1 Thursday, 20 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin. Thank you, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone, including those in the field office of
12 Could we begin by taking the appearances for today, please.
13 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Prosecution,
14 Joanna Korner assisted this morning by Jasmina Bosnjakovic as
15 Case Manager.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
17 Appearing for the Defence of Mico Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic,
18 Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Ivana Batista.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin Defence
20 this morning, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic. Thank you.
21 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, Judge Peric. Can you still
22 hear me?
23 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Before I invite Mr. -- before I invite
25 Mr. Cvijetic to resume his cross-examination, I remind you you're still
1 on your oath.
2 Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 WITNESS: BRANKO PERIC [Resumed]
5 [Witness testified through interpreter]
6 [Witness testified via videolink]
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Peric.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. Let us resume. To avoid wasting time, can we please have P120 on
11 the screen. That is an exhibit that's under tab 23 in your binder.
12 Mr. Peric, I hope you have the document in front of you now.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you please confirm a thing that shouldn't be contentious,
15 namely that this is the federal law on criminal proceeding that was
16 applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the relevant period, and for all
17 practical purposes it was in use until 2000 -- in the year 2000 when the
18 reform of the legal system in Bosnia
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. You will also agree that, in essence, this is the basic piece of
21 regulation which shows the rights and the duties, as well as the roles of
22 all the subjects that take part in a criminal proceeding. Am I right?
23 A. That's correct. For the most part.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the Registrar
1 to put page 14 in the English version on the screen, and in the B/C/S
2 version it's page 51.
3 Q. Mr. Peric, I'm interested in Article 45.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Let's see if we can interpret this article.
6 This is an article where basic rights and duties of the public
7 prosecutors are determined in the processing and criminal prosecution of
8 perpetrators of crimes. Therefore, under (1), we can see that it is the
9 basic right and basic duty of the public prosecutor, the prosecution of
10 perpetrators of criminal acts.
11 A. That's correct. As it is stated in the constitution.
12 Q. In item number (2), we see elaboration of legal measures that --
13 or steps that are to be taken to achieve this goal.
14 And then under Roman I, we can see that the public prosecutor
15 takes necessary steps to discover criminal acts and to find the
16 perpetrators and to guide preliminary criminal proceedings.
17 Can you see that text?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Under Roman II, it's the public prosecutor, you, who requests for
20 an investigation to be conducted; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Under Roman III, it is the prosecutor who brings the indictment
23 before the competent court; is that correct?
24 A. Yes. There's nothing contentious there.
25 Q. And under IV, you're entitled do appeal against court decisions
1 that have not come into effect.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Item number (3), you have the right to take other steps specified
4 by the law.
5 Mr. Peric, the Chamber, this Chamber here, holds a view that I
6 believe; namely, that one need not interpret something that is obvious in
7 itself, and I believe this text is. However, my question to you is: At
8 which stage, according to you, the criminal proceeding starts, and when
9 does an official processing of a crime start, the processing of the
10 perpetrator as well?
11 A. By starting the investigation, by launching the criminal
13 Q. Therefore, your request to the investigative judge to launch an
14 investigation is the start of a criminal proceeding; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Criminal proceeding may start without investigation as well, if
17 you decide to [indiscernible] the indictment without a previous
18 investigation; is that correct?
19 A. Yes. Or a bill of indictment.
20 Q. Thank you. That's all we wanted to do with this provision.
21 Now, can we move to the next one.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In the English version, it's page
23 42 and then 43. We'll be needing both pages. In the B/C/S version, it's
24 page 119.
25 Q. Mr. Peric, for you, we're looking for Article 148.
1 Have you located it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I will not be reading the article. I would just like to ask you
4 whether we agree on something. So the criminal report to the prosecutor,
5 i.e., to you, can be submitted by all the -- all those mentioned in
6 Article 148, as well as in 149?
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In the English version, we already
8 have that article on the screen; in the B/C/S version, I would like to
9 ask to move to the following page.
10 Can we please have the following page in B/C/S version so that
11 Article 149 would be displayed. Yes.
12 Q. Do you see Article 149?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. So all those enumerated here, and I would like to stress any
15 citizen, can make a criminal report to you, if they have information that
16 a crime has been committed.
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. In Article 150 --
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And I would like to ask to go to
20 the following page in B/C/S version, because that's where the Article 150
21 is. In the English version, we already have it on the screen.
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, could you -- if I might interrupt you
23 briefly, could you assist me, please, so that I may follow the line of
24 questions that you're pursuing.
25 Assuming that at the end of the present exercise in which you
1 were engaged, the Chamber, the witness, and yourself are all agreed as to
2 what the effect and meaning of these laws -- of -- of the fundamental law
3 is, where would that place us, in terms of the purpose for which this
4 witness has been called?
5 If I understand where you're heading in that direction, then
6 perhaps I would be in a better position to follow where we are going.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will explain.
9 Before I start putting specific questions regarding the cases
10 that this prosecutor had been dealing with in Teslic, the cases that he
11 talked about yesterday, I must remind him of the provisions and the
12 regulations and to remind him what his duties and rights were, according
13 to such regulations. We will not stay on an academic level so to speak.
14 There will be practical results. We will demonstrate to the
15 Trial Chamber what is it that I want to stress.
16 I will just quickly go through this set of regulations and then
17 I'll start putting specific questions related to the implementation of
18 the regulation, in relation to his work in Teslic.
19 Furthermore, you will have had time go through his statement, you
20 will see the difference in the interpretation of the regulation between
21 the statement and what's stated in it and the regulations itself.
22 I will quickly go through the regulations, and then we'll go to
23 the specifics.
24 JUDGE HALL: I note you used the word "quickly" twice. We hold
25 you to that, Mr. Cvijetic.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, if I may, do have you to remind the
3 witness of his duties? Is that your role?
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, not only that. I
5 thought I already explained why I do need to go through the regulations
7 May I continue, please?
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Please.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Peric, as part of the submitting of the criminal report, you
11 as the prosecutor could have also had personal information that a crime
12 has been committed.
13 A. Yes, it's a hypothetical possibility. However, I was, in
14 practice, probably the last one who would have found out about a crime.
15 Q. Yes. But yesterday you discussed a situation in which you had
16 personal information about some crimes that had been committed.
17 A. Yes. But that was much after the actual commission of these
19 Q. For the time being, let's stay at this level. So would you agree
20 with me that the prosecutor also can have personal information about the
21 commission of a crime, and after having received such information, he can
22 launch certain measures and steps. Am I right?
23 A. Of course I agree with you. I'm not questioning any of the
24 provisions, and I'm familiar with them. Maybe if you'd start putting
25 specific questions to me.
1 Q. Were you ever in a situation as a public prosecutor that a
2 citizen comes to you and verbally tells you that a crime was committed
3 and that he or she wants a proceeding to be launched against the
5 A. No. I've been a prosecutor for three years; I've never been in
6 such a situation. Citizens normally report crimes to the police. And
7 never ever has any citizen come to me to report a crime.
8 Q. Yes. But the law provides for that possibility, namely, to come
9 to you and put into record, as we put it, their criminal report; is that
11 A. Yes. The law contains main provisions that do not have practical
12 use or did not have practical use.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask to go page --
14 to -- to page 131 in B/C/S. It's page 46 in the English.
15 Q. Mr. Peric, I'm interested in Articles 157 and 158. Have you
16 found them?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you agree that, under the system at the time, the
19 investigation is conducted by the investigative judge, based on a request
20 by the public prosecutor? We can see that in these two articles. Is
21 that correct?
22 A. You're correct. That's how it was.
23 Q. Let us now move to the last provision I intend to show you. We
24 will not go into it.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Page 76 in the English version;
1 page 205 in the B/C/S version.
2 Q. It is Article 261. Sorry, I failed to mention it before.
3 Have you found it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. It is stated here that the criminal proceeding can be conducted
6 only based on an indictment issued by the public prosecutors and on -- in
7 some cases the victim as the prosecutor. We understand each other, don't
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. So, Mr. Peric, let me summarise the position of the Defence, in
11 relation to implementation of the provisions here.
12 The prosecution of the perpetrators and their processing before
13 the judicial organs at the time was exclusively part of the authorities
14 of the public prosecutor; and then further processing would be under the
15 authority of the relevant court.
16 A. Prosecution, yes; but preparation and collection of evidence was
17 something that was to be done by the police. One must make a distinction
19 Q. Let me put a question to you. All the steps that precede the
20 initiating of the criminal proceedings is not part of the criminal
21 proceedings and falls under the so-called preliminary proceedings?
22 A. That was called was pre-criminal proceedings in our language, but
23 we can, in a way, treat it as part of the criminal proceeding.
24 Q. From the moment when a criminal prosecution starts before
25 judicial organs, this prosecution is within the exclusive competence of
1 the judicial bodies, and they are independent in their work in which
2 nobody may interfere; is that right?
3 A. That follows from the laws and the constitution.
4 Q. The role of the police ceases at the moment when a criminal
5 prosecution starts before judicial bodies; is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And now a practical issue. When you start an investigation
8 against several persons, and in the course of that investigation the
9 investigating judge establishes that apart from the persons reported
10 there are other persons responsible for the crime, you may put in an
11 application to expand the investigation to include them as well; is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. I will put to you the position of this Defence
15 concerning the role and the tasks of the police in the identification and
16 apprehension of perpetrators and the collection of evidence.
17 You will agree with me that the Ministry of Interior is an organ
18 of state administration and that identification and apprehension of
19 perpetrators is not their only job and responsibility, because, as an
20 organ of state administration, they deal with a number of other affairs
21 that are not related to the apprehension of perpetrators of crimes.
22 A. I agree completely.
23 Q. Then we will not open the Law on Internal Affairs because that is
24 written in Article 15 of that law. I believe you even mentioned it
25 yesterday. Is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Peric, before I desist from looking into military
3 regulations, and you were shown the relevant law by Mrs. Korner
4 yesterday, I would like honest answer from you. It was my impression
5 yesterday that you don't feel well-prepared enough to speak as an expert
6 about the jurisdiction of military courts, the organisation of their work
7 and their operation, in terms of applying legislation and in practice in
9 A. I did not really deal much with that side of the legislation. I
10 know the basics about their jurisdiction. I tried to explain that
12 Q. We are also familiar with the basics. For other matters, we will
13 find an expert.
14 I just want to show you a document.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May we call up 1D170. Tab 27.
16 Q. Have you found it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you please look at the latter part of the decision,
19 proclaiming an imminent threat of war and a general mobilisation of the
20 entire territory of the Serbian Republic
21 stated in the heading.
22 Can you see that?
23 A. That was on the 16 of April, 1992.
24 Q. Do you remember when this was proclaimed? Do you know about
1 A. No, I don't remember it. I did not see this decision. But I
2 believe it was implemented in practice.
3 Q. You've just anticipated my question. I was about to ask you if
4 you knew about its application, so thank you.
5 Since you did not know about this decision, I'll just ask you a
6 general question. With the proclamation of an imminent threat of war and
7 the general public mobilisation, all military age, able-bodied men
8 practically became conscripts?
9 A. I think that's a fair inference.
10 Q. This fact had a significant impact on the expansion of the
11 jurisdiction of military courts because, with this, roughly 95 per cent
12 of the estimated number of perpetrators and offenders passed to the
13 jurisdiction of military authorities and military courts. Would that be
15 A. I don't think you can make that conclusion. I don't think this
16 expanded their jurisdiction as stipulated by the law.
17 Q. At any rate, even if we link this with the law, all these persons
18 would pass to the jurisdiction of military courts.
19 A. I don't think so. Only when they are integrated into military
20 units can they become -- can they pass under the authority of military
21 authorities and courts. This decision itself does not place them there.
22 Q. I mean a situation when they are actually mobilised, and this
23 decision provides for it. Can we agree on that?
