 7        Q.   Yes, I know it's -- today is your first time you saw it.  Let me

 8     hand it to you again, just to shorten this process.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  If Mr. Usher could provide him with this.  It's

10     simply the criminal report portion of this exhibit.

11        Q.   And if you could just look quickly at the criminal -- or criminal

12     acts that are charged against these individuals.  They're enumerated

13     1 through 37.  And, sir, while you're doing that, if you could just

14     particularly focus on the ethnicities of the victims.  Could you tell us

15     what are the ethnicities of the various victims.  You don't have to go

16     through them one by one, but just generally.

17        A.   I'd have to read this.  I'd have to read this criminal report.

18        Q.   Well, perhaps I can speed this process up.  If you can turn to

19     page 5 of the B/C/S.  If you can look at the crime that's numbered

20     number 15.  And you see that the victim under crime number 15 is

21     Simo Lazicic.  Can you tell me what the ethnicity of that person is?

22        A.   I think he's a Serb.

23        Q.   Can you look at the next crime, number 16, Miroslav Pavlovic.

24     Can you tell me the ethnicity of that victim.

25        A.   Miroslav Pavlovic --

Page 8908

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if the Prosecutor

 2     wants to deal with it, could he please ask him about the very next name.

 3     Who's the next person mentioned after Lazicic, Simo?

 4        A.   Nanot [as interpreted], Josip.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, now --

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, I just want to get through this as quickly as

 7     possible, so that we're not spending more time --

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but not within the same

 9     paragraph.  If a person does something against a Serb as a Muslim, you

10     cannot lead a witness to believe that it's only one person that was a

11     victim.  The crime had two victims:  A Muslim and a Serb.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Fine.  I'm not challenging that.

13        Q.   If we can look at crime number 16, Miroslav Pavlovic.  What's the

14     ethnicity of that victim?

15        A.   Most probably Serb.  Father Drago, it can be either a Serb or a

16     Croat.  Also Pavlovic, Miroslav, there were both really, but I assume

17     that it's a Serb since you're asking the question.

18        Q.   If you can look at crime number 19, Luka Maljkovic.  Do you know

19     the ethnicity of that victim?

20        A.   I'm not sure.  It could be a Serb or a Croat.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this line

22     of questioning.  If the Prosecutor wants to ask the witness about the

23     actual composition -- when I asked the witness about what had happened at

24     the check-point in Vrbanja, a crime was committed -- if the Prosecutor is

25     asking about crimes that were committed against Serbs, and there are

Page 8909

 1     three such cases, then let him ask about all 38 involved.  In this way

 2     the witness is being misled, looking at names that can only be Serbs or

 3     Croats.  Let him look at all the cases and all the names against -- of

 4     persons against whom crimes were committed.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I'm -- we're not questioning that

 6     there are -- some of these criminal acts are against non-Serbs.  I'm

 7     establishing that there are also crimes against Serbs with regard to this

 8     criminal report.  So that's why I'm focusing on those particular criminal

 9     acts that are alleged in this crime report.

10             JUDGE HALL:  But inasmuch as you are being selective and not, as

11     Mr. Krgovic said, dealing with all the names, I think you made your point

12     in terms of the names you selected.  Let's move on.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.

14        Q.   Sir, you will agree that this criminal report includes both

15     Serbs, probably some Croats, as well as Muslims as victims?

16        A.   I'm sorry, was that a question?

17        Q.   Yes, would you agree with that assessment that the victims

18     pertaining to this criminal report included all ethnicities?

19        A.   I think the answer is yes.

20        Q.   Were you personally involved in this criminal investigation?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   Let's take a look at 2D72.

23             Now, was today the first time you've seen this particular

24     criminal report?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 8910

 1        Q.   Now, according to this report, the three perpetrators, at the

 2     bottom of each paragraph, it states that they're fugitives.  Do you know

 3     why they were fugitives?

