1 Monday, 7 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
7 Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 Good morning to everyone.
10 May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
12 Belinda Pidwell, assisted by Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Good morning. Eugene O'Sullivan, Tatjana Savic,
14 and Deirdre Montgomery for Mr. Stanisic.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin
16 Defence, Igor Pantelic. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 And if there is nothing that need delay us, we would have the
19 usher escort the witness to the stand.
20 While he is coming in, I would indicate to counsel that because
21 of a commitment that the Judges have, we are slightly varying the
22 schedule today so that with we will sit in two 100-minute sessions with a
23 half-hour break in between. So 9.00 to 10.40; and then 11.10 and 12.50
24 and rise for the day at that point.
25 Thank you.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE HALL
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare to tell the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 WITNESS: RADOMIR NJEGUS
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 JUDGE HALL
8 Good morning to you, sir. Would you begin by telling us your
9 name, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. My name is
11 Radomir Njegus.
12 JUDGE HALL
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was born on 24th of June, 1956,
15 in Foca. I'm a lawyer by profession.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Serb.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 Have you testified previously before the Tribunal or at any of
20 the courts in the region?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not before this Tribunal, but I did
22 testify before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the trial against
23 Gojko Klickovic.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 aware, is created for the specific purpose of dealing with certain crimes
1 in the former Yugoslavia
2 Prosecution, and the procedure here is not very much different from the
3 procedures with which you would be familiar from your experience as a
4 lawyer or in trials in which you would have participated previously.
5 Here the side calling you - in this case, as I said, the
6 Prosecution - would begin, after which, the -- counsel for each of the
7 accused would have an opportunity to cross-examine you. And the -- when
8 you're -- following any re-examination that the side calling you may
9 have, the Bench may have some questions of you.
10 Now, it has been indicated to us that the Prosecution would wish
11 to examine you for three hours, and counsel for the accused Stanisic for
12 six hours, followed by counsel for the accused Zupljanin for an hour and
13 a half.
14 Ordinarily, for technical reasons having to do with the recording
15 system which the Tribunal has, the Tribunal sits for periods of not
16 longer than 90 minutes. And there's a break, and -- and then we resume.
17 If it's a morning session, the trial day would begin at 9.00 and end at
18 1.45. If it's an afternoon session, which tomorrow is, the trial day
19 would begin at 2.15 an end at 7.00. Today is a little unusual in that
20 the sessions set would be a little longer. They will not exceed
21 100 minutes, but they may be as long as that for reasons of which counsel
22 would be aware.
23 So today, and today alone, we will sit for an hour and 40
24 minutes, then have a half-hour break, and then have another session of an
25 hour and 40 minutes. Of course, notwithstanding the -- those time
1 indications, if, for any reason you need a break, if you indicate it to
2 us then, of course, we would accommodate you.
3 Before I invite counsel for the Prosecution to begin the
4 examination-in-chief, is there anything that you would wish to raise?
5 There is one -- one further thing, that you would have begun by making
6 the solemn declaration and, again, as a lawyer, I probably needn't remind
7 you of this, but I must for the record point that the Tribunal is
8 empowered to deal with incidents of untruthful evidence, so the pain of
9 the penalty of perjury attends witnesses before this Tribunal. So is
10 there any query that you have that I might seek to answer before counsel
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have any questions.
13 Everything is clear. I was treated fairly by the people to the right of
14 me. I would just like to say hello to my former colleagues, Mr. Stanisic
15 and Mr. Zupljanin. We have changed a locality physically, we haven't
16 seen each other for a long time, but I just wanted to say hello to them.
17 JUDGE HALL
19 Examination by Ms. Korner:
20 Q. I want to begin by just outlining for the purposes of the Court
21 how you come to be giving evidence.
22 First of all, I think you were seen originally by members of the
23 Office of the Prosecutor in February of 2003; is that right?
24 A. If that's what it can be called, yes.
25 Q. Well, I'm going to deal with this quite shortly. They came to
1 speak to you. I don't think that at the time you appreciated fully that
2 it was an interview. And you were neither given any rights nor, indeed,
3 were you ever shown any record of that interview until you arrived at the
4 Tribunal yesterday. Is that right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Then, in 2007, in September, were you interviewed again by the
7 Office of the Prosecutor; this time the proceedings were tape-recorded;
8 and you were told that you were being interviewed as a witness? And you
9 were given, I think, earlier in this year, in May, a copy of the
10 transcript of that interview, which you had an opportunity to read
11 through. Is that also right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And having read it through, are you satisfied that it's
14 accurately recorded what you said at the time?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you were asked if you wanted to make any changes, is this
17 right, and you said, No, with the exception of adding something in
18 respect of a gentleman - if that's the right word - called Batko who was
19 operating in the Grbavica area during 1992; is that right?
20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. And who has very recently been arrested. And you were anxious to
22 make it clear that Mico Stanisic, as far as you were concerned, had
23 ordered the arrest of Batko in 1992. Is that right?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. And, otherwise, you did not wish to make any changes to what you
1 said in the interview?
2 A. Nothing material. I made a comment then, saying that I was not
3 specific in several instances, but today we will have an opportunity to
4 clear this up. But as far as any actual changes or corrections, no, I
5 haven't noticed anything.
6 Q. Next, can I briefly deal with your career. Effectively, for most
7 of your working life, have you been a professional policeman; is that
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. You graduated in 1974 from the police academy. You originally
11 started work in Foca, which, as you say, is where you were born. And
12 then in 1977 did you move to the Sarajevo SUP?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You graduated in the earlier 1980s from law school. And then did
15 you have a -- a break for about two years, between 1988 and 1990? Did
16 you work for the municipality of Sarajevo
17 police for a couple of years?
18 A. That's right. About two years and -- about four years and a few
19 days. And, at the time, I worked for the party structures of the
20 League of Communists.
21 Q. I'm going to ask you that next. Were you, in fact, a member of
22 the League of Communists?
23 A. Not only was I a member of the League of Communists, I also was
24 employed as the executive secretary of the presidency of the committee of
25 the League of Communists in the municipality of Sarajevo
1 Q. Right. In 1990, however, did you go back to the Sarajevo SUP,
2 and were you the chief of uniformed police until 1991?
3 A. Yes. I became the chief of uniformed police, as you called it,
4 for the whole city of Sarajevo
5 was head of the uniformed police for the entire city of Sarajevo, yes.
6 Q. Now, were you then -- did you then lose your job after the 1990
7 elections and the division of posts between the three nationalist parties
8 within the -- the BiH MUP?
9 A. Yes, that's correct. After the takeover of power by the national
10 parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a consequence of all the events was
11 that about after one year or so of performing the duties of head or chief
12 of uniformed police I lost my job. I was relieved from post by a
13 policeman who was trained as a butcher. For -- I didn't have any
14 engagement in the police after that.
15 Q. Did you receive any kind of support from the SDS party?
16 A. No.
17 Q. However, after the split that took place in the MUP, when the MUP
18 of the Serbian Republic
19 receive a position in the Serbian MUP in Bosnia?
20 A. Yes, yes, then. But, if you allow me, we've skipped one period
21 of time.
22 After I was relieved of duty from that previous position, after
23 having spent two months without any police engagements, I was assigned to
24 a different post. I was assigned to a post of a republic police
25 inspector in the former Bosnia
1 3rd of June in 1991. And I spent some time at that post. And only after
2 that, we have this, what you're asking me about.
3 Q. Yes. You're quite right, sir. I'm so sorry. I skipped that one
5 Now, we'll look at your appointment in a moment. But can we
6 just, first of all, have a look at a chart that's been prepared of the --
7 the MUP.
8 MS. KORNER: And it's P -- let me just get this right. P876.
9 I think it might be -- yes. Let's turn it round.
10 Q. All right. Do we see there that you were appointed, if we look
11 at line number 9, we can focus to the right-hand side of the ...
12 Can we see there that your position was that of -- of assistant
13 minister --
14 MS. KORNER: Okay. Thank you. That's fine.
15 Q. In the administration for legal, personnel, and administrative
16 tasks, you were the assistant minister for legal, personnel, and alien
18 We see your name under that of Mr. Radovic. Can you explain the
19 division of responsibility of posts between you and Mr. Radovic?
20 A. Yes. With the start of the operation and organisation of MUP,
21 Republika Srpska MUP, on 4th of April, 1992, my position was more of a
22 formal nature of position of the head of the cabinet of the minister of
23 the interior of Republika Srpska. The first minister, of course, was
24 Mr. Mico Stanisic. That was my first formal appointment. I was chief of
25 his cabinet. I have a decision appointing me in my possession.
1 Since I was at that position for no more than about a month.
2 After about a month, I got the position of the acting chief of
3 administration for legal, personnel, and alien affairs, as you told, Ms.
4 Prosecutor. So from the 4th of April, 1992, Mr. Nenad Radovic was in
5 charge or was appointed chief of the administration for personnel
6 administrative tasks. And about a month later I took over from him, and
7 I remained on that position until April 1994.
8 MS. KORNER: Let's just then now have a look, please, at the
9 later decision which is at tab 25, which, for some reason, wasn't on our
10 65 ter list. But I don't think it matters much since I'm not going to
11 ask for it to be exhibited.
12 It's 10370.
13 Q. That shows that in a decision of the 15th of May, Mico
14 Stanisic --
15 MS. KORNER: And can we pull up the bottom, please, of the B/C/S.
16 Q. -- appoints you as head of office of the ministry secretary in
17 the staff of the MUP, and this -- it says, Of which the staff for
18 commanding and controlling of force of the ministry shall be formed.
19 Can you tell us what that decision is?
20 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to my learned friend Ms. Korner.
21 We need a clarification here. Actually, Ms. Korner mentioned at -- it's
22 page 9, line 7, that decision was issued on 15th of May. But the wording
23 here is not confirming that.
24 Actually, in the preamble, it's a decision, previous decision, of
25 Mico Stanisic, but we don't know -- maybe sometimes later it was this
1 particular decision.