24 A. But from the proclamation until they are displaced at the
25 disposal of military units there is a span of time. It's not automatic.
1 Q. All right. We don't quite agree on this.
2 A. I'm not an expert in the field.
3 Q. Could you repeat that?
4 A. I said I'm not an expert in this field either.
5 Q. Mr. Peric, let us see if we can make anything out of this
6 legislation. Yesterday, in response to questions by Ms. Korner, you said
7 that in the process of prosecuting the group known as Mices, in the
8 course of the investigation and based on some statements of suspects, you
9 began to suspect that some additional persons should also be investigated
10 that were not covered by the investigation currently.
11 A. Yes. And I intended to expand my investigation after leading the
12 evidence I had originally envisaged.
13 Q. Why did you not do that?
14 A. Because exhumations were required. And after wrapping up all the
15 evidence only could I expand the investigation.
16 Q. Mr. Peric, exhumation could hardly have been the reason why you
17 failed to prosecute this Mr. Savic from Doboj. You were able to
18 prosecute him even without exhumations.
19 A. Without exhumations, I did not have the possibility to expand the
20 investigation; and without expanding it, I was not able to complete it.
21 Q. You said yesterday that you personally had suspicions and
22 information that certain crimes had been committed and that the identity
23 of the perpetrators was even known, but that information had not reached
24 you as the prosecutor; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. At the prosecutor's office, you handled -- rather, you kept
2 several records?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The main log-book was the so-called KT log-book; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Into that log-book, information was logged on identified
7 perpetrators, and records were made of all the steps made by the
8 prosecutor to prosecute that person.
9 A. Yes. That log-book contained information exclusively about
10 known, identified perpetrators and all the steps taken during the
12 Q. Entries were also made as to whether the person was remanded in
13 custody, whether a judgement was made, and whether you appealed against
14 that judgement.
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. You also kept a log-book, KTN, which logged information relating
17 to unidentified perpetrators; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The moment a perpetrator is identified, you would transfer that
20 information to the KT log-book?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. You also kept a KTM log-book, entering information about
23 perpetrators who are minors, under 18; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You also had a KTA log-book. KTA. Where you would log all the
1 other documents, documents issued by you, and your correspondence with
2 other authorities that did not belong in any of the other log-books.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now I'd like to ask you specifically: If you would find out that
6 in the territory of the Teslic municipality a crime had been committed
7 and that it was known even who the perpetrator was but you did not
8 receive that information officially, you had the power, as prosecutor, to
9 ask the police to collect the necessary information; and if you knew who
10 the perpetrator was, you were even authorised to start an investigation.
11 Am I right?
12 A. Yes. The prosecutor had those powers. But these powers were
13 irrelevant, in practice. They had no practical value.
14 I also knew one other thing, and I learned that from inspectors
15 with whom I had close relations; namely, that the collegium of the police
16 had a meeting each morning, deciding what would be prosecuted and what
17 would not. And knowing that there were crimes that are not deliberately
18 prosecuted, I wrote up a report in which I wrote exactly what that means
19 and stating some recommendations to deal with this situation.
20 So I did have to correspond with the police every time, but that
21 was pointless. I did not want to do things that would not have a
22 practical result. But I submitted that report to the Assembly where the
23 chief of the public security station was represented and the chief of --
24 and the commander of the police. But that was the state of our judicial
25 system and the security system in Teslic municipality at the time.
1 Q. However, you will agree with me that you skipped the legal
2 channel which I indicated to you when reading the laws. And you are
3 responsible for an omission here, because you should have left a trace of
4 your actions as the law stipulates?
5 A. You can take it as an omission, but it is not, de facto, an
6 omission, because if I had done it, it would have had no meaning, no
7 effect. And, finally, I talked to the people in the police and asked
8 them to deal with all the cases. I knew they were aware of certain cases
9 which they did not want to deal with. And it was pointless for me to
10 correspond with the police. If I had written letters to them in every
11 single case, that could have been interpreted in a different way, and I
12 maybe would not have been sitting here.
13 Q. Mr. Peric, you have at your disposal an investigating judge --
14 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours, I was just indicating to
15 Mr. Cvijetic that he is starting his question before we finished
16 receiving information, and I wonder if there could be a slight gap
17 between the answer and his asking the next question.
18 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
19 MS. KORNER: I know.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Peric, you left no trace in terms of procedure before an
22 investigating judge in the cases involving known perpetrators where you
23 did not have to correspond with the police. You were able to start an
25 A. Can you tell me one case involving a known perpetrator which I
1 failed to prosecute?
2 Q. Well, I'm citing your words. You said yesterday that there were
3 cases where the perpetrators were known and the case never reached your
4 desk. And I'm asking: If you were aware of such cases, why didn't you
5 start an investigation?
6 A. I said the police was aware of such cases with known perpetrators
7 and failed to do anything and inform the prosecutor. I didn't say I knew
8 about them. You must have misunderstood me.
9 Q. In your KTA log-book, is it the case that there are entries made
10 by you to -- concerning cases where you intervened to the -- with the --
11 interceded with the republican public prosecutor and other authorities
12 and cases like those you cite?
13 A. I don't know if -- if there is any evidence. There should be. I
14 don't think I deal -- I dealt with that. I don't think I sent such
15 reports to the republican prosecutor, apart from annual reports. You
16 should look into the annual reports that I sent to the republic
17 prosecutor and what exactly I wrote there. I cannot tell you now what
18 exactly I put in those reports.
19 Q. Mr. Peric, the only authority above you were the law and the
20 constitution; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Well, if you think you were unable to discharge your functions
23 under the law and the constitution, why didn't you simply resign?
24 A. I discharged my functions to the best of my ability, to the
25 extent of my ability, and I did it, I believe, very conscientiously. And
2 Q. This post you occupied, in addition to rights and
3 responsibilities, did it confer upon you certain privileges?
4 A. The only privilege I enjoyed was that I was not called to the
5 front line, to the army, if you can talk about privileges at the time at
7 Q. Do you believe it was a privilege that in those times of crisis
8 you still received a regular salary?
9 A. I don't think it's a privilege. In addition, I believe that, for
10 a while, we didn't even receive pay. For more than a half -- than half a
11 year, I believe, we received no pay at all.
12 Q. Mr. Peric, I've read your statement given to the OTP, and you
13 appear now to be very critical of the system and the authorities and
14 their failure to act in that period.
15 My question is: Weren't you a part of that system and those
16 authorities? Because it was precisely that system and those authorities
17 which placed you in a very important position which you occupied
18 throughout the war.
19 A. In a broad sense, in a constitutional, legal sense, I was part of
20 the authorities, but, in reality, I was not a part of local authorities.
21 If you remember, I explained at the first meeting, when I was asked to
22 become part of the Crisis Staff, I said I did not want to get involved
23 with any Crisis Staff; I wanted to do my job professionally.
24 Q. Yes. But you did accept an unlawful and illegal appointment to
25 that position, and until the end of August, you continued in that
1 position unlawfully.
2 A. You can interpret in that way but it was a combination of
3 circumstances. And I think is it far important that I accepted to do
4 that job than the mere fact that it was done at the moment in a way which
5 was not completely in line with the law. In certain situations, you are
6 guided by practical purposes, and that was one of those times. I think
7 you would have done the same.
8 Q. That's precisely why I'm asking you. Those authorities also had
9 to improvise a lot of the way. They could not operate with perfection in
11 A. That's not my problem. I don't think I can agree it was
12 necessary and indispensable.
13 Q. It's not a problem when others are concerned, but you accepted
14 that measure of improvisation when you are concerned.
15 A. No, I did not accept improvisation just because it was about me.
16 Q. You seem to be a legalist. You should be principled then.
17 A. No. It's not a matter of principle. I was the most experienced
18 person at the time. I had ten years of experience as prosecutor and
19 judge at the time. Nobody matched that experience.
20 Q. But you will agree that that begs the question of the legality of
21 all the actions you took as a prosecutor at the time.
22 A. I will leave it to others to decide.
23 Q. Thank you. I would like to move now to the issue of your
24 termination of position. I think you discussed that issue for your
25 statement, didn't you?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. You also discussed some unofficial initiatives to relieve you of
3 that duty. I think primarily there was one -- that the initiative was
4 launched by the SDS. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes, I have seen the document which was the basis for the request
6 for me being relieved of duty. It was shown to my by the state
7 prosecutor. It was a letter to the main board of the SDS. There were
8 several letters of that sort.
9 Q. Thank you. There was also an initiative launched by almost all
10 the workers and your colleagues from the judicial building. It was a
11 petition asking for you to be relieved of duty. Do you know of that
13 A. No, no, that was in regard to the president of the court, not in
14 regard to public prosecutor. I had only two employees, and neither of
15 them asked for me to be relieved of duty.
16 Q. Well, you see, these are unofficial, informal acts, and the
17 position of this Defence in regard to such documents and newspaper
18 articles is such that we do not consider them relevant evidence to be
19 presented before this Tribunal.
20 However, I intend to deal with the official reasons for your
21 relief of duty, so those that were legally valid.
22 A. I would love to hear the reasons.
23 Q. I would like to have 1D03-3321 on the screen now.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I have an objection to the
25 way this is being dealt it, that it was suggested to Judge Peric that
1 there was an initiative launched by the workers and colleagues from the
2 judicial building, a petition for you asking to resign, and he says no.
3 And then Mr. Cvijetic makes a statement:
4 "These are unofficial, informal acts, and the position of this
5 Defence in regard to such documents and newspaper articles is ... we do
6 not consider them relevant evidence."
7 Your Honours, if that's the case, then it's improper to put a
8 suggestion based on such documents which he has not intended to put to
9 the judge so he can deal with them. And I --
10 MR. PANTELIC: I terribly apologise. Clients doesn't receive
11 translation. So ...
12 THE ACCUSED ZUPLJANIN: [Interpretation] I'm not hearing a
13 translation of what Ms. Korner was saying.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I did hear it.
15 MS. KORNER: Can Mr. Zupljanin hear me now? No, apparently.
16 Testing ...
17 JUDGE HALL: Keep on talking.
18 MS. KORNER: Right. I can see Mr. Zupljanin shaking his head.
19 I'm just wondering whether to repeat my objection so that Mr. Zupljanin
20 knows what my objection is.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
22 MS. KORNER: My objection is to the following: That the -- that
23 Mr. Cvijetic put to Judge Peric at line 20 -- sorry, page 20, line 2:
24 "There was an initiative launched by the workers and colleagues
25 from the judicial building. It was a petition asking for your
1 resignation. Do you know that document?"
2 "No," said Judge Peric, "that was in regard to the president of
3 the court, not the public prosecutor. I had only two employees, and
4 neither of them asked for me to be relieved of duty."
5 And Mr. Cvijetic then put or said or made a statement:
6 "You see, these are unofficial, informal acts, and the position
7 of this Defence in regard to such documents and newspaper articles is
8 such we do not consider them relevant evidence."
9 And my objection is this: If it is not intended to put the
10 document for whatever spurious reason before the witness or the Court,
11 then the question should never have been asked in the first place. And
12 there certainly should be no mention of newspaper articles and the like.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, may I have clarification, Mr. Cvijetic,
14 because my impression was the opposites of Ms. Korner, in that I thought
15 you were eschewing the use of or reference to these articles. Is
16 Ms. Korner's impression correct, that the foundation of your question to
17 the witness is the basis of these articles, which you at the same time
18 are saying shouldn't be relied on?
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it wasn't
20 interpreted properly, obviously. I did not base my question on any
21 articles, nor did I refer to any articles. I presented the position of
22 this Defence team. Namely, the position of this Defence team is that on
23 the basis of such unofficial documents or, alternatively, newspaper
24 articles - because we have a position on them as well - evidence could --
25 cannot be led before this Tribunal. I did not say that there were
1 newspaper articles about Mr. Peric, I just presented our position, in
2 principle, in relation to such indirect evidence. And then I decided to
3 move to the official documents that I wanted to put to Mr. Peric. It was
4 the witness who, in his statement, discussed such unofficial initiatives.
