1 Friday, 21 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
7 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T,
8 the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
9 Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 Good morning to everyone, including those in the field office.
12 The -- may we have the appearances, please.
13 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
14 Crispian Smith again for the Prosecution.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
16 Appearing for Mr. Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic and Eugene O'Sullivan.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
18 Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 Judge Peric, can you hear me?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 Mr. Krgovic indicated he has about 20 minutes left, so I would
24 invite him resume his cross-examination at this point. And, of course, I
25 remind you you're still on your oath.
1 WITNESS: BRANKO PERIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness testified through interpreter]
3 [Witness testified via videolink]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Peric.
6 Yesterday, if you remember, I showed you those criminal reports
7 that were filed directly, as you explained, to the military prosecutor's
8 office in Bijeljina concerning crimes committed in Teslic, and the
9 criminal reports were filed by the police. Do you remember that?
10 A. Yes, of course.
11 Q. And when you answered some questions by the Prosecutor and
12 provided us with some mini-statistics about the reported persons from the
13 area of Teslic, you did not include that number.
14 A. No, I couldn't have.
15 Q. If we wanted to have a real picture of how many people were
16 reported for what types of crimes, we would also need to have the
17 log-book of this military court in Bijeljina, right?
18 A. And the military court in Banja Luka, if you wish.
19 Q. Because criminal reports were filed to both criminal courts;
21 A. I suppose that there were criminal reports filed directly to them
22 as well.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Peric, I'd like to move to a different subject.
24 In the former Yugoslavia
25 in Republika Srpska, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, under Article 191, remand in
1 custody could be ordered for a number of reasons. If you want to look at
2 the Law on Criminal Procedure, it's P120 and your tab in the binder of
3 Mr. Cvijetic is 23.
4 Look at Article 191.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Have you found it, Your Honours?
6 That's ERN 0025-2976.
7 Q. It says remand in custody is always ordered against persons
8 suspected of committing a crime for which the law prescribes a certain
9 length sentence; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now turn the next page.
12 And look at the other standards. In paragraph 2, item 1, if the
13 person is hiding, or the identity cannot be determined, or, in the
14 presence of other circumstances pointing to a risk of escape.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. If there is a well-grounded suspicion that the person may destroy
17 evidence or interfere with the investigation, intimidate witnesses,
18 accomplices, or those hiding him.
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Point 3: If particular circumstances indicate the person may
21 continue the crime, complete the crime, or commit or execute a threat
22 already issued.
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. If the crime committed is subject to a ten-year sentence of
25 imprisonment, and the circumstances of the crime risk causing such a
1 disturbance among the citizens, that may endanger the investigation and
2 thus justifies remand in custody.
3 Now, after a person is remanded in custody and then the
4 investigating judge decides to terminate remand in custody within 30
5 days, that decision needs consent by the public prosecutor; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Peric, in this specific case of the Mice Group, all the legal
8 requirements for remand in custody were met for all those persons
10 A. Yes, all of them.
11 Q. Just help me from a technical point of view. Once remand in
12 custody is ordered and investigation starts, this KI number is given to
13 every decision made in the course of the investigation.
14 A. Every court decision.
15 Q. In this specific case, the number under which procedure was taken
16 against these persons for the crime in Teslic, the number is 35/92.
17 Now look at P15312 [as interpreted] that's in the prosecutor's
18 binder; tab 26.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Counsel, can you kindly repeat the number of that
20 exhibit, please.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's P1312; tab 26 in the
22 Prosecution binder.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Of which it has been removed, if I'm not wrong.
24 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] We removed it because I
25 wasn't going to use it, but I think it's in Judge Peric's binder. And we
1 can put it on the screen.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: And give the relevant numbers then, because it's
3 not on the list.
4 MS. KORNER: It's P1312.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Thank you.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Peric, have you found it? Have you found this document?
8 It's a decision to conduct investigation.
9 A. No. I have another document here. But if I remember well,
10 that's the right number.
11 Q. Now let us go back to this Mice case you spoke about.
12 The criminal report was filed against 16 persons, and the police
13 arrested and brought before an investigating judge 16 persons; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The investigating judge, on the 16th of July, terminated remand
16 in custody with your consent for three persons: Predrag Karagic,
17 Mr. Tadic, and Mr. Subotic?
18 A. Yes. I saw, I think, in the prison document that these persons
19 were released on the basis of a certain court decision.
20 Q. Look at tab 28 in the Prosecution's binder. It's P1314. That's
21 a letter from the President of the high court. Look at the first
22 sentence, where it says: "Under a subsequent decision from the
23 investigating judge, release was ordered for Predrag Subotic,
24 Zoran Tadic, and Predrag Karagic."
25 A. That's in the document.
1 Q. There were no legal requirements for their release from custody.
2 A. If remand in custody was terminated, then the legal requirements
4 Q. Were these persons members of the Mices Group?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. And the crime for which they were reported is certainly a serious
7 crime, subject to a prison sentence of over ten years.
8 A. I don't think they were permanent members of that group. I think
9 they joined two or three days before the arrest and they had not been
10 involved with all the other conduct with which the others were charged.
11 You can check that in the decision to investigate. I know that Karagic
12 was not based in Teslic. He was invited to come to Teslic.
13 I think these three persons came just three days before the
14 arrest. They're invited to join to work as a security detail or
15 something. I think that was all considered and it was found there was no
16 reason to keep them in custody.
17 MS. KORNER: I think there is a small problem going on here.
18 Nothing's on the screen at all. Oh, there we go.
19 But what Mr. Krgovic read out, "under a subsequent decision from
20 the investigating judge," I don't see those words anywhere.
21 I see the words 16th July 1992
22 that detention be cancelled," but I don't see anything subsequent -- or
23 anything as read out by Mr. Krgovic.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps it's not on the screen in
25 the translation.
1 MS. KORNER: Was that -- were you reading that -- you were
2 reading the second paragraph, were you? On the 16th -- which begins on
3 16th of July, 1992?
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. By a subsequent decision of
5 the investigating judge, that's the beginning of the paragraph I read.
6 Remand in custody was terminated.
7 Q. We're talking here about a Mr. Karagic who is currently on trial
8 before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for war crimes. I think he
9 was convicted to 22 years.
10 A. I think there was a trial, but I don't know if it was completed.
11 I don't know whether he was charged with war crimes either.
12 Q. Now please look at P1313. It's in the Prosecution binder,
13 tab 68.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, the last name of this
15 person is not "Karadzic"; it's Karagic.
16 Q. Could you please turn to page, in e-court, 30 and 30 in English.
17 In your copy, the number in the right top corner is 04155935.
18 A. What number? What are the last four numbers?
19 Q. 5935, in the right hand top corner.
20 A. All right.
21 Q. Have you found it? Now turn to the next page.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Look at 151, 152, 153, 154, and 155, and 156.
24 These are the Mices, right?
25 A. Yes. A military unit.
1 Q. And in the column on the right, on page 33, you will see, first,
2 that they were transferred to the prison in Doboj on the 17th of July,
4 A. I can't see it. Which column?
5 Q. It's the first column; the date of placement in prison. The
6 number on the page is 04155937. Just after the name.
7 A. Date of birth, place of birth, place of residence, date of
8 imprisonment. Yes, can I see it.
9 Q. You see that they were remanded in custody by the lower court in
10 Teslic, by decision KI 5/92.
11 A. I think they must have been remanded in custody earlier, because
12 this is not a decision to remand them in custody.
13 Q. Now look at the next column. They were released on the 24th of
14 July 1992?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And they were released, all these persons mentioned on this page,
17 based on -- or pursuant to the decision of the first instance court in
18 Teslic, KI, as mentioned here.
19 A. Yes, that's what it says. I suppose that there is a decision to
20 release them from prison, but I have problems understanding the decision
21 dated 11th of July, 1992, because that's not possible. They were
22 arrested on the 1st, and they must have been placed in custody on the
23 3rd. Anyway, much earlier than this date, so I don't know what this is
24 about. So if have you the decision we could take a look at it.
25 Q. I don't have it on me at the moment. The problem is that earlier
1 they were in police custody for three days?
2 A. But that expired on 3rd of July.
3 Q. And later on you will see from the criminal report the problem
4 was the jurisdiction with regard to their arrest. So they were put up in
5 the Kardijal, so they were not really in detention for a certain while.
6 A. Yeah, but it was detention, but only physically. They were not
7 in prison. They were in Kardijal, but they could have -- could have been
8 kept there only based on a relevant decision.
9 Q. And Kardijal is a hotel at Vanja Vrucica [phoen], right?
10 A. Yes, in Teslic, that is correct. That's where they were kept for
11 a while.
12 Q. So let us sum up Mr. Peric. All these persons I have mentioned,
13 six persons on this page, were released based on a decision of the first
14 instance court in Teslic, right?
15 A. I suppose that there is a decision on release from custody. This
16 group of persons was not involved in most of the crimes committed by the
17 group that belonged to the police, so that with regard to them, there
18 were no more reasons to keep them in detention and that's why their
19 custody was terminated.
20 Q. Sir, go back one page, please. That is page 0415935. And you
21 will see these two person, Roboljub Sjilic [phoen], and Ranko Stjuka?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That's serial numbers 149 and 150. And these two were released
24 pursuant to a decision of the first instance court in Teslic, file number
25 KI 35/92.
1 A. Probably. And probably they belonged to a military unit.
2 Q. Do you have a reason to doubt the truthfulness of the information
3 contained in this document, this log-book?
4 A. I believe that there is a decision on release of -- from
5 detention of this group of military personnel, because they were not
6 involved in most of the crimes committed by the members of this police
7 formation. I believe that was the only reason, but we should check by
8 looking at the decision and the reasons stated there.