2 But can you clarify, please, with the witness, if he knows, of
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. Yes. Mr. Njegus, I said the 15th of May, and Mr. Pantelic
6 rightly points out that it says, According to an order of the
7 15th of May, as opposed to being appointed on the 15th of May.
8 Are you able to tell us when this decision -- when you received
9 this appointment?
10 A. Of course, I cannot remember precisely. Probably I received this
11 decision on or about the 15th of May.
12 If I may, I'll try to explain briefly the situation about the
13 alleged staff, if this is a convenient moment.
14 Q. Certainly.
15 A. All right. Thank you.
16 In my earlier statements given to the investigators of the OTP, I
17 also explained the situation about the alleged functioning and
18 establishment of a so-called staff of the MUP units and so on. In fact,
19 I confirmed in the same way as I wish to confirm now that it was, in
20 fact, a fictitious staff that was only allegedly established, but it
21 never really got off the ground in any way, operationally or
23 The adoption of such a decision, not only this one mentioning my
24 name but other decisions too, was preceded by other decisions or
25 something of the kind. That document is in existence. I had the
1 opportunity to read it. And that document states some tasks of the staff
2 I mentioned. Whether or not it was necessary to establish it, I don't
3 know. Probably yes. But that staff, as envisaged, has never been either
4 established, nor did it start functioning. This decision that I also
5 received after another decision signed by the minister was nothing but a
6 piece of paper. It didn't contain anything new with regard to my
7 position. It only referred to some of my work-related duties.
8 This is what I wanted to say about this decision.
9 Q. Right. Now one other thing, because we're going to deal with
10 that in a moment, this is apparently signed by Mico Stanisic. Can you
11 tell us anything about the signature on this document?
12 A. Yes. This is, indeed, the signature of Mr. Mico Stanisic. But
13 this isn't his authentic signature. I mean that this decision and many
14 other documents were supposed to be signed by him personally. This is,
15 actually, an authenticated copy which -- which was authenticated by a
16 facsimile, as many other documents. Any doctor, a specialist or a
17 general practitioner, may have a stamp with a facsimile replacing their
19 So this decision and other similar documents were also
20 authenticated by the facsimile. The facsimile was not in the possession
21 of Mr. Stanisic, but, as far as I know, Mr. Radovic had it. So he
22 authenticated most documents, including such decisions.
23 Q. Right. Did anybody other than Mr. Radovic have this facsimile
24 signature of Mico Stanisic?
25 A. That was possible. I cannot be sure. He may not have the
1 facsimile stamp on him all the time. It was probably in an office or
2 several offices.
3 Q. Was there -- to your knowledge, was there one stamp, one
4 facsimile, as it were, of his signature or more than one?
5 A. I personally think that there was only one. But, as I said, it's
6 possible that it was in the same place, the stamp of the MUP of
7 Republika Srpska was. Again, I think, personally, that there was only
8 one such facsimile stamp.
9 Q. Did you ever have position -- position -- possession of it, in
10 order to sign documents on behalf of Mr. Stanisic?
11 A. That's why I gave a tentative answer a minute ago with regard to
12 the logical situation that the facsimile was kept together with the other
13 stamps and seals.
14 With regard to that, yes, it was probably possible to me to have
15 access to -- to them and authenticate or certify something.
16 Q. So are there documents that you authenticated with the facsimile
17 signature of Mico Stanisic?
18 A. I don't think so because there was no need for me to do so. As
19 far as I remember, I didn't. But I could have if I had wanted to.
20 Q. What exactly -- well, actually perhaps we'll finish on this
22 You say this document was fictitious; there was no such staff
23 that existed. Do you know why, therefore, this decision was made or this
24 document was produced?
25 A. Well, the document isn't fictitious. The document was
1 undoubtedly issued. I cannot remember precisely; it was 18 years ago.
2 Probably at the beginning of the war, or the war was just starting, the
3 decision was taken to establish such a staff. But this is merely a
4 logical conclusion. It's another question why it never started
6 Q. Well, sorry. I just need to go back to what you actually said.
7 Yes. All right. What you said was this was:
8 "... a fictitious staff that was only allegedly established, but
9 it never really got off the ground in any way operationally or
11 I suppose the real question then should be: Why was there a
12 document -- not the document being fictitious but that related to what
13 you describe as a fictitious staff? Why was that document produced?
14 A. Well, you see, I wasn't the one who took the decision about its
15 establishment. But as a man who lived in those times and as a
16 professional, I am trying to -- I'll try to give it a thought.
17 The war was starting, and the MUP had its so-called peacetime
18 establishment and structure which was at the basis of its work. But, on
19 the other hand, there was this -- the other reality, namely, the war that
20 had started. Wouldn't it be normal to adapt the structure to the new
21 circumstances on the ground? That's my conclusion. And, as far as I
22 remember, that was the reason behind the decision to establish such a
24 Q. And why -- do you know why nothing ever happened, in reality?
25 Why there never was a staff?
1 A. I don't know. As you see, I was supposed to be some sort of
2 secretary here. That is a -- that was a technical position in the
3 framework of such a staff. But there has -- hasn't been one meeting of
4 that staff, not one session, literally. Why, I cannot say. But probably
5 because the one who was officially the head of that staff never called
6 such a meeting.
7 Q. And who was officially the head of the staff?
8 A. As far as I remember, the then-minister, Mr. Stanisic. As far as
9 I remember.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it's not on our 65 ter list but
12 there's been quite a lot of evidence about it and the effect of the
13 facsimile signature is something that's going to come up. If there is an
14 objection, then I won't pursue it; but otherwise, I would quite like to
15 make it an exhibit.
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No objection.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL
19 relevance of this document, but we must state for the record that we are
20 not happy, for want of a better word, of the manner in which it is coming
22 So -- but for purely practical purposes, for purely practical
23 reasons, we take the exceptional course of allowing it to be admitted and
24 marked as an exhibit.
25 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, before you move on, if that was your
3 intention --
4 MS. KORNER: It was.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would like stay just a little while with this
7 Because I would like to ask the witness, Mr. Njegus, if you could
8 explain to us, then, what happened instead. Because I'm sure that,
9 somehow, the minister, Mr. Stanisic, was assisted by some staff. And if
10 it wasn't this staff, then who else, then, came to the assistance of
11 Mr. Stanisic? Was there, so to say, a shadow cabinet that functioned
12 instead of the one that you had described but which never came into
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not sure that I
15 understood your question properly. I don't think that there was a shadow
16 cabinet. I can say that for a fact. I can also say for a fact that
17 Mr. Stanisic obviously relied on his associates and his closest
18 associates from that period; we know who they were. Under-secretaries
19 for public and state security. And they, in their turn, relied on chiefs
20 of administration, primarily on the chiefs of operative administrations.
21 According to what I know, there was no shadow cabinet. There
22 were a few people who performed their duties responsibly. And
23 Mr. Stanisic, as minister, of course, could rely on those people, and he
24 did so.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: But were the people in the minister's cabinet
1 actually appointed?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: And so your testimony is that it was just because
4 of the fact that the head of the staff never convened the persons who had
5 been pointed and that was the reason why it never became effective.
6 Is that your testimony?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on a second, sir.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
12 Madam Korner, let's just move on.
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. Just before -- sorry, just before we do move on, just so we're
15 absolutely clear about this document, it says you were to be appointed as
16 head of office to the minister strictly in the staff to command and
17 control the overall forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
18 So whether or not it existed, was it intended to be a -- a sort
19 of cabinet to advise the minister in respect of his deployment of MUP
21 A. Not only were they supposed to advise and help the minister but
22 also take decisions. That's how I saw the purpose of that staff, as it
24 Q. Now you mentioned in answer to His Honour Judge Harhoff's
25 question that he relied on his closest -- sorry, I just have to go back
1 again and just get your right words.
2 Here. Yes.
3 "... Mr. Stanisic obviously relied on his associates and his
4 closest associates from that period; we know who they were."
5 Who were Mr. Stanisic's closest associates during this period
6 around May of 1992 and until the end of 1992?
7 A. Whether we wanted or not, it was not just on paper. That's how
8 things were. His closest associates were under-secretaries for state and
9 public security which was only logical. Mr. Slobodan Skipina in charge
10 of state security, and, later, he was replaced by Dragan Kijac, if I'm
11 not mistaken. And as far as public security was concerned, the
12 under-secretary was Cedo Kljajic.
13 Q. Right. What about Mr. Karisik, who, if we look at the plan - I'm
14 not going to ask for it to be turned up again - was the head of the
15 special police detachment. How close was he to Mr. Stanisic?
16 A. I don't know how close he was to him. The private things never
17 were of much interest to see. However, Mr. Karisik who was the commander
18 of the 1st Special Unit of the MUP of Republika Srpska and later on the
19 commander of the detachment of Republika Srpska, which was rather
20 numerous, played a very significant role as the commander of that unit
21 throughout the war or, rather, up to the period during which he
22 discharged those duties.
23 Q. What about Mr. Kovac, Tomo Kovac?
24 A. Yes. Tomo Kovac was also one of important people throughout the
25 existence of the MUP of Republika Srpska. From the beginning of
1 April 1992, he was chief of the public security station in Ilidza. And
2 then a month or a month and a half later he became chief of the
3 administration of uniformed police. It was a very important
4 administration at the time. All uniformed police officers were members
5 of that administration, both active and reserve police officers.
6 Tomo Kovac was their superior. And in that position, obviously, he was a
7 very important person.
8 Q. Now, what technically did your responsibilities as the assistant
9 minister for personnel and legal affairs -- what technically did that --
10 were your responsibilities?
11 A. As far as my part of responsibilities and obligations went, I
12 was, just like everybody else, acting chief, because we had never been
13 appointed to our positions formally, and we should have been appointed by
14 the government of Republika Srpska. But that's just the formal side of
15 the things.
16 As far as my obligations and responsibilities were concerned, you
17 have to bear in mind that all those things were happening at the
18 beginning of the war when all the institutions were created from scratch.