5 In other words, my intention is to discuss here with Mr. Peric
6 the official reasons for his dismissal, and I only asked him whether he
7 was aware of such informal ones. He had mentioned them in his statement,
8 but I will not be using them.
9 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, I still
10 don't -- I still don't --
11 Sorry. I still don't understand the connection then between the
12 two points. He suggests, in terms, and if it wasn't a suggestion perhaps
13 he would like to withdraw because that's the way I saw it, that
14 Judge Peric was removed from his position as public prosecutor as a
15 result of petitions that were placed before -- signed by his - I'm sorry,
16 can I just go back again - initiative launched by workers and colleagues
17 from the judicial building. "Do you know that document?" That was the
18 thing. No, he says, that was something completely different. And then
19 Mr. Cvijetic goes on to say these are unofficial, informal acts.
20 Now, can -- maybe it's me and I'm not following this, but is the
21 suggestion -- is the suggestion to Judge Peric is that there was such a
22 petition? That's the first question.
23 And is it suggested that this petition was reported in the
24 newspapers? And that's what -- that's what Mr. Cvijetic is not
25 relying on.
1 But I think the most important thing is, Is that what the
2 suggestion is? That he was removed as a result of this petition?
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, perhaps it would be less confusing if
4 you were to not conflate these two things. And, as I understand the
5 first part of your question, and Ms. Korner's understanding is the same
6 as mine, deals with the -- there being some official basis and put --
7 leave aside this question of -- of newspaper articles because it only
8 adds confusion to the matter.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. That was
10 what I wanted to do, and I've asked for document 1D03-3321 to be put up.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Mr. Cvijetic, just deal with this, please.
13 It's very simple.
14 Are you suggesting to the judge that he was removed, whatever the
15 official reasons were, because there was a petition? If so, can you put
16 the question directly to him, please.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I first wanted to ask the
18 witness whether he is aware of it because he mentions it in his
19 statement. He answered that he didn't know of it, and I do have a
20 document which shows the official reasons for his dismissal. And what I
21 intend to do now is to deal with the official reasons. I will not be
22 dealing with any petitions or any other reasons.
23 I wanted to ask the witness whether he has heard of it.
24 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. No, Your Honours, it is quite important.
25 I know we're wasting quite a lot of time on what should be a simple
1 point. Why does it matter whether he had heard of it or not if is not
2 the Defence case that he was removed because of it? If it is the Defence
3 case, that he was removed because of the petition, they must put that as
4 a question. It is a simple, straightforward proposition.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, I agree with Ms. Korner. Let's
6 move on.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't know for how many times do
8 I have to ask for this document to be put up.
9 Q. Mr. Peric, we've found this document as part of the disclosed
10 material. This is a -- these are minutes from an Assembly session, the
11 session where your dismissal was discussed.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you see, under 5, that Branko Peric should be --
14 A. Yes, I can see that.
15 Q. Please read that part so that you would remember the events.
16 Have you read it?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It's in the seventh and the eighth
19 paragraph there in both versions. Yes, I think we them on the screen.
20 So we have the reason for your dismissal set out; namely, it is
21 claimed here that you have taken part in political activities, although
22 you were a public prosecutor, by drafting some texts and so on. You
23 mentioned that also when giving your statement.
24 Is this correct?
25 A. I'm not sure what is it that it is stated here. This is in very
1 general terms. I can make only conclusions and inferences. I did give
2 an interview to a magazine from Belgrade
3 published in relation to legal issues, reasons for the rise of crime. I
4 believe these were legal texts, such as materials that somebody who is an
5 expert can freely write about. This was not being involved in politics.
6 In the decision on my dismissal, there were no statement of reasons. I
7 didn't know why I was dismissed, but I did see a letter from the SDS from
8 Teslic that was sent to the Main Board which was the real organ of power.
9 I have seen the request for my dismissal, and the reasons stated there
10 were something entirely different.
11 Q. You will agree with me that for public prosecutors, people in the
12 judicial organs, and judges, it was, so to speak, prohibited to act
13 publicly in political sense and to present their political views?
14 A. Yes, that goes without saying. But I didn't do such things. My
15 republican public prosecutor did not have any complaints. I've asked him
16 whether he would put in a proposal for my dismissal. I do not see this
17 as proper legal reasons. I do not see anything that would be a basis for
18 a dismissal. This looks like a general position because it -- something
19 needed to be put -- before the Assembly because they wanted to have me
20 dismissed, and something had to be put before the Assembly.
21 Q. But you would agree that the public prosecutor of the Republic
22 agreed with this. We can see that in the text?
23 A. Yes, that's correct. One can see that. But the public
24 prosecutor told me that Radovan Karadzic personally excerpted pressure
25 asking him to request for my dismissal, that he had refused to do it on
1 several occasion because I was very good prosecutor but told me that
2 eventually he had to yield; he told me to come to Banja Luka and inform
3 me that I will be dismissed during the next Assembly session. He said
4 that Radovan had told him it's going to be either Peric going or you're
5 going to be going.
6 MS. KORNER: Could I know, please, which Assembly -- we've only
7 got one page. Could I know, please, which Assembly session this was.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The session held on the
9 14th of June, 1995.
10 Q. Mr. Peric, let me show you another official document, 1D03-3312.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think the
12 translation is pending.
13 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... you anticipated
14 the question that I -- yes.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The translation is pending. And
16 based on this information that was sent by MUP Republika Srpska
17 Banja Luka, RDB Centre I will read only three lines and then Mr. Peric
18 can confirm that we read it properly.
19 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... can I be told
20 what tab number, please.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 22.
22 Q. Mr. Peric, can you please confirm for me -- have you found the
23 document, first of all, under tab 22?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you confirm for me that this is information issued by the
1 Republika Srpska MUP State
2 6th of September 1994?
3 A. We can see that from the document, yes.
4 Q. This information --
5 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... just before we
6 go on. Firstly, where does this document come from? Because it's got no
7 stamp, no seal, nothing to indicate what it is. It's a document that is
8 - one, two, three, four - six pages long.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's part of the
10 disclosure. It has its ERN number, and it's obvious that it's a document
11 issued by the Republika Srpska MUP. We had no reason to doubt the
12 authenticity of this document.
13 Would that be okay then?
14 Q. Mr. Peric, this information deals with illegal activities by the
15 person mentioned in the document who was a general manager of a company
16 in Teslic. Can you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In the third paragraph, it is stated that since the beginning of
19 the war conflicts up until today his criminal actions blossomed.
20 Can you see that sentence?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask for page 2, to
23 be shown on the screen. And there's a piece of interesting information
24 there. Can we please have page 2, the last paragraph, on the page.
25 Q. Here your name is mentioned. Using your authority, you covered
1 him in his illegal activities, his thievery, and that you received an
2 apartment, five rooms, in return.
3 Is this correct?
4 A. Let me explain.
5 Mr. Rade Pavlovic was a man who was not supporting the policies
6 of the SDS. He openly fought against such policies. All the claims here
7 about his criminal activities is untrue. The purpose of it was to
8 discredit him and to dismiss him. He was a man with reputation, with
9 authority, who was protecting his employees of Bosniak and Croat
10 nationality. SDS did not like this.
11 Q. What I'm interested only is this bit related to you.
12 A. Well, I must explain everything so that would you understand the
13 situation. It is true that he donated an apartment with five rooms. It
14 was owned by a Muslim, and this Muslim actually -- I was told at least
15 that this worker of his who had died just before and whose wife and
16 family would have inherited the apartment, and, in the meantime, I was
17 supposed to make sure that nobody else moves, and did I that. I did
18 receive the apartment from Rade Pavlovic, and I returned it back and gave
19 it to the family immediately after the war.
20 Q. In your curriculum vitae it is stated that after you were
21 dismissed from the position of public prosecutor you started working as a
23 A. After the dismissal, I fled to Serbia because there was a
24 mobilisation summons waiting for me already. I returned to Bosnia only
25 after the Dayton
1 accepted a position in a news agency in Banja Luka.
2 Q. Thank you. Let me show you the following document.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It's 1D03-3323.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Tab 36 for you, sir, and for the Prosecutor.
7 Have you found it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. As you can see, it is stated that this very general manager we
10 discussed recently employed you after you were dismissed as the public
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Wait. Is this just a coincidence, or is that through certain --
14 because you did not inform us about working for him. You told us that
15 you worked as a journalist only.
16 A. Well this is general knowledge. That was the only man who dared
17 to accept me as his employee. I don't think SDS would have taken me on.
18 I worked there for only six months, if you allow --
19 Q. My only question to you is, Why did you not tell us that?
20 A. Well, I -- you didn't ask me that question. I cannot answer the
21 questions before you put them to me. I assume that you would want to ask
22 me what you want to know.
23 Q. But that's not stated in your curriculum vitae or your statement.
24 A. There are so many things that are not there. I couldn't have put
25 everything in.
1 Q. The problem is in the fact that the information issued by the MUP
2 concerning the illegal activities of this gentleman you are mentioned as
3 someone who was covering up for him, and here we see him protecting you
4 and providing you employment, which is something that you did not inform
5 us about, neither in your curriculum vitae, nor in the interviews.
6 A. I never believed there was any need for that, and I wasn't
7 covering up for anyone. If you have evidence to confirm that I was,
8 please show them to me.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have only one more
10 question and that will be my last question. And if I'm allowed, I would
11 like to do it before the break.
12 JUDGE HALL: I just noticed that we are two minutes over the time
13 for the break. But if your question is very, very short, admitting a
14 very short answer, perhaps it would be more efficient to deal with it
15 now. Or should we take the break, Mr. Cvijetic?
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, I would like to complete my
17 question. It will be a short question.
18 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Peric, the municipality of Teslic
21 Doboj were subject to non-selective, to put it in that way, bombardment
22 and artillery fire by Muslim and Croat sides, causing death to civilians
23 as well. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I have information that between 10 and 15 civilians were
1 casualties in Teslic; and in Doboj up to 50.
2 A. I can confirm for Teslic. I don't know about Doboj.
3 Q. In Doboj -- I just apologise ... for Doboj I said there were more
4 than 90. I would like to make a correction to the transcript. Not 50,
5 but more than 90. There is a monument for the casualties. Can you
6 confirm whether you know about that?
7 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... other than --
8 before the judge answers and before we take the break, other than the
9 Defence are tu quoque, which is not a defence, what issue -- or what is
10 the relevance or this line of questioning?
11 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps it would be convenient to take the break at
12 this point.
13 We will return in 20 minutes.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours I would like to make a correction to
19 the numbering given to the 92 ter package yesterday.
20 65 ter number 10359.01 is issued exhibit number P01361.01.
21 65 ter number 10359.02 is issued exhibit number P1361.02. 65 ter 09045
22 is issued exhibit number 1361.03. 65 ter 10359.03 is issued exhibit
23 number P01361.04. 65 ter 00870 is issued exhibit number P01361.05. And
24 finally, 65 ter 02758 is issued exhibit number P01361.06.
25 Thank you, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
2 Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, you may continue.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before we reconnect
4 with the witness, I would just like to tender two documents that I've
5 shown to the witness. This decision on his appointment an employment, he
6 identified it as the decision, on the basis of which he worked. It's
7 1D03-3323. And I kindly ask you to decide on its admission.
8 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
9 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour. At this time I rise to my feet.
10 I'm not sure what document Mr. Cvijetic is referring to. Is it the one
11 about his employment in 1996? And the relevance of that would be to any
12 issue in this case, I ask? That was a question.
13 JUDGE HALL: What I understood Mr. Cvijetic's line of questions
14 to be, because you would recall that I intervened on several occasions,
15 what I believe I understood the purpose of that to be is that the
16 exigencies of the wartime situation as obtained meant there were any
17 number of anomalies or irregularities. One of them being the way in
18 which the witness was appointed.