9 Q. From this log-book it follows that the higher instance court in
10 Doboj terminated detention for Pijunovic, Tekic, Culibrk, Djuric, and
11 Spesevic [phoen]; correct?
12 A. Yes. Pursuant to an appeal by defence.
13 Q. In August 1992; correct?
14 A. Yes. Pursuant to an appeal by the defence.
15 Q. Talking about criminal reports against military personnel, isn't
16 it true that this military wing of the Mice was reported for the
17 execution of 40 Muslims at places outside Teslic?
18 A. Correct. Some of them took part in the execution, but they
19 admitted they did, which was established in the investigation.
20 Q. Mr. Peric, were there legal grounds for releasing this group of
21 persons from detention with regard to the circumstances, because for
22 murder the death penalty could be imposed and they -- it was required
23 that they remain in detention.
24 A. I believe that that was a court decision. They were transferred
25 to Doboj. Under the law, detention could be terminated after six months
1 so that regardless of this legal requirement, with regard to the
2 situation regarding their transfer to Doboj, detention would have been
3 terminated anyway. They were transferred to Doboj to be released. This
4 is obvious from the entire scenario of their transfer from Banja Luka
5 even think that they were not really in prison, that they were only filed
6 as being in prison, that they were on the list, but that they were
7 actually at large.
8 Q. How did the release of the Mice affect the police and the persons
9 who had arrested them? Namely, this group of hardboiled [as interpreted]
10 criminals was at once at large again. How did that affect the work of
11 the police? Very badly, right?
12 A. I don't know how it affected the work of the police. In Doboj,
13 this was hailed and celebrated in the streets. But to the people who had
14 arrested them, probably were not delighted by that.
15 Q. Immediately after that, there were threats to the people who had
16 arrested them, specifically Mr. Radulovic and the others. You know about
17 that, don't you?
18 A. No. No, I don't. I suppose there may have been threats due to
19 the circumstances of the arrest. You saw that there were injuries in the
20 process, torture, et cetera.
21 Q. And such a court decision to release them and this attitude
22 toward the arrest certainly discourages the police and undermines their
23 work, because we saw that this case was perfectly processed and then the
24 criminals were released.
25 A. Well, that is your conclusion. I need more context to comment.
1 From this point of view, I cannot draw conclusions as to how this may
2 have affected the police and the military psychologically or Teslic,
3 Doboj, or Banja Luka.
4 Q. You saw that brigade report that I showed which -- from which it
5 follows that the soldiers from the brigade complain about the Mice
6 re-appearing. It is a known fact that the Mice appeared again and
7 started threatening the people who had arrested them?
8 A. Some of them came to Teslic and those were the reactions. But,
9 at the time, I didn't even know that they were coming to Teslic again.
10 But obviously they started reappearing in some situations. You must bear
11 in mind that the relations between Teslic and Doboj throughout the war
12 were very bad.
13 Q. Mr. Peric, let's me sum up and finish this topic.
14 These people, even today -- or, rather, there are no proceedings
15 against these people even today for the crimes they committed in Teslic;
17 A. That is unfortunately true, with the exception of Karagic.
18 Q. Mr. Radulovic even today has problems because of this arrest and
19 the investigation he conducted, right?
20 A. I don't know that. Mr. Radulovic is an attorney nowadays, as far
21 as I know, and I don't know of any problems, or his problems.
22 Q. And these criminals who committed these offences are at large.
23 And Mr. Radulovic is now an attorney, and Mr. Zupljanin, who ordered the
24 arrest, is standing trial for the crimes of these Mice.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer. We
1 didn't hear the answer to this last question.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, apart from the fact that it's a
3 comment and not a question. I don't know what the question was and I
4 don't know what the answer was because we didn't get the translation. I
5 didn't hear anything that Mr. Krgovic said at the end.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. I asked you about these facts about the result of all this, that
11 the Mice are at large, Mr. Radulovic is no longer with the police,
12 Mr. Zupljanin is standing trial -- Mr. Zupljanin who ordered the arrest
13 of these Mice is standing trial for the crimes they committed.
14 MS. KORNER: Yes, just a minute. That's not a question. It's a
15 comment, and I object to that.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. But is -- is what I said correct and true -- or, rather, do you
18 know that? Do you know that?
19 MS. KORNER: It's still a comment, and it's not a question.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Naturally. Of course, I know.
21 Today I'm certainly aware of that.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Peric. No more questions.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic. Mr. Krgovic, please, could you
25 assist me from where we have the evidence that Mr. Zupljanin ordered the
1 arrests of the Mice Group?
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
12 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] Redacted.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry, Ms. Korner, please. Can I just reply to
14 Mr. --
15 MS. KORNER: You can, but, Your Honour, it needs to be redacted;
16 the whole speech by Mr. Krgovic.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for this, I mentioned
18 about the gentleman. Yes, I agree that this should be redacted.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, it should be redacted.
20 My comment was just that I'm aware of the evidence that we had
21 from previous witnesses. I just wanted to make sure that we have not
22 received this evidence from this witness. That was my question. Thanks.
23 MS. KORNER: And Your Honours, as a matter of interest, we
24 haven't had that witness from any witness directly either. So it -- what
25 Mr. Krgovic has said is not correct. Having said that, I anticipate that
1 is the evidence that will be given.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 get our attention. Perhaps his counsel.
4 Is this -- Mr. Krgovic, is there --
5 MR. KRGOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't have further
7 JUDGE HALL
9 MS. KORNER: Yes I do, Your Honours.
10 Re-examination by Ms. Korner:
11 Q. Judge, first of all, I want to deal with the question of your
12 resignation about which you were asked yesterday, and your interview was
13 referred to by Mr. Cvijetic. I think we better just have that up.
14 MS. KORNER: It's page 4 of the second interview. Sorry. Oh, 65
15 ter 10359.02. And as it's -- the fourth, yes, the fourth page at the
17 No, that's not it. Page 4, please. Yep.
18 Q. At the bottom of the page you were asked:
19 What was the reason given why they wanted you removed?
20 And you said:
21 They gave several reasons. Amongst other things, they wrote that
22 before the war I'd associated with a Muslim man who was a war criminal,
23 and this was a young man I used to have a publishing house together with
24 from Bosanski Brod. And I did associate with him before the war. He was
25 a poet, he was a painter.
1 And you go on to describe that. And then you said at the end of
2 that paragraph:
3 And this is the main reason they stated, for when they said that
4 I wasn't a Serb, that I didn't support the state, and that I didn't
5 support their politics or their policy.
6 And could we go to the next page, please, the top of it.
7 Then they said that I also wrote for Nin, and I remember them
8 saying that I was the ideologist behind the creation of the socialist
9 party in Teslic, that I was providing assistance to certain people within
10 the socialist party, which is in fact true because there was a group of
11 people within that party who were the opposition, the only opposition to
12 the SDS
13 against the SDS
14 Was there any reason ever suggested ... you were not performing
15 your duties properly as a public prosecutor?
16 Not at all. There was not a single sentence in connection with
18 MS. KORNER: Right. Can we go back to the Judge. Yes.
19 Q. Judge Peric, you said that in interview in 2002. Was that your
20 view at the time and is it your view today of why you were removed?
21 A. That is completely true. I saw that SDS document from Teslic. I
22 wrote it in its entirety. It was brought to me by the chief prosecutor
23 to show me who demands my removal and why. And that there had been
24 several such letter and that he was saying to Karagic several times that
25 I was a regular prosecutor and that there was no reason for him to remove
1 him, and finally he was told, Either you remove Peric or I remove you,
2 because I cannot cope with this Knezovic and the deputies from Teslic
4 Q. Right. Now, that was reopened the question of your resignation
5 by Mr. Cvijetic who showed you a document for which there was no
6 translation available and read you a selected bit. And that's at page
7 10572 of the transcript. And the document, for which there is now a
8 translation, is 1D277 -- sorry, it was at page -- I think it was at a
9 later stage you were shown this document.
10 Anyhow, can we have it up, please, 1D277. I don't think it was
12 JUDGE HALL
13 MS. KORNER: Oh was it.
14 Q. And what you said about it, Judge, when you were shown it, with
15 the implication, I imagine, that you were corrupt, although it wasn't
16 stated in those terms, because you were asked about the apartment that
17 you got?
18 MS. KORNER: Sorry, it's page 10580 and 81 of the transcript
20 Q. And you said Mr. Rade Pavlovic was a man who was not supporting
21 the policies of the SDS
22 the claims here about his criminal activities is untrue. The purpose of
23 it was to discredit him and to dismiss him. He was a man with a
24 reputation with authority who was protecting his employees of Bosniak and
25 Croat nationality, and the SDS
1 I'm not interested in this, said Mr. Cvijetic, only the bit
2 related to you.
3 Well, now let's have a look at what is clear from the letter or
4 the report I should say. Can we have it up on the screen, please. And
5 go in it to the -- it will be the fourth page, please, in English.
6 That's the bottom of page 3 of the English, I think. Sorry, can we go
7 back one page in English, and I don't know where it is in B/C/S at all.
8 Yes, that last paragraph, please.
9 Page 4 of B/C/S.
10 This is the report:
11 After a litany of complaint about his alleged corrupt activities,
12 in which you were dragged into it, his stance towards Muslims and Croats
13 who are moving out voluntarily is rather unorthodox, especially in the
14 current climate. He gives valuable gifts to more prominent Muslims and
15 Croats who are leaving as a sign of gratitude, in inverted commas, for
16 everything they have given to Teslic. In these circumstances, he never
17 fails to apologise to the Muslims and Croats for having to leave their
18 hearths, adding that there are many Serbs who regret their leaving.