19 One of them being the MUP of Republika Srpska. I started working first
20 on my own and then I was joined by two or three or five to six associates
21 before the end of 1992.
22 Q. Yes. Can -- can I stop you. We don't have that much time. Can
23 I -- can you just tell me what your job responsibilities were, in theory
24 at least.
25 A. Partly theoretically and partly in fact what we did was as
1 follows: Drafting regulations for Republika Srpska within the scope of
2 Internal Affairs. We were involved in several such legislative projects.
3 We also monitored and analysed the personnel in the entire MUP of
4 Republika Srpska. And we also had certain authorities with regard to
5 foreign nationals. But in objective terms, we spent the least time on
6 that last task.
7 Q. Did your job involve you in making appointments within the
8 ministry? And by "within the ministry," I mean the whole ministry.
9 A. No, not really. I would normally be informed about any such
10 meeting, just like anybody else, and then I would prepare the material
11 for the upcoming meeting within my scope of work, as far as that was
13 I would prepare to talk about things from my scope of duties, if
14 I was called to join the discussion.
15 Q. Well, I think there have been a mistranslation somewhere, because
16 what I actually asked you was whether your job responsibility included
17 making personnel appointments within the MUP.
18 A. If we're talking about the first month or so, when I was
19 considered chef de cabinet, then, yes, that would have been part of my
20 duties. But there were no such meetings in factual terms. And if we're
21 taking about at a later period, then those things would not be arranged
22 through me.
23 Q. All right. So -- sorry. In order for personnel to be
24 appointed - is that what you're saying? - there would have to be a
1 A. I don't understand your question, madam. What's the link between
2 meetings and appointments?
3 Q. That's exactly what I'm asking, and that's why I'm wondering
4 about what's going on in the translation.
5 If you were appointing -- sorry. If people were to be appointed
6 to positions either within the ministry itself, the headquarters, or
7 elsewhere, would that be part of your responsibility to make or to
8 recommend appointments?
9 A. Now I understand you fully.
10 No, that was not part of our competences and authorities. Our
11 service, the one that I was in charge of, was very small. It grew a bit
12 later. We were just a technical staff. And if somebody was appointed,
13 then we would just do the technical part of that job. In other words, we
14 were not in charge of proposing anything, or -- it -- unless the
15 appointments concerned personnel and my own office.
16 Q. Sorry. Do you mean personnel within your own office? Or
17 personnel generally?
18 A. Well, yes. I mean my own administration, as it were. And there
19 were very few of us. Later on, after a year or two or maybe even after
20 three years, I was consulted about all appointments within the service
21 that I was in charge of, even in the territories of Security Services
22 Centres, and so on and so forth.
23 Q. When you say "later on," when was that?
24 A. As the conditions of work started becoming a bit more normal, in
25 1993, 1994, or even 1995.
1 Q. All right. Did you report directly to Mico Stanisic, or to
2 either Mr. Kljajic or Mr. Skipina?
3 A. Under the law, I was directly answerable to Mr. Stanisic. But I
4 have to be very honest and admit that, in factual terms, on a daily
5 basis, I had much more communication with Kljajic, who had just recently
6 been appointed, and some others. And when it came to my day-to-day job,
7 I had much more contacts with other people.
8 Q. All right. Now, did you yourself have -- take any part in the
9 activities which led to the division of the MUP?
10 A. Not me.
11 Q. You saw some minutes of a meeting that took place on
12 February the 11th in Banja Luka. Your name does not appear. Did you
13 attend that meeting?
14 A. No. I perhaps would attend them, but I was never called. I was
15 never informed about any meetings, and I never attended any.
16 Q. All right. Now, next, I want to move on to your knowledge of
17 Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
18 First, Mico Stanisic. By 1992, how long had you known him?
19 A. Not long. But I would say long enough.
20 Mr. Stanisic and I attended the same school, the secondary police
21 school in Vrace, the place often mentioned. He was the first generation
22 that graduated, and I was the second generation. And I already said that
23 I have no reason to hide anything. I was not Mico Stanisic's trusted
24 person. However, Mico Stanisic, whom I knew at school, was an excellent
25 student, a good athlete, and a good person.
1 While he was in charge of the Republika Srpska MUP and when it
2 comes to the pre-war period when he was the secretary of the
4 statement because there's nothing to hide, he was a professional. He had
5 a lot of professional qualities. And whatever he did, he did it
6 conscientiously. He was a hard-working person who demanded a lot from
7 those that he worked with, and that made him a bit difficult for
8 cooperation. He demanded discipline, he demanded order.
9 But as a -- as head, he was very specific. I have already spoken
10 about that. He drew maximum from everybody, from everybody he worked
11 with, but he also knew how to delegate responsibilities and obligations
12 to them. And that's how things functioned. That would be my perception
13 of Mico Stanisic as a -- a head of -- a head of service and a member of
14 that same service. And we -- with your permission, I would just like to
15 say --
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... no, no. I'm going to come
17 to Mr. Zupljanin. I'd like to finish with Mr. Stanisic, please.
18 You say that you -- you were not Mico Stanisic's trusted person.
19 Do you know why that was?
20 A. I can make some estimates on personal level. One on the
21 principle level or on the -- as a matter of principle was the fact that I
22 was a member of the League of Communists, which, at certain later stages,
23 was not a very good thing to have been. Mico Stanisic, I'm not sure
24 whether he was or was not member of the SDS, but he was somebody from
25 that area. So that was one of the major reasons why I couldn't have been
1 his most trusted person or trusted person. There may have been other
2 personal reasons, but I don't know whether they are of any importance
4 Q. You say: I don't know whether he was a member or not a member of
5 the SDS
6 What area? What do you mean by that?
7 A. That's what I meant. Had he not been somebody SDS can accept, he
8 wouldn't have been the Ministry of Interior. That should suffice.
9 Now, how close his affiliation was, whether he was in or not,
10 whether it was formal or not; I don't have information about that.
11 Q. And you say one of the major reasons was you were a member of the
12 League of Communists and not of the SDS
13 been other personal reasons. What sort of reasons?
14 A. I was thinking about it, and I was thinking about these things
15 because that's my approach to life. I try to do things thoroughly. So I
16 thought about it, and since it happened that at the time
17 Mr. Mico Stanisic, in late 1993, if I'm not mistaken, was again appointed
18 Ministry of the Interior, I was the first, maybe the only one, among the
19 people in the senior structures of the Republika Srpska MUP who was
20 relieved of duty. I was wondering why. Apparently I was not
21 irresponsible in carrying out my duties, so I thought over it and my
22 conclusion was that it may have had to do with a misunderstanding related
23 to formal disbanding of the units of so-called Malovic unit. Because at
24 that time, I, in my function of the chief of personnel, and so on,
25 affairs, issued an order for them to be relieved of duty as members of
1 MUP because this unit hadn't been doing anything for a longer period.
2 But I was ordered to do so by Tomo Kovac. I still remember the telephone
3 conversation well. Later on, I was indirectly told that Mr. Stanisic
4 took it against me. It may be that he's hearing this for the first time,
5 namely, that it wasn't something I did on my own initiative, that instead
6 I was ordered to do so by Mr. Kovac. And I cannot remember and I don't
7 think it's important what his position was at the time, but there may be
8 another -- but -- reason but that reason is probably trivial.
9 Q. We're going to look at a document in relation to Mr. Malovic's
10 unit in a moment.
11 But your understanding was that Mr. Stanisic has objected to your
12 disbanding Malovic's unit which was then still being paid as a MUP unit?
13 A. Yes. Well, that's only my conclusion. Maybe it's not a true
14 state of affairs; it's just the way I see things.
15 Q. All right. Now, you -- let's move, then, to Mr. Zupljanin next.
16 When did you first come across him?
17 A. It's hard to say specifically when. I do know of Mr. Zupljanin,
18 of course. I had known about him even before the war, before 1992. Both
19 of us were at certain positions within the police. I do know of him
20 since back then. I know that he was a successful chief of the security
21 centre in Banja Luka. I know that he was one of the people who, all of
22 us, in the MUP of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was viewed as a
23 gentleman, a person liberal-minded. And I cannot remember when was it
24 that we met for the first time, but I am sure that we were together at
25 the collegium that was held in Belgrade
1 on I have seen him at many meetings, both working meetings and other
2 meetings. And I would like to add that my personal view of him is a
3 positive one, both in personal terms and in terms of professional
4 cooperation. He has had a problem of his own.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
6 A. Vladimir Tutus.
7 Q. Yes, we'll come on to Mr. Tutus in a moment. But when you were
8 first interviewed, you told the investigators that you thought that he
9 was the deputy of Minister Stanisic; is that right?
10 A. That's right. I believed that Mr. Zupljanin, in addition to his
11 position of the chief of the CSB
12 minister of the interior. That's how I saw him throughout. And only
13 recently, after having had conversations with some of my colleagues,
14 colleagues who should have known about such things, I realised they
15 convinced me that I wasn't right in my beliefs. They asked me, Where did
16 you come to that conclusion and how? But that's what I believed.
17 Q. Yes, and obviously I'm going to ask you exactly what your
18 colleagues asked you is, What you gave you the impression --
19 MR. PANTELIC: I'm terribly sorry, Ms. Korner, but it is not
20 recorded, the last sentence, the last words that Mr. Njegus said after
21 the words: "But" -- it's line 17. "But that's what I believed." And
22 it's quite important, I mean, what he said.
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. Okay. I interrupted because I thought had you finished. You
25 told us that your colleagues asked how you had come to the conclusion and
1 how [sic]. And you added "... that's what I believed." And did you say
2 something else? Mr. Pantelic thinks you said something else.
3 A. Yes, yes, he's right. I said that obviously I was wrong.
4 Q. Yes.
5 MS. KORNER: Well, thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
6 Q. You obviously were wrong, and I accept that. But what I want to
7 ask you is the same thing that your colleagues asked you. What led you
8 to believe that he was in such a high position that he was deputy
9 minister to Mr. Stanisic?