19 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour, I think we may be at cross
20 purposes. I think he is trying to put in - and that's why I'm trying to
21 check - the one where he got the job with the company. I don't think --
22 I have no objection to -- I don't think that -- I may already -- I have
23 no objection to the one where he is appointed prosecutor, but I think he
24 is trying to put in the one where he was appointed as the legal advisor
25 to this company.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] ... 1996?
2 MS. KORNER: In 1996.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. --
4 MS. KORNER: And that's why I'm asking what on earth the
5 relevance is to anything in this case.
6 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the presiding Judge, please.
8 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] ... from his CV, and I
9 assume it went to credibility.
10 MS. KORNER: Yes, but, Your Honour, that's fine. He's being
11 asked about it, you've got the answers. I can't see that this is a
12 document that Your Honours are going to be pouring over at the end of
13 this case. And, Your Honour, I'm simply taking the view that if
14 Your Honours want to limit documents to what is strictly relevant, then
15 how on earth - the fact that he missed out from his CV and he's given
16 explanation - needs the document in to show that he was appointed as the
17 legal advisor to a company?
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, what is your response to that? We
19 have the evidence. Do we need the document?
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I put those
21 questions precisely for the purpose which you just stated. Your
22 understanding is correct. The witness claimed that he had been forced to
23 flee Republika Srpska for the reasons he had stated. However, these
24 claims are not true because he found employment with a company whose
25 manager is claimed to have been involved in illegal activities. Since in
1 his testimony and in his statement the witness holds himself out to be a
2 man of the law, my examination followed the course that you had seen.
3 And the document I tendered a moment ago goes to the punch line of my
5 JUDGE HALL: I suppose it does have utility in that it, as it
6 were, ties up this line of inquiry. So where as it probably strictly is
7 unnecessary because we have the evidence, it should be admitted as an
8 exhibit in my view and marked.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document ID 03-3323 is given Exhibit 1D276.
10 Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HALL: And there was second document, Mr. Cvijetic?
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That is the document before, from
13 the National Security Service, Banja Luka, which points out the illegal
14 activities of the general manager concerned and the reward given to this
15 witness while he was a prosecutor.
16 The witness has explained under what circumstances he received
17 that apartment and what happened with it. And although I'm not sure that
18 this document currently meets the standard for admission, I suggest it be
19 MFI'd. And we will then try to tender it when we have a witness from the
20 National Security Service. And it is also awaiting a translation.
21 That's another reason.
22 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... going to suggest
23 that it be marked for identification because inasmuch as it is awaiting
24 translation, the Prosecution, once they would have had an opportunity to
25 consider the English version and seen the context of the excerpt that you
1 put to the witness, may have a view on it. So at this point we just mark
2 it for identification.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I was about to say that. Your Honour,
4 I'm slightly unhappy that a document that a witness who's been known to
5 be coming for weeks now and a document which the Defence consider
6 important and runs to six pages has not been translated and it's sought
7 to put part of it in. I'm hoping that we can organise a translation - I
8 don't know how much longer Mr. Cvijetic or Mr. Krgovic have - but I'm
9 hoping that we can organise a translation, which I would have though they
10 could have done, at some speed so we can see what this document is
11 actually all about.
12 JUDGE HALL: So for the moment it's marked for identification.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document ID 03-3312 is exhibited as
14 1D277, marked for identification. Thank you, Your Honours.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Peric, can you hear me?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. My question about this shelling and casualties among civilians is
19 simple and it --
20 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... to this
21 question. I repeat the objection. To what issue, other than an attempt
22 to put tu quoque forward as a defence, do these questions about shelling
23 by Croats and/or Muslims in areas of Doboj or Teslic and memorials to the
24 fallen heros go? What is the relevance?
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this witness was not
2 a simple citizen. He is a qualified prosecutor, authorised to start
3 investigations and criminal proceedings in war crimes cases. My question
4 to him is straightforward: Did those who ordered and perpetrated this
5 shelling become indicted and tried in this BH Court, which is still
6 trying perpetrators of such crimes? Nothing more.
7 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... ask that
8 question in relation to Teslic. He cannot ask it in relation to Doboj or
9 anywhere else or Tesanj in which Judge Peric was not the public
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree. I agree. Let the
12 witness answer, and that will complete my examination.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether the
14 perpetrators of the shelling have been tried. As far as I know, the
15 shells came from the Tesnjak [as interpreted] area, but that also is my
16 indirect knowledge. I don't know whether this was prosecuted.
17 I know that the police explained to me that evidence is being
18 prepared for this for a state authority that would deal with war crimes
19 against Serbs.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Peric, thank you for your
21 testimony. I have no further questions for you.
22 Your Honours, I have completed my cross-examination.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Peric. I am Dragan Krgovic
2 appearing for Stojan Zupljanin's Defence. I will question you about the
3 events that you discussed with the Prosecutor and with Mr. Cvijetic over
4 the past few days.
5 Can you hear me?
6 A. Yes, yes. Good morning.
7 Q. We speak the same language and we should try not to overlap and
8 not to speak too fast. I am saying this to myself as well. And we are
9 less -- we are more familiar with these events than the interpreters are,
10 so let's try to avoid overlapping.
11 I'd like to deal with one topic you spoke about, and I need some
12 clarification. When you were replying to the Prosecutor and to
13 Mr. Cvijetic earlier today, you mentioned the exhumation and possible
14 post mortem for Muslims and Croats who had been killed. You said, if I
15 understood well, that the issue of exhumations --
16 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... we have just
17 temporarily lost the link with Sarajevo
18 moment, please.
19 [Technical difficulty]
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HALL: We understand that the video is back. They're
22 waiting for the audio to come up.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Microphone not activated]
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps you should begin your preliminary remarks
1 again, Mr. Krgovic.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: Okay. I will do it, Your Honour.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Peric, can you hear me now?
4 A. Yes, I can.
5 Q. Let me just repeat. Responding to the questions of the
6 Prosecutor and Mr. Cvijetic, you mentioned exhumations. I'd like a
8 Under the prevailing legislation and practice at the time,
9 exhumation and post mortems were investigative steps taken normally by
10 the investigating judge with the help of the experts; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Of course, following an application by the authorised prosecutor.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And it is the investigating judge who issues a decision, ordering
15 these investigative steps to be taken?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And from what I remember of the criminal procedure and practice,
18 those are the only two investigative steps that the investigating judge
19 and the prosecutor may not entrust to the police?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Because the investigating judge or the prosecutor may order the
22 police to take certain investigating step, such as collecting
23 information, securing the crime scene, et cetera, something that falls
24 within the remit of the police; right?
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. And the police, apart from securing the crime scene upon the
2 order of the investigating judge, has nothing to do with exhumation and
3 post mortems?
4 A. No. But they would probably be present, securing the site of
6 Q. That's what I meant. Exclusively at the request of the
7 investigating judge, they would be called in to secure the site.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And could you assist me with one more thing. My colleague,
10 Mr. Cvijetic, showed you the Law on Criminal Procedure, and I'll show you
11 an article.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] P120.
13 Q. It's your tab 23.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we call up in e-court
15 Article 45. In B/C/S, it's page 51; and English, page 14.
16 A. Could you tell me the number of the article?
17 Q. 45.
18 A. Yes, I got it.
19 Q. As I understand this Article 45, item(1) in paragraph (2), the
20 prosecutor has a certain role to play in pre-indictment proceedings.
21 A. Yes. He may have a role in pre-indictment proceedings, in
22 issuing certain instructions to the police.
23 Q. And the normal practice was, at least in peacetime, that before a
24 criminal report is submitted, the police could come for a consultation
25 with the prosecutor to see how to qualify a certain act and how to take
1 certain steps.
2 A. Yes, that happened sometimes.
3 Q. Yesterday in your evidence you spoke about your travel to
4 Banja Luka and the meetings you had in Banja Luka. You met with those
5 people you mentioned, Mr. Stevilovic, Mr. Markovic, Mr. Perisic, and
6 Mr. Zupljanin in the office of Mr. Zupljanin at the CSB Banja Luka,
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And one of the topics I'd like to remind you and one of the
10 reasons for your presence there, apart from the reasons you mentioned,
11 was the discussion that if the police submit a criminal report against
12 this Mice Group, they're remanned in custody and further prosecution
13 needed to be ensured.
14 A. Yes -- sorry, go on.
15 Q. In line with Article 45 of this law, paragraph 2.1, suggestions
16 needed to be made for this entire undertaking to be successful.
17 A. I suppose there was discussion about that. I really can't recall
18 the details, but I suppose we discussed that, among other things, how to
19 complete that operation.
20 Q. You will agree with me that chief of the police do their job, if
21 they arrest the perpetrators and turn them over to the investigating
22 judge and the prosecutor to be remanded in custody. The whole operation
23 would be pointless.
24 A. That went without saying, that these people would be remanded in
25 custody and placed under guard.
1 Q. And that was one of the purposes of that meeting you attended?
2 A. I suppose so.
3 Q. And, of course, that was the reason why the prosecutor and the
4 president of the high court in Banja Luka were present?
5 A. That's why I'm coming to this conclusion; namely, the idea was to
6 have this measure of detention to be taken in Banja Luka.
7 Q. And then you returned to Teslic on the very same day. And on the
8 evening of that day, or maybe the following day, the arrest took place?
9 A. I assume we returned on the same day. I'm not sure whether the
10 arrest took place on the next day, or maybe in a day or two days later.
11 Q. I will skip some events. And once the Doboj High Court requested
12 for the persons to be transferred from Banja Luka to Doboj, that was
13 something that's under the jurisdiction of judicial organs exclusively;
14 this has nothing to do with police activities. Am I correct?
15 A. I think that has nothing to do with the police. I think that was
16 done along the line president of the court and the prison. The police
17 had no authorities in relation to detention. None at all.
18 Q. Especially in a case when the investigative judge has issued a
19 measure of detention and when these people are in detention under the
20 control of the Ministry of Justice?
21 A. That's correct.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 Q. Excuse me for a moment. I just need to check in the transcript
24 whether your answer was recorded.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I apologise. What my colleague tells me is that since my
3 question was that the detention unit was immediately under the control of
4 the higher court and the Ministry of Justice, so I would like to ask you
5 to confirm whether you agree that both of these organs keep control over
6 that institution?
7 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. Mr. Peric, let us go back to a part of your answer in response to
9 a question put to you by Ms. Korner concerning work obligation. I -- do
10 you remember that you were interviewed -- and this document is part of
11 the evidence. It was in December of 2001 and January 2002 that you gave
12 an interview to the OTP. And, of course, your recollection was much
13 better at the time, since nine years have elapsed. Isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. Let me read to you a question and an answer that are related to
16 my intervention made yesterday. Pages 28 and 29 of the transcript.
17 I'll read in English, and you'll hear it interpreted.
18 [In English] [Previous translation continues] ... if the work
19 obligations also included digging trenches on the front line?
20 [Interpretation] And your answer --
21 MS. KORNER: So sorry. Pages 28 and 29 of which interview?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: 28 and 29 -- interview --
23 [Interpretation] It's 2002 interview.
24 MS. KORNER: Is that 28 and 29 in a translation?
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] We do not have the translation of
1 it. I'm reading from the English version.
2 [In English] If you want to check, because that's the only copy I
4 MS. KORNER: Yes, I'm so sorry, Your Honours, but I'm looking at
5 page 28 and 29 of the English version of the interview in 2002, and this
6 is about civilian protection.
7 Oh, I see. Yep. Got it. Thank you very much.
8 Thank you, Mr. Krgovic.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. We do not have a B/C/S version of this interview. What we did
11 was we were trying to establish the same -- to be on the same page, us
12 and the Prosecutor, so -- [In English] [Previous translation
13 continues] ... in the war it included the digging of the trenches.