19 Because of such actions on his part Radio Tesanj has --
20 Could we go to the next page.
21 -- has been of late referring to Pavlovic as the most humane Serb
22 and in other laudatory terms.
23 Is that, Judge Peric, what you were referring to when you give
24 that answer to Mr. Cvijetic?
25 A. Yes, that's correct. Pavlovic was really an honourable man who
1 want to help people, and I also wanted to help Pavlovic for that
2 apartment to be preserved for the people who had renovated it and lived
3 in it. That was a complete lie. If that was an official police report,
4 you can see what the police were dealing with. Pavlovic was never
5 accused or suspected. They tried to remove him after the war. They
6 circled his company and there was a clash between the workers and the
7 police, and he was -- he was a nuisance to many people, but such reports
8 were a complete fabrication.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: On page 16, line 13,
10 of the current transcript the first word should be "read," "I read it in
11 its entirety."
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't know whether Your Honours want
13 this to be exhibited. Your Honours, I do say that it would have been
14 proper for Mr. Cvijetic, knowing there was no translation and having
15 heard the answer the Judge, to have referred him there and then or at
16 least us to that paragraph.
17 Now, can I -- as I say, I don't know whether Your Honours think
18 this is something that you want to have exhibited.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 cross-examination was to attack the credibility and honesty of this
21 witness, and this was a document relied on, in order to give a context to
22 that bit of evidence I should it should be exhibited.
23 MS. KORNER: Well, then, Your Honours now that we've got the
24 translation, Your Honours have seen exactly what this is about.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 marked for identification so -- yes, so it would -- that -- that would
2 now be lifted.
3 MS. KORNER:
4 Q. Can I move then, Judge Peric, to another matter that you were
5 asked about Mr. Cvijetic, and this is at page 10560 of the transcript.
6 You were being taken through the Criminal Code and the duties of a
7 prosecutor. And --
8 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours, I just want to make sure I've
9 got the... yes.
10 Q. And it was put to you that citizens -- you were asked question at
11 the top of page:
12 Were you ever in a situation as a public prosecutor that a
13 citizen comes to you and verbally tells that you a crime was committed
14 and that he or she wants the proceeding to be launched against the
16 No. I've been a prosecutor for three years and I was a
17 prosecutor for three years, I've never been in such a situation.
18 Citizens normally report crimes to the police and never has any citizen
19 come to me to report a crime.
20 Now, first, leaving that aside for a moment, supposing a citizen
21 had filed a criminal report with you, what would you have to do with that
22 criminal report? Who would be -- would have to investigate whether there
23 was substance to this report?
24 A. The police, of course. What I would do with the report is write
25 a letter to the police and ask police inspectors to collect information
1 related to that report, to question certain persons, et cetera. Simply
2 collect evidence. I, as a prosecutor, could not do that. I could
3 possibly invite some persons to talk to them, but this was mostly done
4 through the police. And this procedure applies to date. Even the
5 minister would ask the police and other agencies to provide logistical
6 support in collecting evidence.
7 Q. All right. You say you never ever had a citizen reporting a
8 crime to you in the whole of your three years as a prosecutor; is that
10 A. Correct. It's simply part of our legal culture. It is the
11 police to which crimes are reported and it is the police that enforces
12 security, protects public order and morale.
13 Q. Next, can I move to another matter that you were asked about.
14 And that was the processing, if you like, of an investigation.
15 It was put to you:
16 Mr. Peric, let me summarise the position of the Defence in
17 relation to the implementation of the provisions you were looking at.
18 The prosecution of the perpetrators and their processing before the
19 judicial organs at the time was exclusively part of the authorities of
20 the public prosecutor, and then further processing would be under the
21 authority of the relevant court.
22 And your reply was:
23 Prosecution, yes, but preparation and collection of evidence was
24 something that had -- was to be done by the police. One must make a
25 distinction here.
1 So effectively, who conducted the first investigation?
2 A. Preliminary investigation in the pre-indictment stage was always
3 handled by the police. Always. And the results of these pre-indictment
4 steps were submitted to the prosecutor, either in the form of a criminal
5 report or by briefing the prosecutor about the steps that had been taken,
6 especially if they found there were no elements of crime.
7 Q. Right.
8 A. The police had a service, the Criminal Investigation Service,
9 which had its chief, and this service dealt exclusively with the
10 discovery of crime and collection of evidence. That was a special
11 service within the police.
12 Q. Now, once an investigative judge had become involved, who would
13 he have to rely on, for example, to arrest the perpetrators of the
14 alleged crimes?
15 A. On the police, of course, and only the police.
16 Q. Who would be responsible for locating the witnesses to the
18 A. The police, of course. They would have to find out his or her
19 address, bring him or her in, or even deliver a subpoena regarding
20 persons who did not want to appear in court. They had to rely solely on
21 the police. Otherwise, they would be unable to do their job.
22 Q. And was that the same in respect of the conduct of searches and
23 the seizure of evidence?
24 A. Correct. All the searches, all crime scene investigations.
25 Everything was done with the help of the police.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a moment of
2 your time.
3 Perhaps it would be fair to ask the witness on whose orders and
4 under whose supervision the police did that work when a case was in the
5 stage of investigation and who led all these procedures.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The prosecutor gives authority to
7 the police, unless he leads a particular investigating step. He could,
8 for instance, take charge of a crime scene investigation, but he could
9 also assign his authority to the police and did not normally take part in
10 those investigative steps.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Ms. Korner asked you who orders
12 these steps to be taken.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigating judge does not --
14 MS. KORNER: I truly object to this. I'm in the middle of
15 re-examination and suddenly Mr. Cvijetic gets up again to continue his
16 cross-examination. I mean -- this is outrageous.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, but Your Honours I -- I'm sorry, would
19 Your Honour like to point out to Mr. Cvijetic it's utterly improper.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I must explain with all due
21 respect that the witness has to be asked a fair question. The witness
22 was led to give a wrong answer. Well, only now did he give an answer
23 that is in conformity with the law. If we go on with questioning of this
24 kind, we will not get to the truth.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I do apologise. I just have an intervention
2 to the transcript. It's page 21, line 18, beginning with the word "They
3 had to rely," actually witness said, "the prosecution had to rely solely
4 on police." That was his word.
5 Maybe my learned friend, Ms. Korner, can clarify that with the
6 witness. Thank you.
7 MS. KORNER:
8 Q. Is that right, Judge Peric? Did you say the prosecution had to
9 rely. I understood you to say -- I was asking you -- can I make this
10 absolutely clear, the questions I asking related to once the
11 investigating judge was in charge of the investigation.
12 MS. KORNER: So I was not misleading the witness, and I take
13 strong objection to Mr. Cvijetic's intervention at any stage in the
14 middle of re-examination.
15 Now, I was asking specific questions about the time at which the
16 investigative judge became involved. On whom the investigative judge had
17 to rely.
18 Q. Now, Judge Peric, I'm sorry for this somewhat unseemly
19 interruption but --
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's wait for the witness to answer to be clear.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes, I'm just about to go back to this.
22 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologies. Judge answered on your question,
23 it was line 5:
24 "Is that right, Judge Peric? Did you say the prosecution had to
25 rely ..." and then he said, "yes," but it was not in the transcript so
1 maybe you can ask him again in relation to my objection to the
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. Judge Peric, when you were answering my questions - and I will go
6 back to the actual question and answer - I've forgotten what line you
7 said it was, now. 21, line 19. Right.
8 And I'll go back and read the whole series to you. My question
10 "Now once an investigative judge has become involved, who would
11 he have to rely on, for example, to arrest the perpetrators of the
12 alleged crimes?"
13 And your answer was:
14 "On the police, of course, and only the police."
15 "Q. Who would be responsible for locating the witnesses to the
17 "A. The police, of course. They would have to find out his or
18 her address, bring him or her in, or even deliver a subpoena regarding
19 the person who is did not want to appear in court. They had to rely
20 solely on the police."
21 Now did you say then instead of "they," "the prosecution"?
22 A. I can clarify. Everyone relies on the police. The prosecutor,
23 the investigating judge, and even the court, during trial, if it is
24 necessary to ensure the presence of a witness. At all stages, only the
25 police for the prosecutor and for the court and for the judge, the police
1 is the supporting body, the force that supports their work at all stages.
2 Q. Thank you. And one final question on this topic before I move to
3 the next. Is -- at what stage does an investigation become a
5 A. With the request to conduct an investigation.
6 Q. At that stage it's a prosecution as opposed to an investigation?
7 A. Correct. That's correct. Those are criminal proceedings.
8 MS. KORNER: I don't know, Your Honours. And I've lost track of
9 when -- is that about the time for the break?
10 JUDGE HALL
11 MS. KORNER: Oh, I see. Yes, I'm sorry. I've slightly lost
12 track this morning. Right.
13 Q. Can I then next move to the question, you were asked by, I
14 believe, Mr. Krgovic, this was, about the attacks on Stenjak and
15 Rankovici, of the operations which is 10957. Page 10957 in the
16 transcript. I apologies, 10597, yes. Yes, yes. You were asked about by
17 Mr. Krgovic about the military operations in Stenjak and Rankovici. And
18 it was put to you that you don't know anything about the reasons for the
19 operation or the causes of the operation; 10598.
20 And you said:
21 Yes, that's correct, I don't know anything about the details.
22 Now, I think we better clarify that because you were asked about
23 this in your interview, second interview at page 71. You were asked,
24 first of all, about Stenjak, and you described the attack -- perhaps we
25 better have the page up. Page 71 of this interview.