10 A. I cannot give you a precise answer. I tried to explain that I
11 just believed so. I don't know what the basis for my belief was. I was
12 even convinced that he received a decision appointing him to that
13 position. I -- I really cannot explain why was it that I believed such a
14 thing, but I was wrong. I apologise if I have misled anyone because of
16 Q. No. But -- but, clearly, there must have been something either
17 about his behaviour or his interaction with Mico Stanisic --
18 MR. PANTELIC: Objection. Leading question.
19 MS. KORNER: I don't think so.
20 Q. There must have been something that led you to believe that,
21 whether it was in his behaviour or his interaction with Mico Stanisic.
22 Can you try and put your finger on what it was that led you to believe
24 A. I wouldn't want to tread there. I simply - me, personally -
25 believed that he was even formally appointed to that position. I never
1 tried to verify that until recently. And a few days ago I was told that
2 I was wrong, and it seems I was.
3 Q. Yes. But -- I'm sorry to press you on this, but it's really
4 quite important, Mr. Njegus.
5 What was it that gave you the impression that Stojan Zupljanin,
6 chief of the CSB
7 minister to Mico Stanisic?
8 A. I must repeat a sentence I uttered just recently. It's because I
9 believed that was formally appointed to the -- to this position. And
10 since I believed that, I then believed that he actually was deputy
11 minister. And since my first belief was wrong, then everything stemming
12 from it was also wrong.
13 Q. When you saw him - for example, at the 11th of July meeting in
15 JUDGE HALL
16 suggests that this is a matter that you consider important. But having
17 regard to the answers that the witness has consistently given, isn't this
18 a matter that you must let go and move on? People come to erroneous
19 conclusions for any number of reasons which they are not necessarily able
20 to explain either at the time or later on. And the witness has -- has
21 answered, as I understand it as best he could, on at least three
23 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well, Your Honour, I think it is quite
24 important, given the nature of this case, as to why this witness should
25 have formed this impression.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 him, which I didn't respond to a short while ago, the -- the way your
3 question -- the direction of your recent questions are pressing him for
4 conclusions which I don't know is necessarily helpful to us at the end of
5 the day.
6 As I said, I appreciate that your -- you regard the issue as
7 important, but perhaps you need to try a different tact.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I've tried about three different tacts.
9 And, Your Honour, I may say, I'm a little surprised to hear that given
10 what we say is the case as against these two men, that Your Honour
11 shouldn't find this an important matter. But I dealt with it for the
12 moment, as far as I can. I take that on board, and I'll move on.
13 Q. All right. Yes. You were -- you mentioned that he had problems
14 with Mr. Tutus. How did you come to be aware of those problems with
15 Mr. Tutus?
16 A. I didn't have any problems with Tutus. The person who had
17 problems with Tutus was Mr. Zupljanin.
18 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... can I pause for
19 a moment. There seems to be a real problem with translation this
20 morning. I think it really is quite important that we try and get this
22 Q. You said there was a problem that Mr. Zupljanin had with
23 Mr. Zupljanin -- with Zupljanin. I'm sorry. That Mr. Zupljanin had with
24 Mr. Tutus. How did you come to learn of the problem?
25 A. I knew about that from the very beginning, from the moment the
1 communication or connection with Banja Luka was established. Namely, in
2 the city of Banja Luka, there was a public security station, having its
3 chief, and that was the practice that applied to all the places which
4 were seats of the CSBs, that the local public security stations had their
5 chiefs. I must add that this practice later on turned to seem very
6 impractical, including the issues related to Tutus, and therefore we
7 abandoned such practice.
8 Immediately after the communication was established, this
9 Mr. Tutus, again a person who was first generation, who attended the high
10 school for police affairs together with Mr. Stanisic, would call every
11 once in a while, maybe three times a day, mostly to complain or I would
12 even say snitch on Mr. Zupljanin in relation to very trivial issues
13 occasionally. Because he himself was narcicisstic and very ambitious.
14 He wanted to topple Mr. Zupljanin and take his place. All of us had
15 problems with him for quite a long period of time, problems of that sort.
16 In order to resolve the situation, in order to help
17 Mr. Zupljanin, I remember that what we did was promote Mr. Tutus even to
18 the position of the chief of the administration for uniformed police, and
19 he spent several months with us in Bijeljina. That's how we tried to
20 help Mr. Zupljanin get rid of his problems. I don't know whether we
22 But that was why I mentioned Mr. Tutus. Namely, his
23 unprofessional approach to work was something that was making things
24 difficult for Mr. Zupljanin, putting obstacles for him in his work. I
25 don't know whether this is of any importance for this Trial Chamber.
1 MR. PANTELIC: And I really apologise again. It's line -- it's
2 page 28, line 17, after the word "his problems," witness said, To get rid
3 of --
4 MS. KORNER: Well, let's not -- let's not tell him what he said.
5 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. "Posast." A word which means "the
6 plague." So it's just a reference to the translation. Maybe you can ask
7 him again. He doesn't hear, plague.
8 MS. KORNER: Instead of "problems," the word should be "plague"?
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, because problems at the level of -- of his
10 description of the level of the problem was like a plague. My
11 understanding that Mr. Tutus was a plague for [Overlapping speakers] ...
12 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... all right, all right,
13 all right, Mr. Pantelic. I've got the point.
14 Perhaps the interpreters can help us. Is that the word that he
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's remark: The Serbian word
17 "posast" means literally "epidemic," but it would be better interpreted
18 into English maybe as "affliction" in this context.
19 MS. KORNER: All right. Thank you.
20 Q. No, I just want to ask you whether you're able to recall. You
21 say he was complaining about Mr. Zupljanin on trivial matters; can you
22 recall what any of those matters about which Mr. Tutus was complaining?
23 A. If I could recall, I would probably have to speak about it for
24 ten days because the man did it daily three times, to me any way. But
25 there were about ten higher-ranking officers he would call and tell on
1 Mr. Zupljanin. Those were mostly trivial things.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... all right --
3 A. Possibly some of these objections were founded. I -- I'm not
4 saying that everything was unfounded.
5 Q. Well, did anybody -- that's what I want to -- the final question
6 on this. Did anybody actually go and speak to Mr. Zupljanin from MUP
7 headquarters about the complaints that were making -- that Mr. Tutus was
8 making to see if they had any justification?
9 A. Yes, of course. I went to Banja Luka many times for several
10 reasons. We tried to resolve the problem in various ways but to little
12 Q. Was this in 1992 or later?
13 A. Later. More likely later.
14 Q. What do you mean after 1992? In 1993?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. It is more likely that it was in 1993 when the conditions were
18 more normal to -- with regard to the functioning of the MUP for us to be
19 able to do that.
20 Q. When you saw Mr. Zupljanin, for example at the
21 11th of July meeting in Belgrade
22 complaints that Mr. Tutus had made?
23 A. Logically, no.
24 Q. Why not?
25 A. Because in July 1992 -- the meeting took place on the
1 11th of July, 1992, in Belgrade
2 few months after the beginning of the new functioning. Communication
3 with Banja Luka was only established in the autumn of 1992.
4 At that time, there was that meeting in Belgrade. Tutus didn't
5 matter at that time at all.
6 Q. Well, first of all, what I asked you was why you hadn't -- I'll
7 start this one again.
8 When you say there was no communication with Banja Luka until
9 autumn 1992, do you really mean there was no communication at all?
10 A. I didn't say there was no communication at all. I meant
11 telephone communications.
12 Q. Once the corridor was opened by the end of June, wasn't there
13 telephone and other types of police communication with Banja Luka?
14 A. Well, yes. Yes.
15 Q. We've --
16 A. Probably that -- that is not an issue. But I cannot place it
17 precisely in time. June, July, August ...
18 Q. All right. So just to finalise the matters on this particular
19 subject, it was not until 1993 that you spoke to Mr. Zupljanin at all
20 about the complaints that Mr. Tutus was making?
21 A. No, I don't think that's what I said. I probably spoke to
22 Mr. Zupljanin on several occasions in late 1992 and in 1993 and later.
23 That's not an issue. If for no other reason than because of this man
25 Q. So are you now saying, sir, that you did, in 1992, speak to
1 Mr. Zupljanin about the complaints, which you describe as trivial, that
2 Mr. Tutus was making?
3 A. Yes, probably.
4 Q. And did Mr. Zupljanin, at any stage, explain to you what it was
5 that was causing Mr. Tutus to make these complaints?
6 A. No. I can't remember him explaining that to me, but it wasn't
7 necessary either. Because it was a generally known fact that
8 Mr. Tutus - and this is not only my opinion - was not a person with whom
9 you could cooperate, that he was a problematic personality, a
10 narcissistic man.
11 Q. Yes, you said that already. All right. Now, to begin with, were
12 you -- when you first began your job, were you stationed in Vrace?
13 A. Depending which job. If you mean legal and personnel affairs,
14 there were some conditions at Jahorina in the so-called Kosuta facility.
15 I was able to work on some of these legislative projects with some
16 co-workers. That was possible there. But only in the second half of
17 July when we moved to Bijeljina, we did have -- well, I dare say, even
18 good conditions for work, and only there did we start to carry out our
20 Q. Right. The actual question I asked you was: When you first
21 began your job, were you -- as minister, assistant minister, were you
22 stationed in Vrace school?
23 A. If you mean legal and personnel affairs and so on, yes.
24 At Vrace, it was orally agreed that I should take over these
1 Q. All right. Can I explain to you, which I clearly have to, I'm
2 just interested in the places in which you were based.
3 Did you remain in Vrace until May?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Then did you go to Jahorina?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And from Jahorina, did you move to Bijeljina?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you tell us when you moved from Jahorina to Bijeljina?
10 A. It's difficult to be precise. Well, approximately in early
11 July 1992.
12 Q. All right. Now, I want to look -- ask you to look, please, at a
13 number of appointments, please.