14 And when you say later, on what time-frame is that approximately?
15 [Interpretation] You responded:
16 [In English] [Previous translation continues] "... 1994 when the
17 activities were already under way when the separation line between the
18 two armies had already been formed."
19 [Interpretation] I conclude from this that when you spoke about
20 work obligation you spoke in general terms; and when the Prosecutor asked
21 when these people were going to dig trenches, you referred to 1993 and
22 1994. Do you remember whether that was what you told them?
23 A. It is possible. I cannot give you a precise time. I cannot
24 remember these events with any certainty. It may have been in 1992. But
25 it was certainly at the time when the lines were being established.
1 Q. And in 2001, you said 1993 and 1994. I assume your recollection
2 of the events was better at the time?
3 A. Yes, probably.
4 Q. You were also talking about armament of citizens of Muslim
5 ethnicity, and you mentioned that you had heard rumours about that. Did
6 you hear that weapons for some Croat and Muslim formations in that border
7 area, bordering with Tesanj, that they were received from the
8 municipality of Tesanj, that they were armed by the municipality of
9 Tesanj? Did you hear stories to that effect?
10 A. No, I did not. I cannot make any comments, any specific
11 comments. I do know that there were rumours, but I think it was more of
12 an individually based sale of weapons. Individual Serbs were selling
13 weapons to Muslims. I think the price that I've heard of was about 1.000
14 German marks per piece.
15 Q. Further on, yesterday, when you were talking about military
16 operations in Stenjak and Rankovici, as far as I understood, you are not
17 familiar with the details related to the operation itself, what caused
18 it, what was the reason for it?
19 A. Well, I do not that with any degree of certainty. I know that
20 this was a joint operation by military and the police. I remember the
21 operation related to Stenjak. The court building is about 500 metres
22 from Stenjak, and I do remember seeing a tank placed on a bridge. That's
23 the only part I have seen first-hand. I know that after that, the
24 village was emptied of inhabitants. There were no more Muslims in the
1 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that the conflict started when a
2 Muslim unit from Tesanj attacked a military patrol in Stenjak and that
3 that was the cause of the conflict? Do you remember stories about that?
4 A. I do know that --
5 Q. Please go on.
6 A. I know that two or three persons were arrested. I knew one of
7 them personally. I think his name was Boro Dojkovic. And that there
8 were negotiations concerning their exchange, or rather, about having them
9 back. That I do remember.
10 Q. Precisely. There was this officer by the name of Dojkovic; he
11 was arrested, together with two of his soldiers, and he was taken to
12 Tesanj. This group took him there.
13 A. Yes, that's correct, but I don't know whether that was the
14 immediate cause of the conflict, I don't know.
15 Q. And you also know that -- maybe you have heard, namely, that a
16 military police patrol was attacked that came to intervene and that
17 several people were wounded in the ambush operation?
18 A. You mean in Stenjak?
19 Q. No, Rankovic.
20 A. Well, there were some talks about the patrol, but I don't know
21 any details concerning those events.
22 Q. You said that the villages were emptied of its inhabitants. What
23 you're saying here -- or, rather, you're only talking about the
24 consequences. You do not know anything about the reasons, causes of the
25 operations; you were not familiar with it because you were not part of
1 the structures?
2 A. Yes, that's correct. I don't know anything about the details; I
3 just know about the consequences.
4 Q. One more thing. You also spoke about the arrival of the
5 Mice Group, about their arrest. I'm sure that you remember that at one
6 point Banja Luka CSB -- or, rather, Mr. Zupljanin appointed
7 Mr. Radulovic, was temporarily appointed the chief of SJB in Teslic?
8 A. That's correct. I think there were some other people who got
9 different positions in the Teslic station. I think Milenko Savic became
10 head of the crime department, and Mr. Kos, the uniformed police
11 department. So people from Banja Luka took over after the arrest, some
12 of the positions in the SJB in Teslic.
13 Q. One of the first or maybe even most important roles of this group
14 of people including Mr. Radulovic, was to collect evidence, to carry out
15 investigative steps necessary to process the group the Mices?
16 A. Yes. I think that was their main task. And to, of course, make
17 sure that the SJB starts functioning again.
18 Q. And once the Mices were arrested and the situation was
19 stabilised, then this Banja Luka group went back, left Teslic; is that
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. In the period when people from Banja Luka were there, all Muslims
23 and Croats that were in detention at different locations were released
24 with the exception of several against whom indictments were issued and
25 they were still being prosecuted?
1 A. I think all of the detention units were disbanded. I don't think
2 anyone remained in any of these facilities.
3 Q. Following the arrival of Mices, there weren't any large-scale
4 arrests of Croats and Muslims, at least in comparison to the period of
6 A. I don't remember that there were any after the period of Mices, I
7 mean, arrests of Croats and Muslims.
8 Q. I apologise. I made a little pause, a short pause, because of
9 the transcript.
10 One more question related to this report: Based on this report,
11 you saw and processed -- I can see that quite a lot of evidence was
12 collected that the pre-indictment proceeding was done comprehensively,
13 producing material that was very good for further processing, namely,
14 that the CSB Banja Luka people have done a good job?
15 A. Yes. It was done really well. I have received all the
16 information necessary to issue an indictment and start investigation.
17 There's enough data on those who were victims who are possible witnesses
18 and so on.
19 In other words, I have no complaints in regards to the way the
20 police has prepared the criminal report.
21 Q. It may have been entered wrong into the transcript. I said that
22 there weren't any arrests of Muslims and Croats in the period after the
23 arrest of Mices. So can you confirm that I said "after the arrest of
25 A. Yes, that's correct. I, in my answer, said that immediately
1 after the arrest of Mices there were no arrests made by the people who
2 had come from Banja Luka.
3 Q. And while that group from Banja Luka was at the station, you had
4 good cooperation with them, didn't you?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. And you must know that at one point in time, after these people
7 departed from Banja Luka and when the new chief was appointed, problems
8 arose because the previous leadership using this dual power and
9 miscommunication between authorities basically didn't want to hand over
10 the police station to the new leadership; correct?
11 A. Yes. Those tensions and misunderstandings continued for a long
12 time, as far as I can remember. And there constantly was a latent
13 conflict between Perisic, Markovic, Bjelosevic.
14 Q. Which must have affected the work of police and the efficiency of
15 their work. It affected the efficiency of their work?
16 A. It probably had some consequences. The new chief was also a
17 member of the Crisis Staff, so most likely he was under pressure too.
18 And I don't think that he had worked in the police previously, so that
19 that situation of his was also problematic.
20 Q. Mr. Peric, you spoke a lot, both in examination-in-chief and in
21 cross-examination, about certain events in Teslic. So I will now simply
22 go through the report of yours shown to me by the Prosecutor. This is
23 your tab - in the Prosecutor's binder - 84, which is 65 ter 872.
24 Have you found it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I will read to you the second paragraph, which I believe is with
2 the words "The types of crime ..."
3 And it says here that the period of the report coincides with the
4 period of the declared imminent state of war -- imminent threat of war
5 and state of war in the territory of municipality, in certain areas of
6 the municipality.
7 These circumstances and general mobilisation had a considerable
8 impact on the change in the structure of crime in terms of both the types
9 of criminal acts and perpetrators.
10 Actually, as far as I can understand your report, when the armed
11 conflict erupted all of a sudden there emerged a large number of armed
12 persons, which significantly changed the type of crimes committed.
13 That's what you had in mind?
14 A. Yes, correct.
15 Q. I looked at this report of yours. Please take a look at page 3
16 where you speak about perpetrators of crimes.
17 And you say, in the first paragraph on page 3 of the B/C/S
18 version, which in English is the same.
19 You say:
20 The public prosecutor and the president of the courts were
21 personally sought at the command of the Teslic Brigade that a person
22 suspected of being an accomplice in murder be released.
23 And then in the next paragraph, where you speak about the
24 destruction of religious facilities, and you say that it needs to be
25 qualified as a war crime. And then you go on to say:
1 "An answer to this question should be sought from the command of
2 the Teslic Serbian Brigade and the Ministry of Interior. Otherwise,
3 people will have an impression that this -- these crimes in the army
4 ranks are tolerated and that no one is trying to prevent it, while the
5 Ministry of Interior will be placed in an unenviable professional
7 As I read it, your main complaint about the crimes committed
8 pertains to the army.
9 A. Yes, that was the greatest problem. The army did not
10 organisation the military police, and it did nothing to exert control
11 over the armed persons while those people were not at the front line.
12 Q. And this lack of discipline, as you say, caused the Ministry of
13 Interior to be in an unenviable professional situation?
14 A. Yes correct. They couldn't really control the situation without
15 cooperating with the army.
16 Q. And then you go further on to recommend in the next paragraph the
18 "To analyse the situation at the level of the corps urgently and
19 take measures to overcome existing weaknesses."
20 So you highlighted the problem and you sought to solve it. You
21 looked at the -- as is the role of the prosecutor, you followed certain
22 criminal phenomena in society and then, as your role is to uncover and
23 prosecute crimes, you also pointed to causes. Because it's not just the
24 police and the prosecutor's office who can effect and bring about the
25 reduction of crime rate. Other organs and institutions need to get
1 involved. Isn't that right?
2 A. Yes. The entire system needs to be involved. It's not just a
3 matter for the police and military police. This needs to be at the
4 level -- this needs to be resolved at the level of the entire system, by
5 having police and the army and everybody else cooperate.
6 Q. Based on what I can see here, in your report -- or, rather, in
7 this information, the main emphasis in highlighting perpetrators again
8 relates to the members of their army, right?
9 A. Yes, right.
10 Q. And in this period of time, from June to September that the
11 report covers -- please go back to page 1 of this report. In the last
12 paragraph, under 1, you say:
13 "Relations between the public prosecutor's office and the public
14 security station were good and professional, although they were marked by
15 subjective organisational weaknesses during one period of time."
16 When speaking of this period of time, you are referring to the
17 time when the Mices were in Teslic?
18 A. Yes, that's the period I had in mind.
19 Q. And then in the period after that, covered by your report, their
20 relations were good?
21 A. Yes. Concerning those criminal reports that arrived, the
22 cooperation with regard to them was good.
23 Q. Mr. Peric, it wasn't just you who observed this problem. The
24 problem was evident. Please look at 85, which is 65 ter 870.
25 This is a request of the army, specifically of the
1 Serbian Teslic Brigade. We received this from the Prosecutor. And there
2 they speak about omissions or failures. They speak about the request of
3 the Teslic Brigade. And in paragraph 1 they elaborate on the same issue
4 that you mentioned in your report. And they say:
5 We shall now list several failures on the part of the command and
6 the commander as the person most responsible for the situation in the
8 And under 1 they say:
9 The unresolved issue of the military police, which comprises
10 criminals, who are doing everything else but what they're supposed to do.
11 They break into apartments, they bring in people for questioning without
12 arrest warrants, they loot, assault young girls, and beat up soldiers for
13 no reason at all.
14 And so on.
15 Not a single case of crime among the troops (robbery, attempted
16 rape, people forcibly taken from their homes, and the like) has been
17 solved or investigated so far, which was the duty of the military police.
18 Despite all requests to stop the plunder of property in the
19 liberated Croatian and Muslim villages, nothing has been done.
20 This, in fact, reflects the situation that you spoke of yesterday
21 and that you wrote in your report.
22 A. Yes. All of this is correct. I can assure you that the
23 situation was very bad.
24 Q. And I think that in your interview you mentioned, when it comes
25 to this bringing in without arrest warrants, that you and the president
1 of the court, together, insisted with the command to abolish this prison
2 in Pribinic precisely for these reasons.
3 A. Yes, correct.
4 Q. And then, under item 3, they say:
5 How come the members of the Mice Group received constant support
6 when it is well-known what they had done in Teslic?