 4        A.   Well, I don't know what this is all about at all.  I would have

 5     to have a look at the criminal report.  I knew the first person

 6     personally, not the others.  Now, why they were fugitives -- well,

 7     probably because of what they had done, because of the crime they had

 8     committed.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  If we could take a look at P586.

10        Q.   Now, the criminal report that we just looked at, the three

11     perpetrators were Radomir Boskan, Miroslav Dragojevic, and

12     Ljubomir Jokic.  Have you -- take a look at this article from the "Glas"

13     newspaper, dated 23 July 1992, and see if you recall ever reading this

14     back in 1992?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Do you recall this incident where members of the special police

17     were -- broken out of the Tunici [phoen] prison?

18        A.   [No interpretation]

19        Q.   Let's return to 2D72.  And if we can look -- for 2D72 if we can

20     look at page 9 of the B/C/S and page 11 of the English.  Sir, in front of

21     you, you see an official identification document of a member of the

22     detachment for special purposes issued by the CSB of Banja Luka for

23     Radomir Boskov.  Whose signature is on this identification card?

24        A.   It doesn't say name and surname of signatory down here.

25        Q.   Yes, I'm asking if you recognise that signature.

Page 8911

 1        A.   I'm not sure.

 2        Q.   Well, I'll leave it at that then.  Let's take a look at 2D71.

 3        A.   However, I think that the last name is misrecorded here.  I think

 4     it's Boskan, not Boskov.

 5        Q.   Yeah, I think you're correct, but I was asking whether you could

 6     recognise the signature; and if you can't, that's fine.

 7             Now we're looking at 2D71 which was shown to you earlier this

 8     session.  And can you tell us, did you personally work on this case?

 9        A.   No.  The most serious crimes did not fall within my line of work,

10     homicide and the like.

11        Q.   Mr. Rodic, in the criminal justice system that existed in 1992,

12     whose responsibility was it to identify -- identify and arrest

13     perpetrators of crimes?  Was that the role of the police?  Was it the

14     role of the prosecutor?  Was it the role of the judge?

15        A.   Well, it was the duty of the crime police to inform the

16     prosecutor's office about a crime.  And if it had to do with very serious

17     crimes like homicide, then an investigative judge and the prosecutor in

18     charge would go to the scene to carry out an on-site investigation.  They

19     were in charge of the on-site investigation.  After that, they issued

20     tasks to the police, the crime police specifically, in order to document

21     the crimes involved.

22        Q.   Yes, but that's not quite my question.  My question is:  Whose

23     role was it to identify the perpetrators and to arrest them?  I think we

24     saw in this exhibit a letter from the basic prosecutor to the police

25     asking the police to identify the perpetrators and to arrest them.  Is

Page 8912

 1     that the role of the police, to do that?

 2        A.   Yes.  If the investigative judge or the prosecutor issued tasks

 3     in terms of what should be done, then that is the job of the police.

 4        Q.   Let's take a look at page 13 of the B/C/S, page 14 of the

 5     English.

 6             Now, this is an Official Note of an interview with

 7     Vladimir Sobot, an active police officer from SJB Prijedor that was

 8     conducted on the 7th of August, 1992.  Now, in this report, as

 9     Mr. Krgovic had put on the record, Mr. Sobot admits to dumping five or

10     six bodies of Omarska detainees in the Vrbas river.

11             Mr. Rodic, would you agree that dumping bodies in the river is a

12     crime back in 1992?

13        A.   Well, not only dumping.  Murder is too.

14        Q.   And as a disciplinary prosecutor and someone who's very familiar

15     with the disciplinary process, would you consider what Mr. Sobot did,

16     dumping these bodies into the Vrbas river, an act of gross misconduct

17     that should be subjected to disciplinary procedures?

18        A.   Well, it should be subjected to that.

19        Q.   To your knowledge, was Mr. Sobot ever subjected to disciplinary

20     procedures for this incident?