1 MS. KORNER: 10359.02. Page 71.
2 Q. The investigator said he was going to ask you about the military
3 operations in Stenjak and Rankovici. And you explained that it was a
4 large village, inhabited exclusively by Muslims, and you were asked:
5 Did you actually see the tank firing on Stenjak, and you said
6 that you heard it because it was about 2 to 3 [sic] metres away from the
8 And then it was one tank or is that other fire coming from
10 And you said, I think there was another one firing from the
11 direction of what is called the cattle market?
12 Was there any response, you were asked, any firing from the
14 I couldn't see that nor do I know that. I am not aware of any
15 resistance being put up. I never heard anything about it, but I remember
16 hearing that people said many people had left the village before the
18 And, next page, please.
19 You were asked, at the top of the page, next page.
20 So why do you think there was a military -- military operation
21 carried out there then.
22 Your answer was intimidation, to set an example for other
24 Then you were asked about the shells. And you said you didn't
25 see that anything was destroyed.
1 Did the infantry enter Stenjak, you were asked.
2 And you said, yes, I think it was the military and police groups
3 that entered, and I think that several people were killed. I was -- I
4 was told by -- about this by the people who actually buried those people
5 who got killed, and I think they couldn't even establish the identity of
6 two or three people who were killed.
7 And then you were asked if you knew had killed them, and you said
9 And then you were asked about Rankovici.
10 Now, first of all, dealing alone with Stenjak, that evidence that
11 you gave then or -- sorry, that information you gave then, was that your
12 recollection and understanding at the time that you gave this interview?
13 A. Yes, that's it. But I meant direct knowledge before that action.
14 That it would happen. Later, I heard about several dead who could be
15 identified. I heard the fire, because it was very close. I saw the tank
16 and the fire from the tank -- I heard the fire from the tank.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The dead who could
18 not be identified.
19 MS. KORNER:
20 Q. So when you were answering Mr. Krgovic's questions, you were
21 dealing with the direct -- whether you had direct information?
22 A. Yes, precisely.
23 Q. But you, yourself, heard the tank firing at the time of the --
24 the -- the attack on the village?
25 A. Yes, I heard of the tank. I perhaps even saw it because it was
1 200 metres away from the court-house by the road to Doboj. Stenjak is a
2 town neighbourhood. It's very central.
3 Q. All right. And then you moved on -- you were then asked about
4 Rankovici. If we just go back to the interview for a moment, the same
6 You then -- you thought it was on the 8th or 12th of May, and
7 then you corrected that to say it was June, later on.
8 And then at the bottom of the page you were asked, before we
9 cover Rankovici, do you think there's any relationship between the
10 arrival of the Mices and the attack on Stenjak.
11 And you -- it said, yes [sic], of course, it was their action,
13 And then over the next page.
14 How [sic] do you mean it was their operation.
15 They participated in the same [sic] thing -- sorry, the whole
16 thing. It was part of their strategy of installing order.
17 You were asked how did they participate.
18 I don't know.
19 And then the tanks, they didn't arrive with tanks, they were
20 regular army tanks.
21 No, they came to the brigade, to Bilanovic and Petricevic - I'm
22 sorry, that one I have a real difficulty with - was his duty, and it was
23 all co-ordinated with the Crisis Staff. They brought them in and
24 arranged for everything. They were just a tool in the strategy of the
25 Crisis Staff.
1 Let's talk about the attack on Rankovici. It was after the
2 attack of Stenjak; correct.
4 Can you describe the military operation that had happened in that
6 I can. Whatever I can tell you comes from the investigation we
7 conducted. Apparently, somebody from that village shot -- fired shots at
8 police or a military patrol. I don't know whether that's true or not.
9 Maybe this was just a way for them to justify their operation, but they
10 put that down as the reason for the operation. And then the police and
11 the army went there. It was the same as in Stenjak. It was a
12 co-ordinated action. Just in case the police, both the police and army.
13 And in this operation on Rankovici, one of the Mice was wounded and one
14 policeman or one man was killed.
15 And then you describe what happened afterwards.
16 So was this your conclusion, having investigated this matter as
17 to how this attack came about?
18 A. All that I said was based on what I heard during the
19 investigations we conducted at the court. I did not see anything with my
20 own eyes, and I did not participate.
21 Q. And when you talk about the -- a joint operation between the
22 military and the police, are you just talking about the Mices or other
23 members outside the Mices, or both the military and the police?
24 A. The local police was involved, the Mices, and the army.
25 Q. And then you were asked, over the page, just very briefly --
1 sorry, can we go back to ...
2 Yep. And then you talked about the interrogations you carried
3 out. You talked about what happened to the village -- the people who had
4 been in the village. You said Rankovici was a village exclusively
5 inhabited by Muslims. And you were asked then, were the Croats -- where
6 were the Croats based largely.
7 And you said, after this operation on Rankovici there was a
8 similar operation done on the village of Komusina
9 church is and the holy edifice as well. The Croatian villages gravitated
10 toward the Zenica municipal boundaries. So their town was towards the
11 end when the inside operations were finished.
12 And was that again something you discovered as a result of your
13 investigations into the Mice?
14 A. That happened later. And that's also indirect knowledge on my
15 part, regarding actions or people who participated.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't remember this arises from
17 my cross-examination. I don't remember mentioning Komusina and this
18 operation. We talked about two operations, Rankovici and Stenjak.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, as I understand it, the suggest -- I
20 know those are the only two villages mentioned, but the suggestion was
21 that in each case the judge was unaware of the actual nature of these
22 operations with which, on the face of it, the judge agreed, which is why
23 I was dealing with all of them, and the three operations run as one, even
24 though specifically Komusina wasn't mentioned.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 the [overlapping speakers].
2 MS. KORNER: Well, I dealt with the topic in any event.
3 Q. Can I move, please, to the next matter that was put to you,
4 namely, that after the Mice were arrested in July, and this is at page
5 10599, you said, in the period when the people from Banja Luka were
6 there, all Muslims and Croats that were in detention at different
7 locations were released with the exception of several against whom
8 indicts were issued and they were still being prosecuted.
9 Now from whom did you get the information that all of these
10 people who had been arrested by the Mice and were being held in various
11 detention places were released?
12 A. Got it from Radulovic Predrag. Together with him, I went to the
13 prison of the Territorial Defence because he invited me to be present at
14 the disbanding of that prison. So I came together with him to that
15 prison and was present when the detainees were released and regarding
16 other prison, I heard from him they were disbanded.
17 Q. Right. So the only one that you're aware of where you actually
18 saw people -- or you were present when people were released was the one
19 in the Territorial Defence building. And for the rest, you're relying on
20 information that Mr. Radulovic gave you; is that right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. All right. Well, Your Honours, I think that is now time for the
23 break because I'm moving to a marginally different topic.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE HALL
1 MS. KORNER: It will take me more than five minutes. But, Your
2 Honours, as I say, I completely lost track of when we're having breaks at
3 moment, but I'm perfectly happy to go on for another five.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 conveniently take the break at this time.
6 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL
9 do you think you would be in total in your re-examination?
10 MS. KORNER: No more than half an hour.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. Judge, just a couple more questions about the -- these detention
16 Were you aware that -- that there was a -- a detention facility
17 at Pribinic?
18 A. Yes, I was. There was even before the arrival of the Mice and I
19 believe that it was closed down, but it was re-opened when the Mice came,
20 as far as I know.
21 Q. Right. Were you aware that people were actually kept there until
22 the 5th -- at least the 5th of October?
23 A. I cannot assert that with certainty. It's a -- it's possible,
24 but I'm not sure.
25 Q. All right. And were you aware of another detention facility at
1 the partisan handball place?
2 A. I think it was a sort of open-air collection centre. It was not
3 a usual prison.
4 Q. No, I absolutely agree with you. But were you aware, again, that
5 apparently people were detained there, non-Serbs, until at least the 20th
6 of October?
7 A. I cannot comment this time reference, but I know that it existed,
8 and I saw people there.
9 Q. All right. Now, as I said, I wanted to move to another topic
10 that you were asked about.
11 It was put to you effectively that when you were looking -- when
12 you were asked to look again at your report for September - perhaps you'd
13 better have that.
14 It's in tab 84 for you, Judge, and the number is P1353.15.
15 And effectively you were asked about the section which is on --
16 just a moment ... find it myself. I think it's page 1, and you were
17 asked about the relationship between -- yes. It's the last
18 paragraph of -- paragraph 1, the introduction. Relations between the
19 public prosecutor's office and the public security station were within
20 the limits of correctness and professionalism, although they were marked
21 by subjective organisational weaknesses in one period.
22 And at page 10604, you were asked by Mr. Krgovic: Were you
23 referring to the time when the Mices were in Teslic.
24 And you said: Yes, that's the period I had in mind.
25 And then in the period after that, covered by your report, your
1 relations were good.
2 Yes, concerning the criminal reports that arrived, the
3 co-operation with regard to them was good.
4 Now, you told us yesterday -- when I was asking you questions
5 in-chief, that the police were not, in fact, reporting crimes to you. I
6 think I better find my actual question. I think you said it in your
7 interview as well.
8 When you talked about relations being bad during the period of
9 the Mice, were you referring to reports of crimes being not given to you
10 at all, obviously; or were you referring to something else?
11 What did you mean by "relations were good"?
12 A. This statement of mine refers to those cases that were processed
13 and good cooperation with regard to the cases or files that were
14 forwarded to the prosecutor's office.
15 With regard to that, the relations were good. All the reports
16 were professional, contained enough evidence, and professionally done.