7 Mr. Peric, at one point in time when the combat started, the
8 Mice Group or some members of that Group appeared in the region as part
9 of the military police in Teslic?
10 A. Yes, that's what I heard, that some of these men appeared in the
11 Teslic area.
12 Q. And when speaking of the strength of the brigade, we can see
13 that, under item 7, the brigade had some 6.500 [as interpreted] men,
15 A. Yes, I heard that figure mentioned, but it's a factual issue, and
16 I'm not sure that there were indeed as many of them.
17 Q. As it is mentioned in this information, at the front line there
18 were two and a half thousand soldiers, but the other number is how many
19 had been mobilised?
20 A. We never really talked about how many had been at the front line.
21 They were pretty unruly.
22 Q. And there were no clear records, and a large number of these
23 people wore uniforms. It was very difficult to identify who belonged to
24 whom, whether they belonged to the Brigade or not; right?
25 A. Yes. Anybody could have worn uniforms or bear arms. What was
1 comprehensible to me was that people were allowed to go on leave with
2 their weapons and that they were allowed to shoot while on leave and so
3 on and nobody thought it was a problem.
4 Q. The commander of the brigade and the command itself did nothing
5 to introduce some order, despite all other efforts and despite your
7 A. Not only the command, not even the Crisis Staff on the board of
8 which the commander of the brigade was. So everybody knew that nobody
9 did nothing, either the commander or civilian authorities, and that was
10 something that caused grave concern due to which I wrote this report and
11 suggested that there needed to be a discussion of these matters.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we ask that this
13 document be admitted, unless it has already been admitted as part of the
14 package. All right. I apologise.
15 Q. Mr. Peric, another topic that concerns the Mices. While being
16 proofed for this testimony, you had occasion to look at the criminal
17 report and the entire file shown to you yesterday by the Prosecutor.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a minute, please. I need to
19 find this file.
20 Q. I apologise. That's tab 14 in your binder.
21 In fact, this criminal report, as far as I could understand, was
22 filed against 16 persons; right?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And if you look at page 10 in your version, you can see the
25 actual criminal report. These persons are listed here, so I won't cover
1 them in detail.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] For the sake of the record, this is
3 Exhibit P1363.
4 Q. You said to the Prosecutor -- please look at page 4 of this
5 criminal report, 021 --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number.
7 Q. If can you see this --
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So this is P1363; 0211-1713 is the
9 ERN number.
10 Q. And here, at page 4 of the criminal report, they say that all of
11 those persons wore camouflage military uniforms and they were armed with
12 short rifles.
13 And then under 7 is Savic Milan, a person who was on the run.
14 In this criminal report they also provide information about other
15 persons who were not available, and they mentioned that Savic was on the
16 run, that the SJB from Teslic and the prosecutor's office couldn't get a
17 hold of him.
18 So this is the OTP binder, tab 14. Please look at the criminal
19 report, which is part of this entire file, and please look at page 4.
20 A. I don't have the criminal report. I have a record of statement.
21 Q. Look at page 10. What I'm trying to show you is on page 10.
22 A. On page 10 is an Official Note from the 13th of July, 1992
23 Q. I don't know ... look at the ERN number in the right top corner.
25 A. 7013. Yes.
1 Q. Now, that's what it says here. All those reported were dressed
2 in camouflage military uniforms, carrying pistols and rifles, a group of
3 reported persons one to seven led by one person who is currently a
4 fugitive, Milan Savic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And when the prosecutor asked you why Savic did not feature in
7 this case, the answer is, I think, that he was a fugitive at the moment
8 and he was not accessible to the prosecution organs?
9 A. Yes. He was not arrested because they didn't find him in Teslic.
10 Q. But he is covered in this report, and his role is explained.
11 It's just that he could not be found at the moment?
12 A. That's correct.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will now move to a
14 different subject, so, perhaps, if you would like to take the break now,
15 or should I continue?
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please continue. It's only 12.04.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Ah, okay.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Peric, if you look at this criminal report -
19 and I need not remind you because you were the one who wrote it
20 basically - you will see that the gist of this report and the criminal
21 acts enumerated, apart from this first passage which refers to false
22 pretenses and presenting forged identification papers. It says that
23 these persons were not actually employed by the police. And apart from
24 false pretenses, all the other criminal acts are against Muslims and
25 Croats, aren't they?
1 A. Yes. The greatest majority, the overwhelming majority of crimes
2 were under Muslims and Croats, although there were some Serbs victims in
3 the injured parties.
4 Q. The only one I could see was breaking and entering into a house,
5 this Stanic or Savic?
6 A. Yes, Stanic.
7 Q. That was the only crime against a Serb?
8 A. Maybe it was not covered entirely by this report, but there were
9 other cases. There was talk of other cases.
10 Q. Maybe I was not clear enough. The only case of a crime against a
11 Serb covered by the report is this breaking and entering into the Stanic
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And the crimes listed here are primarily related to unlawful
15 detention of a large number of Muslims and Croats?
16 A. Yes. That is one of the legal qualifications.
17 Q. Robbery and robbery/theft against Muslims and Croats; it's
18 another legal qualification mentioned here.
19 If it's easier for you, you can find the description of the crime
20 lower on the page, paragraph in the middle and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4,
21 giving the description of these wrong-doings. I'm sorry that this copy
22 we currently have is so bad. Could you just confirm --
23 A. I cannot make out all of the text. It's very bad.
24 Q. Paragraph 3 from the top says:
25 "According to a list of rich citizens of Teslic made earlier,
1 persons of exclusively Muslim and Croat ethnicity, the persons reported
2 herewith extorted and robbed citizens, broke and entered into houses,
3 unlawfully detained a large number of citizens, mistreated and physically
4 abused their detainees, explaining that whatever they were doing they
5 were doing in the interests of the Serbian Army and in the interest of
6 establishing a more efficient defence system."
7 Were you able to follow what I was reading?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. And the text goes on to mention these detention facilities where
10 these people were detained and tortured. And in paragraph 2 -- or,
11 rather, item 2, in the latter part, it says that these people were
12 brought in without any records being made. It mentions physical abuse
13 that resulted in the death of 11 persons.
14 Do you agree that this is in the criminal report?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... I apologise to
17 you and to everybody else. I was confusing the time we rise with the
18 time we resume. So it is time for a break.
19 So we resume in 20 minutes.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Peric, we will now take a break. In the meantime, would you
22 kindly look at this document, including the next page, because I will
23 have questions relating to that as well.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.11 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
1 JUDGE HALL: Before you begin, Mr. Krgovic, we just wish to
2 acknowledge the receipt of the batting order from the Office of the
3 Prosecution, for which we thank them.
4 MS. KORNER: You've just taken me by surprise, Your Honour,
5 because I hadn't realised you'd been given it. It hope it's the revised
6 one, which should have just one witness for all of next week.
7 JUDGE HALL: So we've been alerted.
8 MS. KORNER: Yes.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, please continue.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Peric, can you hear me?
12 Did you have an opportunity to look at this criminal report
13 during the break?
14 A. Yes. The copy is bad, but I was able to see what it is about.
15 Q. Basically, among the crimes, you have beatings and unlawful
16 arrest and then the beating up ending in the death of 11 people.
17 On the next page, there is the crime of removal of a number of
18 people. That's on page 5 and paragraph 5 as well. Which states that
19 they were taken to an unknown location and that more than 30 people were
20 killed that had been imprisoned on the premises of the Teslic SJB.
21 In addition to that, it says that they had committed a crime of
22 murdering Hajrudin Becirevic?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Mr. Peric, there is also mentioned here of the circumstances of
25 their arrest and how the death of a person occurred during the arrest.
1 If you can be of help, when we speak about elements of crime
2 here, in this report it says that they are reported for the crimes as
3 stated therein and appropriate qualifications were provided in line with
4 the regulations in force. When a prosecutor refers a criminal report,
5 you, as I can see here, immediately or actually virtually re-wrote this
6 criminal investigation and put in a request for investigation?
7 A. That was the preliminary qualification. The proper qualification
8 comes after investigation.
9 Q. That means that this initial qualification is not binding on the
10 prosecution and the court? Proper qualification should be carried out
11 after investigation?
12 A. That's correct. Proper qualification follows the investigation.
13 Q. And if you compare these criminal offences listed here and if you
14 look at the crucial elements of the crime, you will agree with me, won't
15 you, that some of them can be categorised, as you said in your report, as
16 war crimes. Is that right?
17 A. Yes, I think that some of these crimes can certainly be qualified
18 as war crimes.
19 Q. And now, these crimes committed in this way and under such
20 circumstances are being tried in Bosnia and Herzegovina as war crimes
21 based on this type of reports?
22 A. Yes. These kind of crimes are being prosecuted by the BH court.
23 Q. And some of those crimes are based on this and similar reports;
24 is that right?
25 A. Yes, on similar reports.
1 Q. And the prosecutor is not bound to acknowledge the qualification
2 of the crime provided by those who filed a report?
3 A. Yes, that's correct. And, on the other hand, the court is not
4 bound by the qualification provided by the prosecutor.
5 Q. When we speak about filing criminal reports and the issue of
6 jurisdiction, the prosecutor and the investigating court also does not
7 rely on jurisdiction contained in the report. They can always defer this
8 to the competent prosecutor or the competent court. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And inasmuch as I was able to understand your testimony, in
11 July 1992, although among these persons were members of the military, a
12 separate group of military personnel, you prosecuted these people
13 precisely because they were linked with the perpetrators who were not
14 members of the military.
15 A. Yes. We actually applied jurisdiction that we had on all
17 Q. Since there was no objection by the defence or by the
18 perpetrators, you continued these proceedings ex officio?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And in the event of an objection to the territorial jurisdiction,
21 you should have declared your substantive jurisdiction.
22 A. I think that would fall under the jurisdiction of the military
24 Q. I'm sorry. I was talking about substantive jurisdiction;
25 whereas, in the transcript, it says territorial jurisdiction.
1 You will agree with me that we are talking here about substantive
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. One more thing: I can see in this file that there were some
5 supplemental information provided and that after the file had been --
6 after the report had been filed by the police, they provided some
7 additional statements. Can you find them?
8 A. I believe I remember these supplemental -- this supplemental
9 information. I think that these -- this information referred to the
10 injured parties.
11 Q. Because there was no time for a number of injured parties to hear
12 within such a sort period of time; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Mr. Peric, while writing this criminal report, you received a
15 thorough and detailed case file which was processed in a proper manner?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Which facilitated your conduct of the proceedings; right?
18 A. Absolutely.
19 Q. Mr. Peric, are you familiar with the fact, apart from what you
20 saw in the file, that these Muslims and Croats who were detained made
21 statements in which they spoke of -- about how they had been armed? It
22 contained certain information about illegal provision of weapons,
23 although that was not the subject of the interest of people who took the
24 statement but that was just mentioned in passing. Is that right?
25 A. I don't remember. It is possible that we spoke about that.
1 Q. I don't know if can you find it. There are a few statements that
2 speak about the arming, but I cannot find them at the moment.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please speak slowly and
4 repeat the ERN number. Thank you.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic. Mr. Krgovic, you were asked by the
6 interpreters if you would be good enough to repeat the ERN number.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 0211-7148. That's ERN number from
8 Exhibit P1363.
9 Q. You can see that this is Emin Rizvanovic's statement.
10 Did you find it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It's marked as attachment 33.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Look at the second sentence in this statement where he says that
15 he hadn't taken part in any military and paramilitary formations. He
16 been brought in because of a semi-automatic rifle that he acquired before
17 the outbreak?
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters are kindly asking the speakers
19 not to overlap.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. You can see that this issue of arming was just mentioned in
22 passing because that was not the principal subject.