14 MS. KORNER: Could we have up, first of all, 2363, 65 ter 2363.
15 Q. This -- this and a whole lot of other discussions are all dated
16 the 1st of April. Had you started work by the 1st of April?
17 A. If you mean me personally, no, not I.
18 Q. Looking at the stamp on that, are you able to say whether this is
19 a real or a facsimile signature? Looking at the -- sorry, the signature
20 of Mico Stanisic?
21 A. This is, without any doubt, a facsimile stamp.
22 Q. All right. Do you know why, which we'll see, there were a whole
23 lot of other temporary appointments of chiefs of CSBs? Why all these
24 temporary appointments were made on the 1st of April? And I mean why the
25 posts were temporary.
1 A. I don't know that. Because as I have already stated, neither on
2 the 1st of April nor before that, I was immediately involved in these
3 activities, so I cannot say.
4 I can only make conclusions why all these decisions or these
5 appointments are temporary. It does seem logical or natural to some
6 extent, though, because at the time, as far as I know, there was -- there
7 were no rules about the structure of our organisation. So it seems
8 natural to me that all these appointments were temporary.
9 Q. All right.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may that be admitted and marked. He
11 is able to identify this as a facsimile signature.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1408, Your Honours.
14 MS. KORNER: All right. Can we move through the rest of them
15 pretty quickly as well, please. Could you have a look at --
16 JUDGE HALL
17 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I actually possibly save
18 time, if I may, because I anticipate that it's going to be the same for
19 each of them. The documents which are tabs 12, 13, 14, and 15, 16, 17,
20 18, and 19 are all these appointments. Rather than having to take him
21 through each and every one of them, could I ask that they all be admitted
22 and marked?
23 JUDGE HALL
24 thumbnail, Ms. Korner.
25 MS. KORNER: These are the appointments of the -- the chiefs of
1 the CSBs and the -- the persons who are going to figure in -- as names in
2 this case. They're all facsimile signatures. The witness went through
3 them all.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Can we consider this during the break,
6 Your Honour?
7 JUDGE HALL
8 So we'd return to this at the -- in a half-hour.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.23 a.m.
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, before the witness comes in, we can
13 perhaps deal with the matter you asked us to address you on at the end of
14 lasts week, the --
15 JUDGE HALL
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: -- outstanding motion on --
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes. We may have to go into private session for
20 JUDGE HALL
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 11322-11323 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I understand -- Mr. O'Sullivan was
11 kind enough to notify me that he thinks that the group of documents that
12 I asked if they could go in without me having go through each one of them
13 the link is too tenuous. Your Honours, I mean, Your Honours have ruled
14 that the first one can go in. The rest are the same. So I don't know if
15 Mr. O'Sullivan, on that basis, has any objection to them effectively
16 going in as bulk.
17 The only thing I accept, the only thing he can say about them, is
18 that these are facsimile signatures, not the really signatures of
19 Mico Stanisic.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 would have wished to make with the document that has been admitted, which
22 we'll call a specimen for these purposes, we aren't clear as to why it's
23 necessary for the bulk to also go in. Because the point would have been
24 made already, wouldn't it?
25 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, I mean, the facsimile signature
1 is merely one aspect. The point that we're seeking to make is that from
2 the moment, effectively, the 31st of March onwards, Mr. Stanisic was the
3 minister of the interior, once the split had been decided on. The firs
4 thing he did was make those appointments of the -- the senior leadership,
5 if you like, of the CSBs. And it shows there -- whether they are
6 facsimile by him or not, those are his appointments. And it's literally
7 the first thing that he does, almost. And that's the importance.
8 Because these are all the heads of the CSBs or the Sarajevo --
9 Mr. Radovic, in fact, is the assistant minister; Mr. Karisik is the
10 commander of the police; Mr. Savic, Trebinje; Tomo Kovac, Ilidza; Malko
11 Koroman, Sarajevo
12 JUDGE HALL
13 between counsel during the break, but it would be useful for us to hear
14 on the record what the objection of council for the Defence is.
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, the objection is correctly stated by
16 Ms. Korner. This witness was not working in the MUP at the
17 1st of April, 1992. There's no nexus between any of these documents and
18 this witness. So we say they should not and cannot be offered and
19 admitted through him.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 position that I understand you to be articulating, Mr. O'Sullivan, would
22 also apply to the one that had been admitted.
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That's correct. Objection could have been taken
24 to that one and probably should have.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL
2 be admitted. I'm not sure whether they will be admitted as one basket
3 with some numbers or whatnot.
4 Whatever the practical way - Anna? - of dealing with these is ...
5 Well, how many of these are there?
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, there are -- the one that Your Honours
7 have already admitted and - one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
8 eight - and a further eight. It's tabs 12 through to 19.
9 JUDGE HALL
11 MS. KORNER: Yes, thank you.
12 THE REGISTRAR: The numbers assigned are therefore Exhibit P1409
13 through P1418, Your Honours.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 MS. KORNER:
16 Q. Mr. Njegus, you said earlier this morning that you knew that
17 Mr. Zupljanin was a successful chief of the security -- what it reads
18 "sister" in Banja Luka, but that should be "centre." And it's at line 22
19 of page 23.
20 In your interview, you described a meeting you attended in 1993
21 in Banja Luka about the activities of the CSB Banja Luka. At that stage,
22 did you think that Mr. Zupljanin was a successful chief of the CSB in
23 Banja Luka?
24 A. Yes. Yes, why not?
25 Now what was that all about? As the entire MUP was better
1 positioned and as conditions were put in place for that, the head office
2 of the MUP stepped up inspections and provided more instructions to the
3 field offices, including Banja Luka. However, in Banja Luka, we realised
4 that we had to go there to pay them a visit in order to discuss our
5 problems with regard to our functioning and some issues that we were not
6 happy with.
7 At this very moment, I can't remember any more details. But I
8 know that we prepared ourselves for a meeting in Banja Luka and that we,
9 from Banja Luka, went to the central office, as it was known. The
10 meeting was held. We launched our criticism.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... right, well this is what
12 I -- I'm sorry. This is the point I want to make. Because I appreciate
13 this is 1993, but you said you were successful. And then, you now say,
14 you launched the criticism. What was the criticism that you had of the
16 And I think that should be the first question: Was the criticism
17 in respect of anything that had happened in 1992?
18 A. Most probably the problems related to that period as well, hence
19 our criticism. I can't remember any of the details. I know that such a
20 meeting had been prepared in all the centres including Banja Luka. I
21 know that there was some criticism to be launched at their work. And I
22 know that I spoke in -- in that sense myself, but that doesn't have to
23 change my opinion that I was the - just a minute ago and that I am
24 voicing again - and that is that Mr. Zupljanin was a successful chief.
25 He was the chief of the largest centre and the centre which had most
1 problems, probably had second number of problems to Sarajevo alone.
2 Q. Okay. And what's your criteria for being a successful chief?
3 A. What is the criteria? If I remember things properly when we went
4 there, we discussed our cooperation with us, them and us, because we
5 realised that we had too much independence in our work, that we failed to
6 report properly, and things like that. And as far as criteria are
7 concerned, those are well-known and all relate to the security situation
8 and the result of the policing activities.
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes, I'm sorry. You said
10 twice now, Mr. Zupljanin was a successful chief of CSB. What, in your
11 view, made him a successful chief of the CSB? I hope that's clear
13 A. Well, yes, of course, it's clear. We're talking after a lapse of
14 time. I know that there were no problems in communication with
15 Mr. Zupljanin. We had good communication with him. He respected all of
16 our decisions, he provided us with all the necessary instructions. He
17 gave us orders.
18 Let me talk about my segment of work. And as for the rest, you
19 should talk to other people who were in charge of other segments. Let me
20 tell you what I base my opinion on. I was the head of legal personnel
21 affairs and affairs concerning foreigners, and in that segment, the
22 Banja Luka centre was among the best, if not the best. There's no doubt
23 about that. And, in that sense, I did not have any problems. That part
24 of the work functioned properly. Well, I suppose that you,
25 Madam Prosecutor, are referring to some other operative segments, some
1 other situations and problems, but those things were not within my
2 immediate purview. And that would be my criteria. The analysis of the
3 part of work that I was in charge of and that part of work was
4 functioning properly in Banja Luka. I could do my job properly.
5 Q. Yes. You -- accepting that qualification, as far as you're
6 concerned, Mr. Zupljanin kept in touch, reported, and respected the
7 headquarter's decisions. Is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. Now, I know it's 1993 and it's a long time ago now,
10 but can you tell us in what respect, therefore, when you went to
11 Banja Luka, you were criticising Mr. Zupljanin for what he did in 1992?
12 A. I really can't remember all the details. But we did analyse
13 things at the central MUP office at one of our collegium meetings. We
14 had received a lot of information about dissatisfaction in some lines of
15 work. And, in general term, we decided to go to Banja Luka to hold a
16 meeting, to launch criticism, and to ask for changes to be instituted
18 Q. Believe me, I know what you decided to do. I want to know what
19 it was, please, that you had -- what -- about what, sorry, you had
20 received a lot of information with dissatisfactions in lines of work.
21 What lines of work?
22 A. I can only suppose after such a long time that most of the
23 problems were related to the operative lines of work. Within my purview,
24 there were fewer problems, although I myself had some criticism
25 towards -- but I can't remember the details. I know that the meeting did
1 take place, and I know that all public security stations chiefs were
2 present at that very large meeting --
3 Q. Yes, you've told us that please -- three times -- can I make this
4 absolutely clear, please, Mr. Njegus. I know there was a meeting and I
5 know lots people were there. I am interested in the problems that led to
6 the meeting.
7 Now, what do you mean by "the problems were related to the
8 operative lines of work"?
9 A. Again, I have to repeat: I don't remember. I can't remember any
10 specific problems after such a long time.
11 Q. Did it have anything to do with investigations that he should
12 have conducted into major killings, for example?