21        A.   I'm not aware.

22        Q.   Let's take a look at page 16 of the B/C/S, page 18 of the

23     English.

24             Sir, what we're looking at now is the work-plan dated 28 October

25     1992 that Mr. Krgovic went over with you.  And we see that this work-plan

Page 8913

 1     was drawn up in response to the 10 September 1992 request by the basic

 2     prosecutor to identify the perpetrators and arrest them.  Now, I want you

 3     to answer this based upon your experience as a crime inspector.  In order

 4     to identify the perpetrators of this crime, would you expect to be part

 5     of the work-plan that the police interviewed the Omarska detainees who

 6     were on the bus where the victims were reportedly killed?  Would you

 7     expect that to be part of the work-plan?

 8        A.   I never worked on such matters.  I can just give you my opinion.

 9     Well, had I made the plan, I probably would have done some things

10     differently and others the same way as they had been done.  It's possible

11     that I would have stated that that should be done as well, carrying out

12     those interviews, that is.

13        Q.   And as a professional police officer and someone who has

14     conducted investigations yourself, would you expect to be part of the

15     plan to interview the Manjaca camp officials who were present at the camp

16     on that particular day?

17        A.   As far as I could see here as I leafed through this material, I

18     think that this policeman Sobot did admit to having provided the

19     transportation.  I think that there is an Official Note of the policeman

20     at the check-point who observed this and who actually started all this.

21        Q.   Sir, sir, I'm almost done here so just please focus on my

22     question.  Would you expect to be part of the work-plan to investigate

23     this case that interviews are conducted of the Manjaca camp officials who

24     were present during this time-period when these victims were killed

25     outside the camp?

Page 8914

 1             MR. KRGOVIC:  I think he's calling for speculation because the

 2     witness cannot answer on this question.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, Mr. Krgovic used this witness as,

 4     more or less, an expert on procedures and used this case as an example of

 5     a case that was properly investigated, and I'm simply asking him a few

 6     questions on that.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Olmsted, please proceed.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:

 9        Q.   So let me repeat my question.  Would you expect to be part of the

10     work-plan interviews conducted of Manjaca camp officials who were present

11     during this time-period when these eight or so bodies -- these eight or

12     so victims were killed outside the camp?  Would that be in your

13     professional opinion something that you would want to do as part of an

14     investigation?

15        A.   Well, it depends on the inspector who made the plan.  Had I made

16     the plan, I probably would have envisaged some other measures too,

17     including, perhaps, that interview.  But then I would really have to be

18     fully aware of the case involved.

19        Q.   And what about the SJB police leadership.  We have Mr. Sobot

20     confessing to dumping the bodies into the Vrbas river.  Would you also

21     want to interview the SJB chief in Prijedor as well as other members of

22     the SJB Prijedor command structure to determine who had sent Mr. Sobot to

23     Manjaca camp and other issues that might be relevant to this case?  Would

24     that be something you would want to do?

25        A.   Well, generally speaking, as regards these plans, the plan is the

Page 8915

 1     first thing that an inspector in charge of a case does.  While working on

 2     the case if other questions open up, he continues along the same course,

 3     collecting evidence, regardless of whether that is what the plan

 4     originally envisages or not.

 5        Q.   That's fine, but that was not my question.  My question is:  You

 6     as a professional police officer, as someone who worked for the crime

 7     service, would you have included in your plan to interview members of the

 8     SJB Prijedor leadership?

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This is just a framework for the

10     work-plan.  If the Prosecutor just reads this and allows the witness to

11     read the last item, it says there:

12             "After the implementation of these items, examine the necessity

13     for possibly supplementing the work-plan."

14             So this is just one of the stages in the proceedings, and

15     everything that the Prosecutor has been asking is speculative because it

16     concerns possible future work.  My line of questioning was whether on the

17     basis of these documents this is an example of how crime police normally

18     works.  But as for details, what turns out to be necessary during the

19     implementation of the work-plan, that's set out here in the last item.