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Mr. Peric, you spoke today, in response to Mr. Cvijetic's
25 question and also the Prosecutor's question, you spoke about certain
1 proceedings and criminal reports filed in Teslic in 1992. And the
2 Prosecutor showed you the log-book containing these criminal reports.
3 However, I'd like to show you a number of criminal reports that basically
4 confirm what you said to the effect that the majority of these crimes
5 were committed by uniformed personnel.
6 Can you please look at tab 1D, provided to you by Mr. Cvijetic,
7 I'm going to try, although some of those documents haven't been
8 translated, I'll just go briefly through each of them just for you to
9 confirm to me the identity of the person and the crime to which the
10 report refers.
11 So please look at the tab number 6. Actually, it's the list
12 provided by Mr. Cvijetic, 1D, and the exhibit is under tab 6.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And for transcript, it's 1D01-0303.
14 We have a translation of this document.
15 Q. This is a criminal report filed in August 1992 against a Serb, a
16 reserve police officer, who had attempted to steal a car from a Muslim;
17 is that correct?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. And he also seised a number of belongings from that person. Do
20 you remember this criminal report?
21 A. No, I really don't. I don't remember the details.
22 Q. Look at this handwritten number which is KI --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. This is a number from your log-book.
25 A. Yes. I'm sure that it has been recorded in the log-book.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this
2 document into evidence.
3 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D00075. Thank you, Your Honours.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Peric, can we please turn next page - tab 27 - and that's
7 1D03-2621. It's a criminal report from September, comprising four
8 individuals; is that right?
9 A. Just give me time to find it.
10 Q. It's in tab 7.
11 A. Number 7?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Four individuals?
14 Q. Stanko Marjanovic, Dragan Toprek, Zoran Kolobaric, and
15 Mladen Markovic, and I can see that they're all Serbs. Is that right?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. What I find interesting is that this criminal report was
18 filed - and you can find that on the last page, which is page 5 - by the
19 police, which is to say, by the chief of police station, Jokic?
20 A. Yes, it was filed by the police.
21 Q. And basically this refers to members of the military. All of
22 these persons were members of the military.
23 If you look at number 1, it's a reserve soldier in the
24 9th Brigade. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes. Yes, they were all soldiers. According to the report, they
1 were all deserters.
2 Q. And if you look at page 2, and when you look at the description
3 of the criminal offence, line 5 from the top, on page 2, you can see that
4 they all were dressed in military uniform. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes. And they all had military-issue weapons.
6 Q. And if you look who the injured party was, you can see -- I think
7 it's -- it's on line 20, was Meho Hamidovic, aka Smajo, and that actually
8 he -- they killed him. So this criminal offence was qualified as murder.
9 It's line 19; you can see who the victim is. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Furthermore, on page 3 of the same criminal report, where events
12 of the 27th of August are described, where the criminal offence was
13 carried out and the victims were Zukic and his son, both of them Muslims.
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. If we look at the description, in addition to robbing them, they
16 also fired and injured one of the two and after that robbed him. Isn't
17 that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On the very same day, they threatened the injured party
20 Smajo Hamidovic and took some of his property that was in his house.
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. On page 4, please look at the description of the criminal
23 offence. Again, in this hamlet where the Hamidovics lived, they
24 committed an offence where the injured party was Hamidovic, Hamid; again
25 a Muslim.
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, would like to tender
3 this document into evidence. I think that the translation is available.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D00076.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 JUDGE HALL: Please continue, Mr. Krgovic.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Peric, I would like to ask you to take a look at a document
11 that's under tab 8 in the binder that you have.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's 1D00-6709.
13 Q. As we can see here, Mr. Peric, this is another criminal report.
14 Please take a look at the following page, again signed by the chief of
15 the station, Radomir Jokic.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. It's a report against four persons again. And, as far as can I
18 see, all four of them are members of the army.
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. I apologise, I misled you. Person under number 3 is not a
21 soldier; it's a lady. It's Natasa Petkovic.
22 All the men are members of the army, and the offence was against
23 Muharem Demir, who is a Muslim.
24 A. That's correct.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd like to tender
1 this document into evidence.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D00077. Thank you, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, I have a problem finding it. You
5 said it's tab number -- I can't remember. But in tab number 8 in --
6 in -- in your binder, in the binder of Mr. Cvijetic?
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, in Mr. Cvijetic's binder.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Tab 8 you say.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if it helps, it's also in the KT book.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: I see.
11 MS. KORNER: Although not with the details, because we went
12 through this yesterday. It's number 166 in the KT book.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: I found it now. Thank you very much.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Let me show you the following document in Mr. Cvijetic's binder,
16 under tab 9.
17 This is a report that accompanied the criminal report against
18 Kolobaric, Zoran; Markovic, Mladen; and Toprek, Dragan who again dressed
19 in military uniforms, opened fire, and issued threats to the citizens of
20 the village of Gornji Ruzevic, especially Meho Todorovic [phoen]?
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. It's 1D03-1268.
22 Q. The village of Gornji Ruzevici was a Muslim-inhabited village?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And these are the individuals that, based on a the previous
25 criminal report, we established have been members of the army?
1 A. That's correct.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to submit or tender
3 this document into evidence as well.
4 Q. Mr. Peric, Radomir Jokic is again the person who signed the
5 criminal report?
6 A. Yes, the chief of the station.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, can I just ask you the purpose of
8 tendering these documents. Is that to show that the public prosecutor in
9 Teslic was actually filing criminal reports concerning perpetrators who
10 belonged to the army?
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this whole line of
12 questioning of this witness -- and this is something I want to get a
13 confirmation of, that this whole series of crimes in Teslic were
14 committed by the army. And we can see here in the absence -- because
15 army wasn't doing anything or taking any measures to prosecute such
16 perpetrators. In cases where it was possible, and witness did explain
17 that to us, it was the police who tried to bring charges, to file
18 criminal reports, and to start the investigation. You will see later on,
19 when we follow the history of these crimes, we will see that they were
20 transferred to other instances, probably because jurisdiction change
22 I would just like to have the witness confirm events in the
23 relevant period for which he submitted a report between July and
24 September 1992, so that -- so that we would have not only his agreement
25 to my propositions but also evidence that would corroborate it.
1 The Prosecutor submitted or tendered the log-book, and now I'm
2 illustrating it by these criminal reports. There is a larger number of
3 criminal reports than the number the witness calculated using the
5 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
6 Sorry. We're conflating two slightly different things here. The
7 ones that Mr. Krgovic has gone through are the ones that I draw the
8 witness's attention to yesterday when I was dealing with them as entries
9 in the log-books because we didn't have translations which the Defence
10 have provided.
11 But there are two different things: One, is how many Serbs were
12 prosecuted for crimes against non-Serbs, which was the purpose of our
13 leading that evidence. Whether they're army or not is something that
14 Mr. Krgovic wants to bring up. But I'm not quite clear what other point
15 Mr. Krgovic says he's making by this. Because these are accepted. Where
16 the Prosecution -- Mr. Krgovic is saying that there are others which were
17 not translated. That's another matter. Perhaps he can take him straight
18 -- straight to those ones which we say -- which he says we've missed.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what I'm trying to
20 show: In addition to reports, there were documents accompanying them.
21 In order to be sure when Mr. Peric is speaking about the number of people
22 who were reported in criminal reports, what we can do by examining
23 criminal reports we can see the number of offences and perpetrators. So
24 this will -- this will enable us to see the offences, the identity of
25 perpetrators, and identity of the injure parties. And you will see that
1 in all of the cases we have crimes committed by Serbs against Muslims.
2 If the Prosecution is willing to stipulate that, I can just give
3 you a list of the criminal reports and their numbers. If -- if that's
4 not a contentious issue, we can do it like that.
5 JUDGE HALL: Inasmuch as it would be physically impossible to
6 list all of the reports that -- that exist, I assume that there were --
7 that you selected a representative number that you sought to tender.
8 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
9 I don't think so. There aren't -- that's our case. And if
10 Mr. Krgovic says we're wrong, then can he show us, but our case is there
11 are not hundreds of reports and no representative samples.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor is right. This is
13 only the materials that I have. Of course, that does not mean that I
14 will not find further evidence. We are in the middle an ongoing
15 investigation. We are trying to find whether there are criminal reports
16 in military prosecutor's office. But, at the moment, what I'm trying to
17 do is to tender these documents to show who the perpetrators were, what
18 their identity is, and to confirm - and this is my main point - to
19 confirm something that Mr. Peric already said. Namely, that majority of
20 such crimes were committed by soldiers.
21 JUDGE HALL: You seemed open to the suggestion that was put
22 forward a little earlier about stipulation in this regard, if the
23 Prosecution doesn't resist it?
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if -- as I say, we went through all --
25 Judge Peric went through the books to check. The simple question was,
1 What cases -- prosecutions during the relevant period were there of Serbs
2 for offences committed against non-Serbs. He came up with that list
3 which we went through at some speed yesterday.
4 I understand the suggestion from the Defence is that we may be
5 wrong. If they show, though, the other entries in the records to us and
6 it's quite clear that we were wrong, then we'll make that concession.
7 But I -- I don't know exactly -- as I say, the point that Mr. Krgovic is
8 trying to make, if it's simply that, then that's something we can look
9 at. If it's more than that, well, then, he may want to go on.
10 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to -- to my learned friend.
11 It is just a minor correction to the transcript, Your Honours.
12 It's page 61, line -- between line 4 and 8. The word used in the
13 transcript regarding the jurisdiction was "substantive jurisdiction." I
14 think the more appropriate word is, in legal terms, is "subject matter
16 So it should be just taken like that.
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: We understood that.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, I was under the impression that
21 there was some sort of consensus between the parties that albeit that
22 most of the cases that had been entered in the log-book, the KT log-book,
23 were cases concerning crimes committed by Serbs against Serbs, a few of
24 those cases did, in fact, concern crimes committed by Serbs against
1 And then I thought that your point that you have been bringing up
2 today was that the military prosecutor didn't function properly; that's
3 why the civilian or the public prosecutor had to do the job.
4 And so the question of the Chamber is, if you could elicit from
5 the witness now, whether it would be up for the public prosecutor anyway
6 to start the investigation and then, if it turned out that the
7 perpetrator belonged to the army, then hand over the case to the army.
8 And if the witness answers positively to this question, the next
9 question would then be: How many of the cases that you have now shown us
10 were actually handed over to the military prosecutor?
11 Is this a correct perception of the problem?
12 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Then please proceed.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Witness, you have heard Judge Harhoff's question. Can you please
16 answer it.
17 A. But, of course, it was essential to first determine the facts so
18 that one could determine whose jurisdiction it was. So police was
19 required to go through the investigative stage, and only then the
20 prosecutor could make a decision concerning the jurisdiction.
21 Q. The prosecutor could do one of the two things upon seeing that
22 it's not under his jurisdiction: To transfer the criminal report to the
23 relevant military prosecutor. Am I correct?
24 A. Yes. He could have done that. Or first start an investigation
25 and then transfer the case after the investigation. And, thirdly, was
1 the court who have transferred the case. The jurisdiction is an issue
2 that can be determined in the course of the proceedings.
3 Q. Based on this, you accepted some of the criminal reports and
4 acted upon them?
5 A. That is correct. We received the reports, collected evidence,
6 and then, later on, decisions were made about jurisdiction. The log-book
7 will show what was transferred to the military prosecutor's office at
8 what stage.
9 Q. We'll come to that. But also, certain number of the criminal
10 reports were submitted to the military prosecutor's office but through
12 A. It is possible that some reports were transferred to the military
13 prosecution. We've seen from one report that three persons were in a
14 military detention facility. So in cases like that, we probably
15 transferred the report, the criminal report, to the military prosecutor
16 because they were already in remand in their prison.
17 Q. We'll come to that. I'll show you several criminal reports of
18 that kind. They are in the binder that's before you.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you would allow me
20 to continue with this document, I have maybe four or five criminal
21 reports here -- or, rather, there's more. I think there's six of them
22 that cover the type of cases we've been discussing. So we have here
23 reports against members of the army. Then we have a report to the
24 military prosecutor but through the log-book from Teslic, which were then
25 transferred to the military prosecutor's office in Bijeljina.