13 MR. PANTELIC: Objection. This is a leading and after at least
14 four or five times that Mr. Njegus said that he cannot remember, it was a
15 long time ago. Now my learned friend Ms. Korner persistently put her
16 case and again and again tried to -- to press this witness. In spite of
17 his very clear answers, he cannot remember and end of story.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 Ms. Korner. But, nevertheless, I'll allow the question.
20 MS. KORNER: Well, no, I take the point.
21 Q. I'm going to ask you, please, sir, to concentrate. What is an
22 operative line of work?
23 A. Operative lines of work in the MUP are as follows: Crime
24 prevention and the uniformed police.
25 Q. All right. What was it that was leading to criticism in crime
1 prevention, as far as Banja Luka CSB
2 A. Yes, I understand your question. But I have to repeat once again
3 that I don't remember any details. I know that there was some criticism,
4 but I can't remember any of the details thereof.
5 Q. All right. Well, maybe we can look at something later.
6 I want then, please, next, to ask you to look at a document which
7 is - just a moment - yes. If I can find it.
8 MS. KORNER: Yes, document 65 ter 79; tab 20.
9 Q. Now, this document, which, if we look at the bottom in B/C/S, is
10 dated the 11th of April. Is the Autonomous Region of Krajina sending a
11 dispatch apparently to the MUP saying that it was unanimously
12 proposing --
13 MS. KORNER: We need to go to page 2 in English.
14 Page 2 in English. Yup. Thank you.
15 Q. It's unanimously proposing that Stojan Zupljanin as the -- the
16 chief of the Banja Luka Security Centre and Stevan Markovic as chief of
17 police affairs --
18 But, two questions: Firstly, do you know why the Assembly was
19 making this proposal to the MUP?
20 A. I don't know. It looks strange in view of the fact that
21 Mr. Zupljanin had previously been assigned to this position as we have
22 already seen. Why he was proposed again, I don't know.
23 Q. All right. Second question is this: Where a municipal assembly
24 or in this case a regional assembly made a proposal for someone to become
25 chief of the SJB or take any position within the MUP, would the proposal
1 by a municipal assembly always be acted on, or was it within the
2 discretion of the minister?
3 A. Yes. Situations like that occurred rather frequently. Namely,
4 situations where Municipal Crisis Staffs or, as in this case, the
5 Autonomous Region Assembly would be suggesting some personnel change. We
6 would receive such suggestions and then MUP would make its own
7 assessment. It was on a case-to-case basis that we would or would not
8 accept the proposal.
9 Q. All right. Thank you. And can I take it, although you were
10 working for the MUP by then, did you see this -- had you seen this
11 document before?
12 A. Yes, I have. As you can see in the right corner of the document,
13 you can see my handwriting, this note to a Dragan; I don't remember who
14 the Dragan was. A note saying that the decision should be drafted.
15 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, under those circumstances, can I
16 ask that it be admitted.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this would be Exhibit P1417.
19 And exhibits admitted on page 39, line 14, should be assigned
20 numbers P1409 through 1416. Thank you.
21 MS. KORNER:
22 Q. Yes, we can see -- oh, it's gone again.
23 MS. KORNER: Can we have it back again, please. Thanks.
24 Q. We can see here at the bottom there of that it says: "Received
25 by" -- and then somebody has typed "Vukovic." Was that somebody called
1 Danilo Vukovic?
2 A. It is possible, but I can't be certain about it.
3 Q. Well, because I want to ask you to look at, please, a document
4 which is 10371.
5 MS. KORNER: That's tab 31. It wasn't on our list.
6 Q. But I just want to ask you about this gentleman.
7 MS. KORNER: 10371, please; 65 ter number. Yup.
8 Q. If we look at the stamp there. Is -- and signature, is that in
9 fact --
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, I object to this. This document is
11 not heralded on their 65 ter list. And the contents of this document
12 should not be explored with this witness.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I thought we'd been through this
14 heaven knows how many times now. I agree it's not on our 65 ter list.
15 All I want to know is why this gentleman was being sent off. And this
16 witness signed this document.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 raised is one which I thought would have been raised in terms of an
19 earlier document which we indicated we reluctantly admitted where the
20 document was not on the 65 ter list. But nevertheless, in the way that
21 you phrased the question, you were, in effect, putting the entirety of
22 the document into evidence before it was exhibited. As it turns out, the
23 Defence had no objection to it and we admitted it. But it seems that
24 you're heading down that course again. So, as you said, we have walked
25 the path previously as to the manner of dealing with documents which are
1 not on the 65 ter list and which the side, in this case the Prosecution,
2 doesn't intend to exhibit it. But certainly it is not permissible to, in
3 effect, put the document in evidence. The witness can be shown it and
4 then you can ask a question arising from it. That is the
5 well-established path.
6 MS. KORNER: All right. Your Honours, yes, that's fine. Yes, I
7 will certainly -- I'll deal with it that way.
8 Q. Do you see that document, Mr. Njegus? Do you recognise it?
9 A. Yes, I do recognise it.
10 Q. Was Mr. Danilo Vukovic an inspector at the MUP?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you sign an authorisation sending him to coordinate and
13 direct the work of the criminology service within the CSB Bijeljina?
14 A. Yes. I signed this document.
15 Q. Was that on your own authority? In other words, did you take the
16 decision to send him off? Or was that somebody else's decision?
17 A. My -- I'm clear [Realtime translation read in error "unclear"]
18 about your question, and I know what I should answer. This was not under
19 my authority. Someone else reached this decision, this authorisation. I
20 only signed it. And in this specific case, I think it was
21 Mr. Cedo Kljajic, under-secretary for public security, who reached this
23 Q. I think you said you were clear about my question, not you were
24 unclear, which is what's recorded at 47, line 12.
25 A. Yes. Yes, the question was clear to me.
1 Q. Do you know what the problem was which required Mr. Vukovic to be
2 sent to Bijeljina?
3 A. Yes, I do remember our conversations. This is at a period of
4 time when we were already at Jahorina. We were receiving occasional
5 information about problems in certain areas. First of all, the people
6 that were in charge of operative affairs, but in this specific instance,
7 I was next to them. We did receive information that there were security
8 problems in the area of Bijeljina, and that was the reason why
9 Mr. Vukovic was sent there. He wasn't the only one. I think at the same
10 time or around that time, Mr. Andan [phoen] Dragan was also sent, and
11 maybe some other people from the seat of the MUP, to gain insight into
12 the situation, prepare a report, and assist the people there, on the
13 ground, in resolving the problems.
14 Q. And do you remember what those -- those security problems were?
15 A. I cannot remember the details, but I do know there were security
16 issues, issues relating to protection of property and life, and that
17 there was also problems in the Jajan [phoen] area where mostly Muslim
18 population lived. There were also some crimes, problems with crimes, in
20 And if you allow me, a small comment: I signed something on
21 behalf or for Mr. Stanisic, one thing that proves that Mr. Stanisic, for
22 instance, wasn't consulted in relation to the signature of mine. Namely,
23 I have signed for him because I was authorised to do so but -- by
24 somebody who was under Mr. Stanisic, who had authority to give such
25 authority. And I apologise for this comment.
1 Q. All right. So what I -- I mean, Mr. Stanisic delegated the
2 authority to sign on his behalf to Mr. Kljajic. And you're saying that
3 clearly Mr. Kljajic must have had the authority from Mr. Stanisic to
4 delegate further?
5 A. That's correct. That's exactly what I'm saying with this
7 Q. All right. Thank you. Next, can I ask you, in respect of
8 Mr. Malovic, who you mentioned, to have a look, please, at document
9 number -- 65 ter 2685.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me, could we have a tab number, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Tab 23.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. Now, as head of personnel, are you familiar with these payroll
15 lists? Some which we can -- we'll see later you signed.
16 A. Yes. These payroll lists are more or less familiar to me. These
17 were the lists on the basis of which people were receiving their salary
18 for the preceding month. Well, not in this particular case, but in
19 principle, yes.
20 Q. And this was -- it's a list of those who've been working -- well,
21 it's the special platoon within the Serbian MUP Sokolac, and the first
22 name as the commander is that of Dusko Malovic. Is that the
23 Dusko Malovic you were referring to whose unit you later disbanded in
25 A. Yes, yes. That's the one I had in mind.
1 Q. Yeah.
2 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honour, may that be admitted and marked,
4 JUDGE HALL
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1417, Your Honours -- apologise,
7 MS. KORNER: Now -- thank you.
8 Q. Could we now look, please, very briefly at a document, a
9 newspaper which you had a chance to look at yesterday. It's already an
10 exhibit. P29.
11 MS. KORNER: Tab 11A, Mr. Pantelic.
12 I'd like to have the photograph, please, zoomed in on.
13 Q. Now, the text underneath there, I think, is the advisor in the
14 MUP BiH Mico Stanisic and function of the minister during his inspection
15 of the members of the Serbian MUP in Sokolac.
16 Are you able to tell us -- sorry, Mr. Njegus, is the gentleman
17 that Mr. Stanisic, who is on the left, is shaking hands with, is that
18 Dusko Malovic?
19 A. I cannot confirm that with certainty because judging on this
20 photograph I would say it is someone older than this Malovic person. He
21 doesn't look like Malovic, but I cannot exclude the possibility that it
23 Q. All right. Well, I won't take that any further. Thank you.
24 Now, can I deal, please, with -- generally with appointments that
25 were made.
1 What sort of authority in -- during the period between April 1992
2 and the end of 1992 did CSB
3 A. Not only chiefs of CSBs. The way I remember things throughout
4 that period, the authorisation for taking people in service or appointing
5 them within the service, was transferred by Mr. Stanisic to a number of
6 his employees, the chief of -- chiefs of centres, then the chief of the
7 service -- National Security Service for the people within that branch,
8 and, if I'm not mistaken, the commander of the detachment of special
9 police. These people were authorised by the minister to take someone
10 into service, to appoint them to different posts, or to launch
11 disciplinary measures, if necessary. I believe that documents confirming
12 this transfer of authority also exist.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm going to now show you,
14 please, a document which is already an exhibit. 1D00046; tab 28.