17 That's what I meant. Everything in connection with those reports was all
19 Q. I see. Right. That's -- so it's in the reports that you
20 actually submitted.
21 All right. Thank you. That's clarified that. Thank you very
23 You were then -- it was put to you, and you agreed with it, and
24 this is on page 10603 of the transcript, that the main complaint about
25 crimes committed pertains to the army. And you said: Yes, that was the
1 greatest problem. The army did not have a -- doesn't quite make sense in
2 the transcript, but did not organise, I think it should be "organised"
3 the military police and did nothing to exert control over the armed
4 persons while those people were not at the front line.
5 You told the Court when I was asking you question about the type
6 of people that were being prosecuted, that I think that the people
7 processed were criminals of classical type so to speak, this is page
8 10537 of the transcript, and in the case where the people weren't
9 prosecuted, these were people either that were under the control of the
10 police, or the case was that maybe the police didn't want them to be
11 prosecuted. That's the only conclusion I can reach.
12 Now, were the -- the crimes only committed by those who were in
13 the military; or were there also those not in the military committing
15 A. That was my conclusion also. Whatever was not reported and
16 investigated, I suppose that was, in a way, under the control of either
17 the police or the military, or both. I cannot strictly distinguish
18 between the military and the police. I believe that there was some sort
19 of joint action. After all, both the commander and the chief of police
20 were members of the Crisis Staff, so they had to know about all these
22 I concluded from all that that cases of common crime were being
23 investigated, whereas other crimes were under some sort of control of
24 either the police or the military, or they were tolerated from a
25 political level. These -- these were my conclusions.
1 Q. Thank you. And then, really, finally, you were asked a number of
2 questions in relation to the entries in your register which show the
3 arrest of Serbs for crimes committed against non-Serbs.
4 And you were also -- it was effectively put to you that the
5 arrests of Croats and Muslims stopped once the Mice were out.
6 Now, in relation to the second aspect - that is, the arrest of
7 Croats and Muslims stopped once the Mice were removed - is that actually
9 A. That is right, but only applies to the period where -- while the
10 police from Banja Luka was there and carried out policing in Teslic.
11 After that, things went bad again.
12 Q. All right. And as -- it's right, I think, we can see from the KT
13 log-book, in fact, that there were further prosecutions of Muslims and
14 Croats for such things as armed rebellion and illegal possession of
16 Yes. Thank you very much, indeed, Judge Peric, for coming.
17 That's all I ask.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 Questioned by the Court:
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Judge Peric, when you are to deal with a group of
21 criminals and when proceedings are started against them, you normally
22 proceed against every member of the group, right?
23 A. That is correct.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Was there any decision ordering the arrest of
25 Mr. Savic, as far as you know?
1 A. No, there was no such decision. We never received one from the
2 police. I don't know what exactly the explanation was. Mr. Radulovic
3 could say more about that. I don't know why he was not included in the
4 criminal report.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: The fact that he was not in Teslic, that he
6 couldn't be found in Teslic, has nothing to do with the question whether
7 there are investigations, whether there are proceedings against him or
8 not. The fact that he is not there, not in Teslic, or cannot be found,
9 does not prevent investigations to be started against someone, right?
10 A. That is correct. But I believe that, at that moment, it wouldn't
11 have been possible to arrest him because he was in Doboj under the
12 control of the people who had sent him to Teslic. So for those reasons
13 at that moment we didn't carry out investigative measures with regard to
14 him. Instead, we waited for a more convenient moment. That's the only
15 reason I can mention.
16 I don't know why he was left out. It -- it was Predrag Radulovic
17 and the police who didn't include him in the criminal report.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: And if I'm not wrong, the same goes for, I don't
19 recall his name, but head of the military part of the group; is that
20 right? What was his name Petricevic or something like that?
21 A. That is correct, Ljubisa Petricevic. The explanation for him
22 that we received -- got for him was that he was taken to detention to
23 Banja Luka by the military police.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Judge. I also have just one small
2 question for you.
3 And my question relates to your testimony -- or not your
4 testimony, sorry, your interview with the Prosecution on the 10th of
5 January, 2002
6 statements on the screen. I would like you to see what, in the English
7 version, is page 7 of your statements to the Prosecution of 10th January,
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it is possible to bring it up. It's
10 10359.02. Tab 76 for the Judge.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Are you there, Judge.
12 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. He doesn't have it because
13 it wasn't in B/C/S. He listened to the tapes. It.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ah.
15 MS. KORNER: But it is up on the screen, and if Your Honour reads
16 it out in English, it will be translated to him.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
18 Judge, what I wanted to raise with you was the issue of political
19 pressure that was put on your office. And speak about this at several
20 places in your statement, and one of these places is on page 7, and I
21 will read out slowly to you what you said.
22 It was Ms. Korner who asked you whether what you told at the
23 first interview was right; namely - and this is a quotation of what you
25 "Most important was the pressure exerted on the police in
1 criminal, in that role, in criminal proceedings. Control exerted by the
2 political parties, in this case, the SDS. What were" - and this is
3 Ms. Korner's question to you - "what were, in your experience, happening
4 between May 1992 and roughly September or October 1992, what sort of
5 control was being brought on the police."
6 And your answer was:
7 "The chief of police was member of the Crisis Staff, and they had
8 meetings every morning. And they controlled the entire situation on the
9 territory of the municipalities. So, all the members of the Crisis Staff
10 knew what happened. And all the members of the Crisis Staff could
11 influence the chief of police as to what he would do. I even think they
12 asked the police to perform certain duties which did not fall into the
13 police duties and, on the other hand, do not imply what the police should
14 have done."
15 Judge, this was your response to Ms. Korner's questions at the
16 time, and I would like to follow up on your answer. Could you tell us a
17 bit about the political pressure that was being put on the police. And
18 my question would be: Was your office also under some sort of pressure
19 from the political level?
20 A. Yes, that is correct. What you read is my statement and I still
21 think today that influence was exerted on the police and that the police
22 was under political pressure.
23 The chief of police was, I believe, at the same time, the
24 president of the SDS
25 He knew -- he had access to information and could exert influence on the
1 police. When I said at the first meeting of -- that we didn't want to
2 take part in the work of the Crisis Staff and that we didn't want to be
3 involved in politics in any way, they left us in peace. They left us
4 alone. Only once was I called up to bring some file to the municipality,
5 and I answered that, And this is the last time you're asking something
6 like that from me.
7 But taking into consideration the huge number of unprocessed
8 cases, I believe that it was the position of the Crisis Staff that some
9 cases should not be investigated and, what's more, that some things
10 should be done in contravention of the law. But these are my
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks.
13 But, Judge, when you say that political pressure was also put on
14 the prosecutor's office, could you tell us a little more about just how
15 that pressure was exerted? You -- you seemed to have indicated just now
16 that you were left alone, and yet, in your previous answer, you seem to
17 imply that political pressure was, indeed, put on you.
18 So how was this political pressure applied?
19 A. I explained those were attempts of political influence and
20 pressure. I mentioned the case when we were invited to a meeting of the
21 Crisis Staff; and the second time I was asked to bring a file to the
22 president of the municipality; and the third indirect sort of pressure
23 was they wanted to remove me. But there was no other political pressure
24 on the public prosecutor's office.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: So your testimony today is that the political
1 pressure that was exerted was mainly on the police and not directly on
2 the prosecutor's office; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well then.
5 So your assertion that the police was under pressure, under
6 political pressure, is based on your observation that the chief of police
7 was member of the Crisis Staff.
8 Is that the way we should understand it?
9 A. Yes. A member of the Crisis Staff and the President of the
10 political party that had absolute power.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right so this leads to the next question.
12 Who was formulating the political pressure? Was that the
13 political party that you have just spoken of, the SDS; or was it in a
14 wider sense, the Crisis Staff? Are you able to make that distinction, if
15 such a distinction exists?
16 A. I think that it was the political party, the SDS who had the
17 dominant influences and the deputies who were members of that party.
18 If we want to establish a hierarchical connection, then it's the
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: So I understand that the SDS was controlling the
21 political priorities of the Crisis Staff in Teslic.
22 Is that -- that the way we should take this?
23 A. Yes. Those were the political priorities of the highest
24 government level and the local level. They were -- they belonged to the
25 same political party.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: What do you know exactly of this policy of the
3 it was a distinct and clear policy of the SDS to remove non-Serbs from
4 Teslic and its nearby villages?
5 A. I've never been able to make a conclusion as to the official
6 policy of the SDS
7 conclusions from what you observed or from what was happening in reality.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: And so your conclusion then is, that, based on
9 the events as they happened on the ground, you infer that it must have
10 been the policy of the SDS
11 Is that a correct reflection of your opinion?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Now, this policy that was then, in your view,
14 applied by the SDS
15 also applied in -- in Doboj and Banja Luka and other municipalities? Or
16 maybe throughout the Republika Srpska?
17 A. I cannot be certain. I believe that there were differences
18 between municipalities. There were some municipalities that were
19 considered extreme, that -- where was extreme nationalism and in others
20 there were no extreme occurrences so that the situation was rather
22 Doboj was considered one of the extreme municipalities, and it's
23 still considered one, in which the SDS has strong influence.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's get back to Teslic.
25 Do you know if any objections to the policy was ever raised in
1 the Crisis Staff in Teslic?
2 A. The only objections were outside the institutions,
3 non-institutional, because there was no political opposition. Only
4 people such as Rade Pavlovic and others who fought their own private war
5 against these structures and were rather successful in opposing them but
6 it wasn't very significant. But I haven't heard of any public or
7 institutionalised resistance or reactions or opposition.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, suppose someone from the police, or the
9 army, didn't want to go along with the priorities handed down by the
10 Crisis Staff, then what would happen? I mean, were you ever aware of any
11 such differences in opinion?