1 JUDGE HALL: Six, you say? Please proceed. It seems that the
2 shortest way would be to have these exhibited.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: I will do my best, Your Honour.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, please find under 14. It's 1D03-1256.
5 It's a criminal report by the SJB Teslic that was submitted to the
6 Military Prosecutor Office in Bijeljina. It's your K number 177 -- your
7 KI number 177. Again, signed by the chief of the station Radomir Jokic.
8 This criminal report is against seven individuals. Individuals
9 under numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are all members of the army. And numbers 6
10 and 7 are civilians.
11 Am I correct?
12 A. Yes. We can see that in the report. But what is not clear to me
13 is how this can be a criminal report by the prosecutor office in Teslic.
14 It was transferred to Bijeljina. I'm not sure about this KU number 177.
15 Q. Well, this 177 number seems to indicate it went through your
17 A. I'm not sure. At least it shouldn't have. It could be the
18 log-book of the Military Prosecutor's Office.
19 Q. That means, Mr. Peric, that this criminal report, under number 14
20 and the criminal report under tab 15 -- could you look at that? It's
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Again, the Military Prosecutor's Office. It was transferred to
25 A. But not through the prosecutor's office in Teslic.
1 Q. It went directly to the Military Prosecutor's Office, and these
2 two do not fall under the number you mentioned.
3 A. No, certainly not.
4 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can I just confirm, therefore, so I can get
5 this straight, if that's all right. These do not -- these cases do not
6 appear in the KT log-book then?
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You see from these two reports that the persons were members of
9 the Teslic Brigade. Look at this document in tab 14. You mentioned that
10 there were Muslims included in one group of perpetrators.
11 A. Possibly. I know that there was a military unit, including
12 Muslim members, in the area of Pelagicevo in the Posavina area, so it
13 could have gone to the military court in Bijeljina and that the members
14 of that military unit were involved.
15 Q. The reason I'm showing you this -- look at page 2, item 14 --
16 tab 14, sorry.
17 You will see that there -- where this Kolobaric, Stanko, Mladic,
18 and another person -- it's just another part of the group that was
19 reported in your area?
20 A. It's possibly members of the same group but a different incident.
21 Q. This crime was against Muslims from Osivica village, from what I
23 A. Yes, correct.
24 Q. Teslic municipality.
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know if I
2 established enough link in order to have this document admitted, because
3 these persons are related, associated with one another. Perhaps the
4 document can be admitted if there is no objection.
5 MS. KORNER: I'm not objecting, Your Honours, no.
6 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 1D03-1268 shall be
8 Exhibit 2D00078.
9 Document tab 1D03-1256 shall be Exhibit 2D00079. While document
10 ID03-1625 shall be Exhibit 2D00080. Thank you, Your Honours.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Look also at the next document under tab 15; the numbers at the
13 end are 1625. These persons were reported, Jovicic Miodrag and another
14 person, concerning an incident in the Teslic. In the vicinity of the
15 health centre they shot at this Muslim, trying to kill him. A person by
16 the name of Halilovic. It was reported to the Military Prosecutor's
17 Office. Do you remember such incidents in Teslic?
18 A. Yes, I think -- I think that happened.
19 Q. Again, army personnel is involved.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I tender this as
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 2D00081. Thank you,
24 Your Honours.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Peric, you mentioned during examination-in-chief about those
2 criminal reports against unidentified perpetrators.
3 I would like to show you two criminal reports against
4 unidentified perpetrators, indicated in the original as NN perpetrators.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel tell us the number a bit faster.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's tab 12. 1D03-1275.
7 Q. This is a criminal report against an unidentified perpetrator,
8 and it's about racketeering against a family of Muslims in Osivica
9 village. Sorry. Firing from -- firing rockets -- firing rockets against
10 a family house belonging to a Muslim family.
11 A. Yes, it's from a hand-held rocket-launcher called Zolja.
12 Q. If you look further, you will see that the police came out of the
13 crime scene and that it was established that from a distance of 80 metres
14 from the Mahmutovic house projectiles were fired from a hand-held
15 launcher, Zolja.
16 As far as I know, this is a weapon currently in the arsenal of
17 the army in the Teslic area.
18 A. Yes, it was an army weapon.
19 Q. And if you look at the next document, 1D03-1272, tab 13, you will
20 see that these incidents happened within a sort span of time. And,
21 again, rockets were fired against a family house belonging to Muslims.
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. And I suppose it's the same weapon. A rocket-launcher is
24 mentioned. And the perpetrators were probably soldiers.
25 These things happened in Teslic at the time.
1 A. Yes. I believe the incidents of these crimes was quite high.
2 Q. I suppose that you will agree in prosecuting such crimes it was
3 rather difficult if the victim had no direct contact with the
4 perpetrator. If a rocket was fired from a certain distance, it was
5 difficult to identify the perpetrators beyond suspecting that they were
7 A. Certainly. It was very difficult. You could only suppose this
8 could have been done by people outside of the army, because sometimes
9 these weapons were in the hands of civilians, not only army personnel.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we assign
11 exhibit numbers to these two documents.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please. I think the previous
13 document, 1D03-1625, has been assigned two -- yeah, two numbers.
14 80 and 81.
15 So I think that the next one has to be 81. 1D1275 has to be
16 number 81.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. 1D03-1275 shall be
18 Exhibit 2D00081, while 1D03-1272 shall be begin Exhibit 2D00083. Thank
19 you, Your Honours.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 THE REGISTRAR: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I just want to correct
22 that. 1D03-1275 shall be Exhibit 2D00081. While 1D03-1272 shall be
23 Exhibit 2D00082. Thank you.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Now, Mr. Peric, with regard to unidentified perpetrators, I will
1 show you a document that relates the efforts of the police to deal with
2 such things. And now, in my binder, would you look at the last document,
3 number 14. It's 1D00-2248. Not the binder shown to you by Mr. Cvijetic,
4 but my binder.
5 While the employees of the CSB were trying to restore order, I
6 don't suppose that there were any complaints from you or the citizens to
7 the work of the station?
8 A. No, I don't remember any complaints.
9 Q. You will see a letter sent to crime investigation services. I
10 don't know if the chief of the sector informed you of this; Djuro Bulic
11 was the chief of the sector in the Banja Luka centre?
12 A. I heard of him.
13 Q. The CSB is requesting information from public security stations
14 in the region, more specifically from crime investigation departments.
15 It is addressed to chiefs. And he requests that -- not later, that
16 22nd November, 1992
17 crimes which occurred on their territory starting with January 1, 1991,
18 and referring to unidentified perpetrators. Crimes belonging within the
19 jurisdiction of the crime investigation service are listed; killing,
20 aggravated robbery, drug trafficking, crimes perpetrated by police
21 employees, explosions, sabotage, business crime, white-collar crime, and
22 other serious crimes, in brackets we see war crimes and such, committed,
23 we repeat, by unidentified perpetrators.
24 Mr. Peric, this appears to be an effort by the
25 Security Services Centre to deal with this problem of crimes reported
1 against unidentified perpetrators.
2 A. You can interpret it as such. I don't know what the real purpose
3 was, but, on the face of it, it seems so.
4 Q. Look at the last-but-one paragraph. It says:
5 "We need this to get a true picture of crime incidents in the
6 region in order to organise assistance from the level of the
7 Crime Investigation Service of the CSB."
8 In essence, the CSB where Stojan Zupljanin is working is
9 requesting this information to identify the problem and to do the same
10 thing that was done in Teslic in July 1992.
11 A. You may interpret it in that way.
12 Q. Regarding your experience with the CSB Banja Luka --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Ms. Korner, if something is funny, that you share
14 with us so that we could also -- is there any particular reason why you
15 are laughing?
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Peric, I apologise for this interruption.
18 Just one question: What is your experience of Stojan Zupljanin's
19 reaction and work regarding incidents involving unidentified
20 perpetrators? Is it your experience that he tried to deal with this
21 problem in the same way as indicated in this dispatch, to try to help
22 deal with the problem?
23 A. This could be interpreted in this -- in that way, but I don't
24 know what the real approach and attitude of Stojan Zupljanin and the CSB
25 was regarding the station in Teslic. I cannot say with any certainty one
1 way or another.
2 Q. Do you know that in these meetings you had at municipal level
3 together with MUP representatives, do you know that such requests were
4 made, that they reached the Teslic CSB -- sorry, public security station?
5 A. No, I don't know. But I know that if it were not from
6 Predrag Radulovic who came from Teslic originally, who knew the situation
7 well, I doubt very much that anything would have been done.
8 Q. Because essentially the problem in Teslic was that all the power
9 was concentrated at municipal level. It was a closed system.
10 A. Yes, that's true. I believe the Crisis Staff had all the power
11 and made all the key decision. But I don't know how -- how they related
12 to the supreme, the highest authorities, what the relationship was with
13 local authorities. I don't know what the attitude and approach of
14 Stojan Zupljanin was to the local structures.
15 Q. Are you aware that precisely because of these and similar events
16 in Teslic the leadership of the public security station in Teslic was
17 replaced for failing to deal with it?
18 A. Yes. It's true that they were replaced, but they later returned
19 in the same composition.
20 Q. There was a problem of jurisdiction between Doboj and Banja Luka
21 A. There must have been organisational problems that I know next to
22 nothing about.
23 Q. And in conclusion, Teslic finally went to the Doboj jurisdiction,
24 and it's still there?
25 A. I believe that Zupljanin and Bjelosevic were or the same level in
1 the structure. I don't know what the relationship was between Teslic and
2 Doboj. It's -- it's rather blurry, that situation, at least from my
4 Q. But administratively speaking, as far as the police is concerned
5 and the courts are concerned, Teslic belongs to this day to the
6 Doboj region?
7 A. Yes. Those two jurisdiction only. All the other administrative
8 jurisdiction fell within Banja Luka.
9 Q. Let me show you just one more criminal report.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's 1D03-1316.
11 Q. Your tab 19.
12 You see, it's a criminal report filed in 1993. But if you look
13 at the second page carefully, you will see that it concerns crimes
14 committed in 1992.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Nedjeljko Vukovic, named here, is a civilian; Rajko Trifunovic,
17 2nd lieutenant; Mile Arsenic, reservist with the 1st Battalion; and
18 Grujo Lazic, also reservist, with the 10th Battalion. The crimes
19 concerned were committed against Hamdija Potic [phoen],
20 Mehmed Ranic [phoen], Franjo Cosic [phoen], Kaja Cosic [phoen], all of
21 them Muslims or Croats?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. It was filed with the Teslic prosecutor office. It was filed in
24 1993 but concerns 1992.
25 A. It straddles 1992 and 1993, that is, end January 1993. It is a
1 crime of theft obviously lasting for a while.
2 Q. And the proceedings were ongoing before a Military Prosecutor's
3 Office, regardless of this report?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] May I request a number for this
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D00083.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I planned to embark
10 upon a new, albeit short, subject and show a new exhibit to the witness,
11 but I believe it's time to adjourn now. My examination so far went
12 rather more slowly than I expected.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, in terms of the time that you had
16 indicated that you would be with this witness, when we resume tomorrow,
17 you would have four minutes left. I don't know how you -- you said that
18 you have a short matter, so you would bear that in mind.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have another 20
20 minutes of examination left. I hope you will indulge me. Administrative
21 matters took up quite a while, and Mr. Cvijetic also has some time left.
22 I believe we still keep to the limit of time allocated for our
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. You're borrowing from his deposit.
25 I understand.
1 So we take the adjournment now, to resume at 9.00 tomorrow
2 morning in this courtroom.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
4 to be reconvened on Friday, the 21st day of
5 May, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.