20     These are just the initial activities that need to be carried out, and

21     then later on one would continue.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is more or less what I said in

23     my answer.

24             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, Your Honour, please.

Page 8916

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Whereas I overruled Mr. Krgovic's earlier expressed

 2     objection on the basis of the question being speculative, as you

 3     proceeded, Mr. Olmsted, I was surprised at the way you phrased the

 4     following questions because you've really led the witness off into a --

 5     so I come back to Mr. Krgovic's original objection about the speculative

 6     nature of this.  The usefulness as I understand the witness's testimony

 7     is in terms of his professional expertise, and this is what I thought you

 8     were trying to get at.  Whether there were any deficiencies - my

 9     word - in terms of the work-plan.  But I really think you've gone off the

10     rails now, Mr. Olmsted, with respect.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.  But actually my intention

12     was to stick to that line of questions, and perhaps the back and forth

13     we'd gone off track a little bit.  But that is the brunt of my question.

14        Q.   Mr. Rodic, based on your experience -- your experience as a

15     member of the crime police, would you expect to be included in your

16     work-plan interviews of members of the SJB Prijedor leadership, police

17     leadership, in order to fully investigate this case?  And that's all I'm

18     asking.

19        A.   In order to be able to provide a proper answer to your question

20     about the work-plan, I would have to be informed about the complete case

21     from the very beginning.  As I have already stated, the work-plan is

22     something that an inspector does individually.  There are various styles

23     of work, and I said that this plan does not strictly oblige the

24     inspectors who are in charge of a specific case.  In case they have new

25     occasions to collect evidence, they might do other things than what is

Page 8917

 1     outlined here.  And as for whether I would draw up a plan in this way, I

 2     perhaps would do something differently if I were completely informed

 3     about the case.  I might introduce some changes, but then that would be

 4     my personal way to do that.

 5        Q.   Well, that doesn't exactly answer my question, but I'm going to

 6     leave it at that.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted, just to avoid possible confusion

 8     about the locations of this event, because I noted that on page 48,

 9     line 21, you referred to the Official Note dated 7th of August, 1992, in

10     which Mr. Sobot admits to dumping five or six bodies of Omarska into the

11     Vrbas river.  And now we're speaking about dumping five or six bodies

12     from Manjaca.  So I just want to clarify, which camp is it?

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, I believe - and I'll have to -- I don't have

14     the full file in front of me right now - but I believe it's detainees

15     being brought from Omarska to Manjaca, and they were killed or found dead

16     outside the Manjaca camp.  So I hope that clarifies it.  This witness is

17     probably not the best to talk about the particular facts.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

19             MR. OLMSTED:

20        Q.   Sir, are you aware whether this case was ever fully investigated

21     and the names of the perpetrators of this crime were ever provided to the

22     prosecutor?

23        A.   I'm not aware of that.  I would have to have a look at the

24     complete case.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  No further questions, Your Honour.

Page 8918

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Rodic, for your testimony and for

 3     your assistance to the Tribunal.  You're now released as a witness, and

 4     we wish you a safe journey home.  We trust that the atmospheric

 5     disturbances do not further delay your return home.  Thank you, you're

 6     released.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you would allow me

 8     to address you just for a second.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now that my testimony is concluded,

11     I wish to greet Mr. Zupljanin because he was my first superior when I

12     started working for the MUP.

13             JUDGE HALL:  That is something that you can do at some other

14     point, Mr. Rodic.  Thank you.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.

16                           [The witness withdrew]

17             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, I assume that we're still on track for

18     tomorrow afternoon with the next witness?

19             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.  As far as I know, it's still on

20     track, particularly based upon your ruling at the beginning of the

21     session.

22             JUDGE HALL:  So we adjourn to reconvene in this courtroom at 2.15

23     tomorrow afternoon.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.18 p.m.,

25                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of

Page 8919

 1                           April, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.