12 A. Well, that person would certainly be removed from their position.
13 I believe there were cases like that, although I can't remember any
14 particular ones now. There were many dismissals, removal, replacements,
15 brigade commanders were removed. New ones were brought in. The
16 situation was pretty chaotic. I don't know any details, but I suppose
17 anyone who didn't think the same had to tow the line or they would be
18 removed, or called up to the army, like I was, after my dismissal.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Now, finally, I would be grateful if you could
20 explain to us - if you know - a bit about the relations between the
21 Crisis Staff and -- and the army. And the reason I'm putting this
22 question is that, ordinarily, after the declaration of an imminent threat
23 of war, one would assume that the -- that the army was in control of all
24 activities in the area, yet you seem to suggest that it was really the
25 Crisis Staff that was controlling events in the areas.
1 So, you know, it couldn't be both ways. Either it was the army
2 who decided and the army would then have taken control over -- and
3 authority over the police, or it was the Crisis Staff.
4 How was this dual authority exercised in -- in real terms; do you
6 A. Yes. I'll try.
7 I think Teslic was a rather peculiar case in that sense. The
8 army did not have control over the Crisis Staff. On the other hand, the
9 Crisis Staff -- sorry, the SDS
10 Crisis Staff and officers inclined towards the SDS were made brigade
11 commanders, and there was constantly talk that Teslic needs commanders
12 who were natives of Teslic rather than commanders from outside.
13 I know that former JNA officers were not popular because they
14 were thought to be closer to the socialist party and that they were not
15 patriotic enough.
16 I think the Crisis Staff had the key role rather than brigade
17 commanders in the army.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Judge. That's all I have to ask you.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I have leave to
20 ask a few questions after the Judges' questions, questions put by
21 Judge Harhoff specifically, a few clarifications to be precise.
22 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
23 Q. Mr. Peric when you are answering questions put by honourable
24 Judge Harhoff you were talking about the work of the Crisis Staff and its
25 composition. Isn't it true that in July, or starting with July the
1 Crisis Staff no longer existed and the Assembly of the municipality of
2 Teslic operated regularly?
3 A. I think the Crisis Staff existed throughout the war. It was
4 called the Crisis Staff and then the War Staff and it existed in parallel
5 with the Assembly. The Assembly was like a democratic embassy of sorts.
6 It didn't decide on anything.
7 Q. But you haven't seen a single decision of the Crisis Staff in
9 A. I'm sure such decisions existed and these people sat every day,
10 and they made decisions rather than the parliament. The parliament, when
11 it made decisions, made decisions that they had formulated previously.
12 Q. Could you look at 65 ter 866. It's in my binder --
13 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Mr. Krgovic. The transcript -- you have
14 to keep an eye on the screen. The translation was still continuing.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Okay.
16 Q. [Interpretation] It's the Zupljanin Defence binder, tab 4.
17 This is, Mr. Peric, an excerpt from the minutes of the Assembly
18 session held on 20th August.
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. You can see what the discussion was about, you can see who
21 participated, and you can see there is reference to the same thing you
22 mentioned on page 1, where they endorse the agenda -- sorry, the minutes
23 of the previous Assembly session, and the conclusion of the Assembly that
24 the military police at battalion level was not doing its job. That's on
25 page 1.
1 And after that, please look at page 6 where Mr. Perisic, in his
2 contribution, says that the issue of paramilitary units has to be dealt
3 with, and he proposes to the military command to arrest and started
4 proceedings against any brigade members involved in illegal activities,
5 and you can see the other persons who respond, the previous chief of
6 police, Kuzmanovic, and Djordjevic, and all these differences of opinion
7 at the Assembly session.
8 Isn't it the case that from the month of July the Assembly met
10 A. Yes. It held sessions but in parallel with the Crisis Staff.
11 And I believe the Assembly was used exclusively for mutual settlements of
12 accounts between the chief of the Crisis Staff, the brigade commander,
13 Perisic, the Assembly was supposed to --
14 JUDGE HALL
15 Judge Peric, I just want to intervene with counsel.
16 You do appreciate that the document we now have on the screen is
17 under seal, do you?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Probably Your Honour, I didn't -- I really -- I
19 didn't notice that.
20 What's the position of Prosecution?
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I -- I have to confess I had forgotten
22 that as well. But it needs to come off the screen, and that's for sure.
23 JUDGE HALL
25 MS. KORNER: All right. Thank you.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to.
3 Q. Mr. Peric, broadly speaking, can you tell us if you have ever
4 seen after July, and you brought some documents to the Prosecution during
5 your interview, documents you had in your possession. But after the
6 month of July 1992, did you ever see a decision of the Crisis Staff
7 published or not?
8 A. I think there were such decisions.
9 Q. Have you ever seen?
10 A. I can't be sure, but I think there were such decisions.
11 Q. What content? What did they relate to?
12 A. Precisely these issues that were first discussed at the Crisis
13 Staff and then they passed through the Assembly. And you can see in
14 these minutes all the people from the Crisis Staff sitting at the
15 Assembly session. Jokic, Markovic, Kuzmanovic, and others, they're all
16 sitting in the Assembly, and they are the same people who made decisions.
17 Q. Markovic at the time was not on the police force. He was not
18 police commander. Kuzmanovic either.
19 A. I'm talking about the minutes that you referred me to, in
20 paragraph 3, look at the --
21 JUDGE HALL
22 context of the -- what arose directly out of the questions of
23 Judge Harhoff? Aren't you wondering ...
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have only one
1 Q. Just answer with a yes or no. Have you ever seen or known about
2 a decision signed Crisis Staff, after, after the month of July 1992?
3 A. I'm sure, I believe it was even the War Staff and the War
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Peric. I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 arising out the Judge Harhoff's questions?
8 MS. KORNER: No. Thank you very much, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 Judge Peric, we thank you for your attendance before the Tribunal
11 and assisting us with respect to your testimony. You are now released as
12 a witness. Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE HALL
16 attention before I take the adjournment for the weekend?
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, there is. If you recall, I said I
18 would like to ask Your Honours to reconsider Your Honours' ruling in
19 respect of the articles, and I would like to take the opportunity,
20 really, to deal with the whole question of hearsay, because as
21 Your Honours know, we were taken by surprise, first of all, by
22 Mr. O'Sullivan's general submission and secondly by Your Honours ruling.
23 And so, I'm sorry, I know it's Friday, but I would like to take a little
24 time, because we've got a bit of time which we won't have next week. If
25 I could, I would be very grateful.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 MS. KORNER: I am, yes.
3 Your Honours, it seems to me that effectively because this is an
4 ongoing saga, I ought to deal with Mr. O'Sullivan's really general
5 submission although he has related it specifically to the documents
6 produced by Mr. Traynor about this question of the admission into
7 evidence of newspaper articles.
8 As Your Honour says, you have in some cases admitted them and in
9 others not, but the general principle, as Your Honours are perfectly well
10 aware, is set out under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,
11 and which has been interpreted on a number of occasions, that, under Rule
12 89(A), a Chamber shall apply the rules of evidence set forth in the
13 section and not bound by national rules; and (C) ...
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, before you expand on that, our ruling
16 was -- was not -- was in no way upon Mr. O'Sullivan's objection. The
17 reasons why we ruled as we did had nothing to do with Mr. O'Sullivan's
19 MS. KORNER: I perfectly understand that Your Honours, I do. I'm
20 simply, as it were, using the opportunity just to deal with the general
21 principle because it's our submission that it wasn't perhaps altogether
22 properly enunciated by Mr. O'Sullivan, as I say.
23 And I will come on to the reasons Your Honours' ruling why we're
24 asking for reconsideration.
25 Your Honours, in (C): "A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence
1 which it deems to have probative value."
2 I know I'm repeating the obvious. Your Honour, that includes
3 hearsay. But the various cases on hearsay do not distinguish between, as
4 Mr. O'Sullivan put it, admissible hearsay and inadmissible hearsay.
5 There is no such distinction in the authorities on the matter. The key
6 factor for the admission of hearsay evidence is that of reliability.
7 Your Honours, there have been three appeals decisions, decision
8 on this matter, none of them -- and Your Honour, may I say straight away
9 to Ms. Frew, who did the research for me while I was slightly otherwise
10 occupied. There is no specific case which has dealt with newspaper
11 articles as such. The hearsay cases are all on slightly different
12 aspects. But Aleksovski was the first in 1999, Kordic, which was not
13 referred to by Mr. O'Sullivan, was the second in 2000, and Milosevic was
14 the third of the three cases, all decided before Milutinovic in which
15 Mr. O'Sullivan was counsel. The Milosevic decision is the 30th of
16 September, 2002. And, in effect -- Your Honour, the situation there,
17 just to set that out, related to a statement which had been taken from a
18 dead -- sorry, a dead witness. Not taken from -- the witness from whom
19 the witness had been taken from had died before the trial. And the
20 question was whether --
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Sorry, I don't believe that's Milosevic.
22 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, that's Kordic. You`re quite right.
23 Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan. I'm muddling up with Kordic.
24 The Milosevic case was the -- sorry, Your Honours, just let
25 me ...
1 Yes, the application was in relation to -- I'm so sorry. It was
2 an investigator giving evidence which was a summary of a large number of
3 witness statements. The Kordic one was the dead witness.