15 MS. KORNER: And if we look, please, at the second page in B/C/S
16 for a moment. Can we bring up the -- the stamp and signature, please.
17 Thank you.
18 Q. Are you able to say - and you've had a chance to look this
19 document before - whether that's a facsimile or a genuine signature by
20 Mr. Stanisic?
21 A. This is a facsimile.
22 MS. KORNER: And then if we go back, please, to the first page,
23 both in English and in B/C/S.
24 Q. This says that:
25 Pursuant to the decision to declare an imminent threat of war,
1 there will be a reorganisation of war units for defending the territory.
2 And then in paragraph 6:
3 "I hereby authorise chiefs of CSB and the commander of the police
4 detachment of the ministry (for Sarajevo CSB) to point officers with
5 appropriate qualifications to command posts of established units and to
6 ensure that the principle of subordination and superiority in the command
7 system is upheld."
8 Now, is that one of the decisions that gives authority to chiefs
9 of CSBs?
10 A. Yes. Certainly one of the decisions. Certainly not the only
12 With your permission, my last comment related to this very
13 decision. Now that I've refreshed my recollection, we can see here in
14 this item number 1 that organisation should be transferred from peacetime
15 organisation to wartime organisation and then squads, platoons,
16 companies. That never took place, factually, which goes to confirm
17 something I stated a moment ago, namely, that this whole decision was
18 just something on paper.
19 Q. So that's the -- well, it's the second decision you said was
20 something on -- just on paper. Are you able to say why, given this
21 order, it wasn't put into effect?
22 A. I don't know that. I don't know why, but it wasn't. Probably it
23 was all right as an idea, but it wasn't implemented. Most of it anyway.
24 Q. And can -- do you know -- can you say why -- sorry. How you know
25 that it wasn't implemented?
1 A. I know for certain. If we analyse any of these items, let's take
2 the first one, which deals with the transition from peacetime
3 organisation into a wartime structure, and it says that there's the
4 obligation for all organisation units of the MUP on the grounds be
5 transformed into a structure comprising companies, platoons, squads,
6 et cetera; all that never happened. Except for the special unit, but
7 that's special unit. So I know for sure that this first item was not
9 Q. If Mico Stanisic gave an order like this, although it was -- it
10 was done with his facsimile signature, would he check to see whether his
11 order was being carried out?
12 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, is it -- are we entering into the
13 area of speculation or theory? I don't know.
14 JUDGE HALL
15 practice, isn't it, Mr. Pantelic.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. But then it should be directed
17 to the theoretical or practical aspect but not with this particular
18 issue, because witness said on numerous occasions that it doesn't exist,
19 actually, these kind of organisations. So maybe my learned friend
20 Ms. Korner could ask him --
21 MS. KORNER: No, no, no.
22 MR. PANTELIC: -- whether in accordance with your knowledge in
23 being a police function --
24 MS. KORNER: No, I really don't -- I'm sorry, Mr. Pantelic. If
25 there's a legitimate objection to my question, whether it's leading or
1 not, that's one thing. Trying to ask the witness questions in the middle
2 of examination-in-chief is quite another.
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Njegus, if Mico Stanisic gave an order like this, what
6 steps did he take, to your knowledge, if any, to ensure that his order
7 was carried out?
8 A. Yes. No, it is not a problem for me to answer at all.
9 I asked myself first whether Mr. Stanisic issued such an
10 instruction and whether he passed such a decision, that is, whether he
11 really signed it, which I really don't know. He may have -- or, rather,
12 it may have been his idea and his instruction. As far as I know, it may
13 not have been that way. It is possible that Cedo Kljajic maybe made this
14 decision, together with Karisik or, who knows who, Tomo Kovac. This is
15 June, yeah, it's possible. So both are possible, so I cannot claim with
16 certainty either one or the other. But since the decision was not
17 implemented, at least most of it, it wasn't implemented on the ground, I
18 should have been the secretary, so I would have known if there had been
19 all these meetings. So we cannot speak about control either. Because
20 according to the information that I have, none of this was done.
21 Q. All right. So from your understanding, from being at the MUP
22 headquarters, it is possible that Mico Stanisic had delegated to
23 Cedo Kljajic the authority to issue such an order?
24 A. It is possible, yes.
25 Q. All right. Well, to your knowledge, did either Mico Stanisic or
1 Cedo Kljajic do anything to enforce the provisions of this order?
2 A. Well, if we consider what happened -- or, rather, did not happen
3 in practice with regard to this decision, there was nothing to control
5 Q. Sorry, I will repeat the question. Did either Cedo Kljajic or
6 Mico Stanisic, whichever one of them actually decided to issue this
7 order, do anything to enforce it? In other words, to go round or to send
8 people round to check that this was happening?
9 A. Not in that sense, according to the information I have.
10 Q. All right. Now I want -- from there I want to move to the topic
11 of the police being used for combat activities and resubordination.
12 During 1992, were there occasions when police officers would go
13 to the front to carry out combat activities?
14 A. Certainly.
15 Q. When they were engaged in combat activities, under whose
16 authority would they be acting?
17 A. Yes ... the police of the RS during the war, under the
18 Law on the Military, if I'm not mistaken, but possibly also under the
19 Law on Defence, is an integral part of the armed forces from which
20 everything that later happened follows, both formally speaking and in
21 fact. When a police unit of any size would be deployed to carry out a --
22 a combat operation, it would be part of the armed forces, that is, the
23 army of RS, and would -- it was subordinate to their command, that is,
24 the command of the VRS. And I'm sure that there's a host of documents
25 showing that it did, indeed, function this way.
1 Q. When it was going to the combat zone at the front, who was in
2 charge of the police unit? Who was the commander?
3 A. With regard to this segment and this question, allow me one
4 sentence first.
5 Especially in the early days of the war, but later too, the
6 police had a lot of problems with the VRS, especially on the front line.
7 That's why an initiative was made from the MUP of RS, and I know that
8 there are several clear orders or instructions to that effect, people who
9 were in charge of these matters insisted that an officer from the MUP be
10 the person who took our units to the front line. He would report to the
11 command in charge to which the police were naturally subordinate, and
12 they would obey the orders of that command. But we tried, to the amount
13 that we were able to do it, to -- to have a police officer be the
14 commander of any police unit.
15 Q. Right. And you said that there was this initiative. Can you say
16 roughly when that initiative happened? Was it 1992 or was it later?
17 A. Which initiative are you referring to?
18 Q. The one you've just told us about that:
19 "... people who were in charge of these matters insisted that an
20 officer from the MUP be the person who took our units to the front line."
21 When did that happen?
22 A. Yeah. I must be objective and say that it was really in a later
23 period, not really at the very beginning. Because -- well, beginnings
24 are always difficult. This start-up period was certainly marked by
25 problems and by people not really knowing what to do. So this initiative
1 was really characteristic of a later period, 1993, 1994, to the extent
2 possible, yes, in 1992 also, but mostly later.
3 Q. All right. When the police were engaged in combat activities and
4 resubordinated or subordinated, rather, is the proper word, to the
5 military, if, during the course of that period, a police officer
6 committed a criminal offence, who would be responsible for the
7 investigation? The police or the military police?
8 A. Well, in my opinion and also under the laws and regulations to
9 the extent I know them, the military bodies would be responsible for an
10 investigation. That is, the services of the VRS.
11 Q. In the event that the police were not engaged in combat
12 activities with the army, would the police still be subordinated to
13 military regulations simply because the army happened to be within the
14 area; or would they, in those circumstances, be dealt with by the police
15 chain of command?
16 A. My conclusion would be that it was the same situation as in my
17 previous answer, because it was a military mission. I think that's the
18 most important criterion for deciding how an investigation is to be
20 If the unit was carrying out a military mission, then I think
21 that military rules apply, because it was not a civilian mission.
22 Q. Yes, sorry. A slight misunderstanding. I think it must be the
23 way I phrased the question.
24 If we take, for example, an area in which there were military
25 operations being carried on in one part of the municipality but in
1 another part of the municipality there were police officers not involved
2 in direct combat, who the police then be reporting to? The army or the
4 A. Well, here we're talking about something else altogether. This
5 is about the regular activities of the police, regular tasks, civilian
6 tasks; and in that case, the civilian bodies are in charge. That is,
7 non-military bodies.
8 Q. All right. Supposing - and let's just look at one other aspect -
9 that it came to the -- once a police unit had returned to ordinary duties
10 and it came to the attention of the police that whilst in the military
11 they had -- the police unit had carried out crimes, what was the
12 responsibility, what was the duty of the police at that stage? The
13 superiors of -- of the unit, if you like.
14 A. Yes, of course, I understand.
15 The duty of the police, that is, everybody in the police, would
16 be to act with the military bodies who were directly responsible for
17 launching a investigation, but the police would have -- would have to
18 take part and contribute to the -- to this -- to solving this case,
19 finding the perpetrator, and so on. To my mind, this is the only way.
20 Q. Yes.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Njegus, you told us just a short while ago
22 that, especially in the early days of the war, the police had a lot of
23 problems with the VRS, especially on the front line.
24 I wasn't quite sure of what you had in mind when you told us
25 this. Could you explain to us what you meant?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you for this question.
2 It is really pertinent.
3 Here's what I meant. We all know when the VRS was established.
4 It was at some time in late May. And when it was being established and
5 organised, the sheer strength of that organisation clearly shows that
6 they must have had a million problems. And depending on the
7 circumstances and conditions in the individual municipalities, there were
8 also -- there were always efforts on the part of the army to push the
9 police to the first lines because they were organised already. And,
10 thus, protect military units or send them off to more risky spots, more
11 dangerous ones. And that was a source of big problems and
12 misunderstandings and even conflicts with the military, and that's how it
13 stayed until the end of the war. That's why our executives in the MUP
14 tried hard to have some sort of rules enforced. And that's how we came
15 by these rules that I mentioned a short while ago. That's what I meant
16 when I said that we had a lot of problems with the military.