4 In any event, the trial -- the Appeals Chamber went through the
5 previous authorities including those of Aleksovski and quoted Aleksovski
6 at page 6 of the Judgement and said that hearsay evidence -- the Chamber
7 is given a broad discretion to admit relevant hearsay evidence, that it's
8 admitted to prove the truth of its contents. Like me, Ms. Pidwell, had
9 not had a chance to research the authorities before she stated that it
10 was not being put forward for the truth of the contents. That it should
11 be admitted. It's been shown to be reliable. And it's for this purpose
12 the Chamber may consider both the content of the hearsay statement and
13 the circumstances under which the evidence arose, (E) of the probative
14 value of a hearsay statement will depend upon the context and character
15 of the evidence in question. The Appeals Chamber also stated that the
16 absence of opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the
17 statements and whether the hearsay is first-hand or more removed are
18 relevant to the probative value. And I emphasise that.
19 It's also acknowledged that though it depends on infinitely
20 variable circumstances of the particular case, the weight or probative
21 value to be afforded to hearsay evidence will usually be less than that
22 given to a testimony of a witness who has given it under a form of oath
23 and has been cross-examined.
24 And that goes without saying.
25 But that doesn't prevent it in any way from being admissible.
1 The court went on, the Appeals Chamber, went on to say that the
2 reliability and this is at top of page 7 of the hearsay statement is
3 relevant to its admissibility and not just to its weight.
4 And then at -- it dealt with statements for the purpose of legal
5 proceedings, which is not something that's relevant to this particular
6 issue. And then at paragraph 22 it approved -- it proved the following:
7 "As stated in the Aleksovski decision, the passage on which the
8 Prosecution did not rely, the Chamber must first consider whether the
9 summary is first-hand hearsay; that is, whether the persons who made the
10 statement summarised personally saw or heard the events recorded in their
11 statements, and whether the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine
12 those persons affects the reliability.
13 "According to the submission of the Prosecution, the opportunity
14 to cross-examine the person who summarised those statements does not
15 overcome the absence of opportunity to cross-examine the persons who made
16 them. In different cases, of course, the statements may contain their
17 own indicia of reliability which does overcome the absence of that
19 Now, Your Honours, the -- Mr. O'Sullivan relied very heavily on
20 the decisions in Milutinovic. There were in fact a total of three of
21 them. The first on the 1st of September, 2006; on the 8th of September,
22 2006; and then on the 29th of November, 2007, although the last was in
23 relation to newspaper articles. I'll come back to that. And the first
24 two were in relation to the witnesses who had prepared a report one was
25 called Mitchell and Abrahams -- or two were called Mitchell and Abrahams,
1 and somebody was called Hax -- a completely unpronounceable name,
2 Haxhibeqiri, H-a-x-h-i-b-e-q-i-r-i.
3 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That would be Haxhibeqiri.
4 MS. KORNER: Well, of course, you'd be there so you'd know how to
5 pronounce it. I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce that one.
6 Your Honour, they were all people who were called to talk about
7 publicly a report, Mitchell and Abrahams, that had been done by OSCE on
8 Kosovo. It was called "Kosovo as Seen as Told." And the report
9 contained extracts from a number of people who had been interviewed but
10 who had not been interviewed by these two witnesses personally. And that
11 was the distinction, the very great distinction which Mr. O'Sullivan
12 didn't refer to between that and where you're interviewing the people
13 who'd give you the information. They were unable to say who had actually
14 interviewed them because it was just a report and had not themselves
15 spoken to the witnesses.
16 Your Honour, so there is the, we submit, the great distinction
17 between that case and the ones -- the one that Your Honour was dealing
19 In the third judgement, which was an admission of documents from
20 the bar table, this was an article from the "Politika" newspaper, and
21 this was the Chamber's decision. All of these, of course, are
22 discretionary decisions, and not in the way that an Appeals Chamber
23 decision is a binding.
24 "The Chamber has previously indicated it will not generally
25 consider newspaper articles admissible solely to prove the truth of their
2 And they went on to deal with that.
3 Now, Your Honours those are the authorities and that's the
4 background to this, and we say that the test is, as the Appeals Chamber
5 enunciated, looking at the surrounding circumstances, is the
6 information -- is it reliable information which we can admit. And it
7 doesn't matter whether it's first-hand or second-hand hearsay.
8 Now, Your Honours, that's the background to this case or to --
9 to -- to Mr. Traynor. And can I just add one further thing on this,
10 because I raised this because Mr. Pantelic, in his eloquent address at
11 the end of the day, nothing to do with adjudicated facts and what
12 Your Honours should do about that, which was a totally different subject
13 to that under discussion, said that, in -- in discussing JCE he said
14 that -- this is page 10469 of the transcript, that the honourable
15 Judge Agius who was quite, I would say, he was an excellent judge, found
16 Brdjanin discussing the issue of JCE.
17 Well, the excellent judge, which obviously I totally agree with
18 that assessment of Judge Agius, dealt with -- or the Trial Chamber in
19 Brdjanin dealt with at some length the question of newspaper articles in
20 the context of a case, and this is of in the Trial Judgement in the 1st
21 of September, 2004, headed general considerations regarding the
22 evaluation of evidence. At paragraph 28, it dealt with hearsay evidence:
23 "As regards hearsay evidence, the Trial Chamber reiterates that
24 it's well settled in the practice and jurisprudence of this Tribunal that
25 hearsay evidence is admissible. The approach taken by the Trial Chamber
1 has been that since such evidence is admitted to prove the truth of its
2 contents it ought to be satisfied that such evidence is reliable for that
3 purpose in the sense of being voluntarily, truthful, and trustworthy and
4 as appropriate."
5 And then it goes on to say the probative value of a hearsay
6 statement will depend upon the context and character of the evidence in
7 question. The absence of the opportunity to cross-examine the person who
8 made the statements, and whether the hearsay is first-hand or more
9 removed has also been considered relevant to the probative value of the
11 It's not the admission. It's the probative value.
12 And then at paragraph 33, it dealt with -- specifically with
13 newspaper articles. Your Honours will not be surprised to hear that they
14 start by saying in that paragraph: "The Defence objects to all newspaper
15 articles and reports introduced into evidence by the Prosecution
16 submitting that they are unreliable and they amount to hearsay. Some of
17 them come from hostile sources prone to propaganda and that the accused
18 has not been given the opportunity of cross-examination or confrontation
19 of evidence."
20 Your Honours, they then -- exactly as what's been going on here.
21 Your Honours, they then said, and, Your Honours, may I say straight away
22 this is just a Trial Chamber decision, but it may help Your Honours when
23 considering this. The Trial Chamber considers that when reliable
24 newspaper reports and articles and similar items of evidence challenged
25 may be important not only because they originate from the time of events
1 they report upon but also because they very often corroborate the
2 information provided by other evidence and confirm that the facts
3 referred to are public and generally known. As such, they can be
4 appropriate instruments for verifying the truth of the facts of a case."
5 Your Honour, that's the background to the -- the evidence of the
6 articles that were produced by Mr. Traynor.
7 Now, Your Honours can I go back, please, to your decision on
8 Mr. Traynor's, the admission of Mr. Traynor's evidence under 92,
9 Rule 92 ter, if I can just find that for a moment, which I had.
10 Your Honours gave a ruling on this matter on the 2nd of
11 October of last year. And said in paragraph 12:
12 "The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution identified what it
13 considers to the relevant portions of the transcripts and statements for
14 the witnesses. The Trial Chamber," and I quote, "has undertaken its own
15 review of the evidence submitted and finds that for most witnesses the
16 portions identified by the Prosecution are indeed relevant. The Trial
17 Chamber does consider for some witnesses the Prosecution's indications
18 are too inclusive and not related with the evidence of the witnesses.
19 The Trial Chamber sets out below the portions."
20 And you dealt with ST-155 and ST-198.
21 With the exception of the portions identified above, the
22 Trial Chamber is satisfied the transcripts and statements are relevant
23 and probative and will therefore admit them.
24 Paragraph 14:
25 "The Prosecution tenders into evidence several documents that
1 accompany the transcripts and statements of the witnesses. It submits
2 that without those exhibits the witness's prior testimony cannot be fully
3 evaluated for relevance and probative value, and then you deal with the
4 fact that it must be on our exhibit list and that some -- some were
5 included, others were not."
6 And paragraph 15:
7 "The Trial Chamber, in its review of the accompanying documents,
8 finds that most of them do indeed form an inextricable and indispensable
9 part of the evidence they accompany. Save for the following."
10 And Your Honours then identified with ST-173 a number of
11 documents. ST-180, and ST-183 Colonel -- ST-183, and then ST-189, the
12 list of newspaper articles which was included.
13 So excluded the list of newspaper articles.
14 Your Honours, the test as enunciated partly there but also in, I
15 think, Your Honours' first decision on the 2nd of October 2009, was the
16 inextricable and indispensable part of the evidence they accompany.
17 Your Honour, we had here the journalist - going back to the
18 hearsay point for a moment - the journalist who actually wrote the
19 articles and who testified that he had spoken to the people directly
20 about what he recorded in those newspaper articles. He could have been
21 cross-examined -- it's rare. Normally we don't have the journalist, for
22 once we did. Mr. O'Sullivan, who had raised the original point, asked no
23 questions at all in respect of how accurate his notes were or anything of
24 that nature.
25 Mr. Pantelic, on behalf of Zupljanin, raised the question of
1 bias, Your Honour heard the answers, and in one or two occasions
2 challenged the witness's notes of what he had said to Mr. Zupljanin. But
3 they had here, effectively, someone who said, I spoke to these people and
4 whom, in particular, Mr. Zupljanin, but also to the others whose
5 statements I recorded direct into my articles.
6 Now, Your Honours' ruling, and can I take entirely the point that
7 was raised right at the beginning my address by Judge Delvoie, was on the
8 basis - can I just find that for a moment, thank you.
9 Yes, Your Honours ruled at page 10457 that:
10 "We will admit into evidence the two statements made by the
11 witness in 1999 and 2000 and that's it; that is to say, the 15 articles
12 which were also part of the package will not be admitted into evidence.
13 The reason is that we don't think they have sufficient evidentiary value.
14 They're interesting articles, they're good, but we wouldn't rely on them
15 for the purpose of reaching our conclusions in the case."
16 Your Honours, that was despite, in fact, Mr. Pantelic, at page
17 10454, saying that he actually did not object to two of the articles, and
18 I've forgotten which they are now.
19 Your Honours, the reason for introducing this evidence was
20 twofold. First, to rely on the truth of its contents given that they are
21 newspaper articles and that they're hearsay. But, second, because of the
22 notice that they provided to the leadership, in this case, in particular
23 to Mr. Zupljanin, about what the international press was actually saying.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 MS. KORNER: Yes.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 occurs to me at least, on that proposition, is that Mr. Traynor was a
3 journalist for a newspaper from a particular country. In other words,
4 there would have been a number of persons similarly placed, and the
5 straight line that, as I understand it, you're seeking to draw between
6 the newspaper articles and the -- the actions of the government seems to
7 me to be a bit difficult to -- to make apart from the -- I suppose the
8 basic argument that can be made about confusing sequence with
9 consequence. But a government would have, by its nature have had --
10 MS. KORNER: A press bureau.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 among them being its intelligence services and that of other agencies to
13 which it would have had access.
14 So what then becomes the magic, for want of a better word, of
15 this particular journalist's story?
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I -- magic is not that. But
17 Your Honour knows that one of the issues in the case is what did either
18 accused know about what was happening, in Mr. Zupljanin's case, within
19 the area of the Autonomous Region, and, Mr. Stanisic, more generally.
20 And, Your Honours, I anticipate, will hear evidence from the next witness
21 that he, the next witness, specifically brought to the attention of
22 Mr. Zupljanin -- now, I cannot say they were Mr. Traynor's articles
23 particularly but articles that were being written in the international
24 press about what was happening in Banja Luka. And this is just one
1 And, Your Honours, one of the difficulties is if we want to
2 put -- let us say that Mr. Zupljanin gave evidence, then if we wanted to
3 put to him, Mr. Zupljanin, you were put on notice, weren't you, by this
4 article, of Mr. Traynor, or other articles that we may have, that what
5 was happening in Hambarine or in Kozarac was shelling. And people --
6 innocent people being carted off to camps.
7 Now, if we don't have the article there, I can't show it to him,
8 and that's the next problem I'm going to come onto with the way that the
9 evidence came out, Your Honours, because -- and I direct Your Honours
10 specifically to the parts where Mr. Traynor was asked about the articles,
11 because we didn't realize that was going to be the ruling, the articles
12 weren't read out at all. Mr. Traynor was asked about individual lines
13 within those particular articles, and without the articles being in
14 evidence it is impossible, when reading the transcript, to know what he
15 is talking about.
16 Your Honours, can I -- can I give you an example.
17 Your Honours, he was shown, and I -- just find the transcript
18 again. And, Your Honours, I should add that he was asked about his
19 knowledge of languages and how he came to write his articles.
20 But, Your Honours, for example, this is at page 10336 and on the
21 screen was put his article, which is now 103583.03, and Ms. Pidwell said:
22 "Sir, this isn't the first article you wrote in a series of three
23 during your time in Visegrad, and my question is:
24 "You refer -- you use the term 'Serbian irregulars' throughout.
25 You can see it at the beginning and throughout the text. And I'm asking
1 you if you'll explain what you mean by that?"
2 Now, the problem is when we come back to this, which we may want
3 to, particularly when we're dealing with Visegrad and whatever, we've no
4 idea what the text is because Ms. Pidwell, for the reasons I've
5 enunciated, that we thought that these articles were in, didn't go
6 through it. So that's the first example.
7 And it goes on like that, I'm afraid. He explain what he means
8 by Serbian irregulars.
9 Your Honour, the next one was at page 10354 of the transcript.
10 Ms. Pidwell says:
11 "Could I have 65 ter 3375, please. This is an article you wrote.
12 It's dated the 29th of September. And in the second paragraph of the
13 English you used the term 'ubiquitous police,' can you please expand on
15 Now, again, we don't know when we go back to this how the term
16 "ubiquitous police" arises and in what context of the article.
17 Your Honour -- and so -- and then she goes on the next page
19 "And later in that article in paragraph four, you use a term 'a
20 demented, crazed, and brutalised town,' can you expand on that, please?"
21 Again, Your Honour, we can't see the context because we haven't
22 got the article.
23 And, Your Honour, when it comes, as I say, to the interview with
24 Stojan Zupljanin, directly with the defendant, and Mr. Traynor has been
25 cross-examined about that in -- it really is, we say, important that that
1 article becomes an exhibit.
2 So, Your Honours, I am sorry that I spent some time on general
3 principles of hearsay, but in the context of this evidence we do ask you
4 to reconsider your admission at least of the specific articles that
5 Ms. Pidwell asked him about. She didn't ask him about all of them that
6 were in the package so that when we come back to look at this transcript
7 we can see what on earth it relates to.
8 And that's really the upshot.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 immediately, the -- you said the specific articles.
11 MS. KORNER: Yes.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 As I said, if you aren't in a position to answer that immediately, if you
14 could come back --
15 MS. KORNER: I'm not.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well, if Your Honours are going to take a
18 break, then I can give Your Honours the numbers immediately after the
19 break of the actual articles she showed him, which are part of the
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL
23 MS. KORNER: Or can I do it at some other -- if Your Honours want
24 to ... to rise now, then I can do it at some other stage.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL
3 The context in which we're asking this is whether we should take
4 a break now and come back, or whether we should adjourn for -- for the
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Perhaps the solution is to sit five extra
7 minutes. I can respond; then we can break. I will be very brief. And
8 there's no point in breaking and coming back for -- for ten minutes, is
9 what I'm suggesting. If the interpreters can survive for ten more
11 JUDGE HALL
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour.
13 In a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must
14 demonstrate that there's been an error of law or that there's been an
15 injustice. Your Honours have ruled on the admission, or the
16 inadmission -- inadmissibility of these articles in your -- in the
17 transcript; pages 10457 to 10456 [sic]. And I include all those pages
18 because after Judge Harhoff expressed the view of the Chamber, in turn,
19 each of you expressed or gave explanations of the reasons why these
20 articles are not admissible.
21 There's been no suggestion and no showing that you abused your
22 discretion because, under Rule 89(C), it is a matter of discretion for
23 you whether or not hearsay is admissible. There has been no showing of
24 that. You properly considered the submissions, you came to the
25 conclusion on your own, and no one is suggesting that you made an error.
1 So there's no basis for any second reconsideration. In fact, the
2 Prosecution had a full-blown opportunity on the 18th of May, right after
3 Traynor left, we had the contradictory and irreconcilable positions that
4 it's for the truth of their contents/it's not for the truth of their
5 contents. The confusion reigned at that point.
6 So we say that it is furthermore incorrect, incorrect for the
7 Prosecution to say that any one of the not-admitted articles could not be
8 used in a future cross-examination. Well, of course, it could. If a
9 witness took the stand, the Prosecution could show the witness one of the
10 articles that Traynor wrote. Nothing precludes that by the fact that you
11 didn't admit them through Traynor.
12 So there's been no showing of abuse of your discretion, there's
13 been no showing that you didn't apply the law correctly, and there's no
14 basis for you to grant the second attempt at this reconsideration.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 Mr. Krgovic, did you wish to be heard on this point?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly only.
19 In essence, what Ms. Korner says has nothing to do with the
20 facts. The whole story about camps where prisoners were kept was --
21 started much earlier, before any -- by my -- by my client before any
22 journalist arrived.
23 So the possibility that this document may be shown to Zupljanin
24 here -- in this trial has -- is not related to any facts. All the
25 activities of Mr. Zupljanin relate to the period before the time
1 described in Mr. Traynor's articles, so this is not a valid argument put
2 forward by the Prosecution.
3 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ...
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Put forward by the Prosecution.
5 MS. KORNER: I thought I heard an interruption.
6 Just on the question of injustice, Mr. O'Sullivan says that we
7 haven't shown injustice. I thought I'd made that clear. Because, Your
8 Honours, Your Honours' ruling - and I forgot to read this part out, on
9 this - was under paragraph 16:
10 "The Trial Chamber will, when admitting into evidence the prior
11 transcripts and written statements of a witness, will admit all the
12 accompanying documents, save those identified herein above for the reason
13 that it views this as an integral whole," and you accepted - or at least
14 we thought you did - all the documents.
15 And as a result, when Ms. Pidwell went through it, she didn't go
16 into the detail she would have gone, had she known that they would not --
17 that the articles themselves would not go in. And as I pointed out,
18 indeed, the whole transcript makes no sense now.
19 So that's, we say, the reason why you should reconsider your
20 ruling on at least those documents that the witness was specifically
21 asked about.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 matter, and, of course, we should rule sometime next week.
24 So we will take the adjournment now, to resume in Courtroom I
25 at -- on Monday morning -- sorry, Tuesday morning - thank you - and,
1 indeed, for -- straight through -- through the first week in June, we are
2 all in morning sessions, unless there is some new change in the schedule.
3 And I wish everyone a safe weekend.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.13 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of May,
6 2010, at 9.00 a.m.