17 So they simply pushed the police to all possible missions such as
18 securing camps, which was later made public, and so on and so forth.
19 Most army people tried to have police go to the more dangerous spots on
20 the front line or do any kind of -- or carry out any kind of missions
21 that were not desirable.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this answer. But it leads me to
23 put a related question, namely, a question regarding paramilitary units.
24 And the question would be if you were aware of such paramilitary units
25 also being resubordinated to the army and the army trying to push the
1 paramilitary troops on the hot spots?
2 Do you know if that happened as well?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were no rules. All sorts of
4 things happened. There were no rules. It all depended on the place.
5 When it came to those renegade groups or paramilitary formations, there
6 were a lot of problems with them. And most often the police did have
7 problems with them. The problems that the police had involved them most
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. Thank you very much.
10 Back to you, Ms. Korner.
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. If the army wanted the police to go into combat zones, did they
13 have to make a request either to the CSB or to somebody in the
14 minister -- in the ministry?
15 A. Nobody wanted to be engaged, nobody volunteered to be engaged, of
16 course. And that applied to the police. Formal requests either oral or
17 written, I don't know if there were any. I don't remember any such
18 requests actually.
19 Q. Did you deal with any requests for the use of police in combat
21 A. Well, it was logical. People did request the assistance of the
22 police. It didn't go through me. There were requests for the engagement
23 of the police on a broken front line where lives had to be saved, things
24 like that.
25 Q. Yes. Are you able to say who at MUP headquarters would deal with
1 such requests? Or were these requests made at a regional level or,
2 indeed, at a local level?
3 A. As far as I know, all three applied.
4 Q. All right. At MUP headquarters, who would have dealt with such
5 requests? You say it wasn't you.
6 A. Yes. In any case, it wasn't me. I would not be afraid to say
7 that I had been, if I was, but I wasn't.
8 But I believe it was Milenko Karisik, most often, since he was in
9 charge of the special unit that started as a special unit and then became
10 a special detachment. And I suppose that it was also the
11 then-under-secretary for public security as well as the chief of the
12 uniformed police administration. I believe that those were the three
13 persons in the MUP headquarters who received such requests and made
14 decisions on them.
15 Q. All right. I want to ask you to look at one document to see if
16 you can assist, please.
17 MS. KORNER: It's 65 ter 1581. And it's tab 34.
18 Q. This is a -- it's a handwritten order, apparently, stamped and
19 signed by Karadzic, dated 1st of July, 1992. And he says:
20 On the basis of his constitutional powers as Supreme Commander,
21 he orders two platoons of special police forces with 60 men to be sent to
22 Nedzarici and put under the military command of Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
23 And then the transfer is going to be done via Ilidza, and they should
24 report to Tomo Kovac.
25 Now, do you know anything about this at all?
1 A. No, I don't. I didn't see it before. I didn't have an occasion
2 to see this order. I don't know. I wouldn't be able to tell you
3 anything about it.
4 Q. So you can't assist as to why Karadzic personally would be
5 issuing an order for special -- two platoons of special police to -- to
6 go to Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
7 A. I really can't answer your question because I am not privy to
8 that information.
9 This is another of those examples that I spoke about in my
10 statement when I said that such and similar situations were also
11 possible. In a factual term, somebody outside of the MUP institution
12 could issue an order for the engagement of the police in various places.
13 And this is just one of the examples to illustrate that statement.
14 Q. All right. Yes, well, in that case -- and it was the -- here, as
15 Radovan Karadzic says in his -- sorry. As constitutional power as
16 Supreme Commander. So he had power, did he, as Supreme Commander to give
17 such an order?
18 A. Probably he had that legal and constitutional power because the
19 police force was an integral part of the armed forces.
20 Q. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you. I don't think I can take
21 that document any further.
22 Could you please have a look, now, at document --
23 MS. KORNER: It's tab 33, and it is 65 ter 3129.
24 Q. And this is a list of employees for July of 1992.
25 It says minister of the interior, does it, headquarters? Or does
1 that say -- it says "collegium," doesn't it, if we look at the original?
2 Is that right?
3 A. Yes. It says collegium MUP, memorandum, headquarters, collegium,
5 Q. Yes. And does that show a list of the people, including yourself
6 at number 9, who were part of the -- the MUP headquarters, really, the
8 A. Yes. Nine of us, including myself, represented the MUP collegium
9 in July, as can you see here, and there were five persons who constituted
10 the administrative and technical staff, as can you also see here.
11 Q. All right.
12 MS. KORNER: And if we go to the second page in each document.
13 Q. Is that your signature on the second page?
14 A. Yes, I signed the document. Yes.
15 Q. Was that part of your duties, to deal with the -- the salaries of
16 those who worked at -- at senior positions in the MUP headquarters?
17 A. Well, somebody had to draw lists and sign them by way of issuing
18 a -- payment orders.
19 Q. I don't -- I'm just -- it wasn't intended in any way as a
20 criticism. Just asking, Mr. Njegus.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may that be admitted and marked,
23 JUDGE HALL
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1419, Your Honours.
25 MS. KORNER:
1 Q. Now, I want to deal together as a topic, please, with the various
2 big meetings that you attended. First of all, the 11th of July meeting
3 at tab 35; P -- what?
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MS. KORNER: 160.
6 If we go, please, in the second page in both the English and
7 B/C/S, there's a long paragraph about who was at the meeting, and I think
8 your name appears about five sentences -- five, yeah, sentences down.
9 Lines down, sorry. Radomir Njegus acting for legal, administrative, and
10 personnel affairs.
11 Q. Now, you actually spoke at this meeting, I think.
12 MS. KORNER: If we go, please, in the English to page 18; and in
13 the B/C/S.
14 You say -- it's a deeply unhelpful -- to -- you give the --
15 the -- the ERN number at the top is 0324-1866 and page 16, but I don't
16 think it, unfortunately, that runs properly. Yep, thank you.
17 Q. Now, is that a record -- you've had a chance to look through
18 these minutes, both at interview and yesterday, didn't you, Mr. Njegus?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Yeah. And I think you agree that -- obviously they're not
21 verbatim record, but as a summary they're accurate?
22 A. Probably. I accept everything that is stated herein, and I would
23 say that in 90 per cent of the cases that was, indeed, the case.
24 Q. You're recorded as proposing that a report be compiled on the
25 problems that the MUP was facing with regard to the illegal acts of
1 paramilitary formations.
2 Are you able to assist on what you were referring to?
3 A. Of course that after 18 years I can't remember everything.
4 However, in very brief outlines, I would say that I remember that meeting
5 and some others which were held under Mr. Stanisic. I remember about
6 this specific meeting in Belgrade
7 according to the prevalent practice of all police institutions, it was
8 customary and it was normal at those meetings for field officials to
9 present and discuss problems that they faced in the field. Every time
10 Mr. Stanisic gave everybody an opportunity to talk about that.
11 Mr. Zupljanin also discussed his own problems, those that he faced in his
13 I'm speaking from memory. And then when he received all that
14 information and when I received all that information, when I heard about
15 all the problems that faced the police officers, I was motivated to do
16 what I said should be done, that a summary should be drafted, and that --
17 that the authorities, including the president of the Republic and others,
18 should be informed about all that.
19 Q. All right. So what you're saying is when you said that when you
20 proposed that a report be compiled on the problems we're facing with
21 regard to illegal acts of paramilitaries, that was on the basis of the
22 information that you had heard from Mr. Zupljanin, Mr. Bjelosevic,
23 Mr. Cvijetic, Mr. Savic, and the like?
24 A. Jesuric.
25 Q. Jesuric.
1 A. Yes, most probably, yes.
2 Q. And do you know if any such report was compiled by anyone in the
4 A. I wouldn't know that. I don't know anything about paramilitary
5 formations. And as for the summary, I know that it was drafted. And as
6 far as I know, it was dispatched both to the president of the Republic
7 and the president of the government. And I'm talking about the summary
8 of what was discussed at the meeting.
9 Q. Yes. Well -- sorry. I understand that -- you mean, in fact,
10 this document here that we're looking? But was any report done on the
11 problems facing the MUP because of paramilitaries?
12 A. If my memory serves me, I don't think it was, but I may be
14 Q. And was it your responsibility to do such a report, as you had
15 made the suggestion; or was it somebody else's?
16 A. It was not my responsibility. Somebody else should have done it,
17 somebody who was in charge of such problems.
18 Q. And who would that have been?
19 A. People in charge of the uniformed police.
20 Q. All right. And at MUP headquarters, that would have been who?
21 Mr. Kljajic or ...
22 A. Yes, Mr. Kljajic, of course, as the under-secretary for public
23 security; and Mr. Vaso Kusmuk who was at the time chief of administration
24 for uniformed police.
25 JUDGE HALL
1 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes, I -- yes. Your Honours are rising early
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MR. PANTELIC: Just one -- Your Honours, just 30 seconds.
5 I want to put on the record this practice of this moment with
6 regard to the line of questioning of Ms. Korner. I kindly ask the
7 witness to take off his headphones because I don't want to --
8 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, I think the
9 witness -- if Mr. Pantelic wants to raise something in respect of
10 questioning of the evidence of this witness, then he ought to leave
11 court. He can actually hear --
12 MR. PANTELIC: No, I want to raise the issue about your practice,
13 Ms. Korner.
14 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers speak one at a time.
16 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... about practice.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MR. PANTELIC: This is a violation.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, sorry.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 And the convenient course would then be to deal with this before the
23 witness is escorted back to the stand.
24 Mr. Njegus, although you are a lawyer, I'm nevertheless obliged
25 to remind you that, having been sworn as a witness, that you cannot speak
1 to any -- to the counsel from either side while you -- until you're
2 released. And in terms of such conversations as you have outside of the
3 court, you cannot discuss your testimony.
4 So we are about to take the adjournment for today, and we will
5 resume at 2.15 tomorrow afternoon in this courtroom.
6 Thank you.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.52 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day
10 of June, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.