1 Tuesday, 8 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good afternoon to everyone. May we begin in the usual manner by
10 taking the appearances for today, please. Thank you.
11 MS. KORNER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
12 Belinda Pidwell, Crispian Smith, for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Eugene O'Sullivan, Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for Stanisic Defence this
16 MR. PANTELIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Igor Pantelic and
17 Dragan Krgovic for Zupljanin Defence. And I will take this opportunity
18 to wish all the best to my learned friend Mr. Krgovic for his birthday
20 JUDGE HALL: Congratulations. I notice, Mr. Pantelic, that you
21 embarrass Mr. Krgovic, but we join you.
22 I understand that the -- Mr. Pantelic has a matter to raise but
23 before he does that we have a brief oral decision and an announcement to
25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE HALL: The oral decision is as follows.
2 On the 19th of May, 2010 the Prosecution filed a motion seeking
3 leave to add three items to its Rule 65 ter exhibit list.
4 On the 25th of May, the Trial Chamber granted the motion with
5 regard to two of the items and remained seized of the motion with regard
6 to Rule 65 ter 3598, a video containing one part of the an ABC Nightline
7 news programme. The following day, the Chamber informed the Defence that
8 it would be heard with regard to the remaining item. The time for such
9 response has now elapsed without further submissions from the Defence.
10 The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the entire video broadcast is
11 prima facie relevant, part of what is already in evidence. The Trial
12 Chamber notes the Prosecution's assertion that it had intended to tender
13 the complete programme but subsequently discovered that part of it, Rule
14 65 ter 3598 was missing from the version actually in evidence. The
15 Prosecution will not seek to tender Rule 65 ter 3598, which has already
16 been disclosed to the Defence before July of 2010. The Trial Chamber is
17 satisfied that the Defence will have sufficient time to deal with the
18 video as they choose.
19 Having considered all relevant factors for additions to the Rule
20 65 ter list, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that granting the request is
21 in the interest of justice and, therefore, allows the Prosecution to add
22 Rule 65 ter 3598 to its 65 ter exhibit list.
23 And we have an announcement about non-sitting days. Further to
24 discussions that have occurred in the course of this trial, usually at
25 the instances of counsel for the Defence, the Trial Chamber has concluded
1 that it will fix at least one but not more than two non-sitting days each
2 month. Such occasional days will be settled by the Trial Chamber and the
3 parties would be notified of the selected dates in such time as would
4 facilitate their own planning. Accordingly, the dates so far determined
5 are -- coincidentally, they're all Fridays, but that is not gospel for
6 the future, but Friday, the 2nd of July; Friday, the 23rd of July;
7 Friday, the 20th of August; and Friday, the 20th of -- Friday, the 10th
8 of September.
9 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 On behalf of our clients with regard to their request requesting
12 the health issues and actually request for this non-sitting days.
13 Your Honours, I would like to bring to your attention the -- from
14 my point of view, unacceptable practice of the OTP in process of
15 disclosure and work so far.
16 Yesterday during the examination of Mr. Njegus,
17 examination-in-chief, my learned friend, Ms. Korner, spent a lot of time
18 with him with regard to the issue of his contacts and some other aspect
19 of the position of my client, Mr. Zupljanin. Contrary to the -- to the
20 summary witness -- summary -- witness summary of Mr. Njegus, where in
21 this summary, there is no word about Zupljanin. And in addition, we
22 were -- we have been provided by Prosecution with a proofing note of
23 Mr. Njegus prior to his testimony where only in one word our client,
24 Mr. Zupljanin, was mentioned and that issue was clarified yesterday in
25 accordance with the testimony of Mr. Njegus.
1 Furthermore, on the 1st of June, information from interview of
2 Mr. Njegus which was held on 24th and 25th February 2003 was disclosed to
3 the Defence, which means after seven years. In addition to that, B/C/S
4 version of that -- these notes were disclosed to the Defence on Friday,
5 June 4th, 3.47 p.m.
6 Now, the great surprise of the Defence is that why it takes seven
7 years to file these particular documents. And while reviewing this
8 information of the interview from 2003, on page 4, below the chapter or
9 heading, under the title of cabinet meetings, we discovered that first
10 two lines, which might be of importance, are deleted. So we don't know
11 what is in this particular part, and we assume that it might be of
12 interest to fulfil our Defence mission. I'm not speaking about the other
13 parts obviously related to some footnotes or maybe remarks of the
14 investigator, that's I'm not challenging at all, that's -- that's the
15 work product of OTP team, but this particular sentence might have certain
16 impact to ability to defend our client, and I kindly ask our friends to,
17 as soon as possible, disclose us this particular part of this statement.
18 Now, Your Honours, what we have here, we don't have, with regard
19 to our client Mr. Zupljanin, nothing at all or -- or -- or very, very
20 little in all these documents. But contrary to that fact, yesterday
21 Ms. Korner was pressing, attacking, squeezing Mr. Njegus with regard to
22 the issues related to my client. We all know how it was finished, as
23 usual, without any grounds for their side. But the outcome of this
24 problem, Your Honour, might be the following. Assuming during the
25 Defence case that we shall provide to the Prosecution witness summary
1 with the same standards and practice as they did, without any detail,
2 without any -- any relevant portion to what we want to elicit or to lead
3 our -- our witness. And then, suddenly, during examination-in-chief, we
4 shall shift our strategy and we shall ask particular witness with
5 enormous issues, which are not in the witness summary, and which are not
6 in proofing notes. And then what? Where we shall be?
7 I think this practice of Prosecution is a clear example of lack
8 of due diligence, lack of professional diligence, and I kindly ask this
9 Trial Chamber to issue a warning to the Prosecution with regard to this
11 Thank you for your attention, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE HALL: Before I invite Ms. Korner to respond, the
13 observation that I would make from what you would have said so far,
14 Mr. Pantelic, is that, of course, the trial is conducted on the basis of
15 oral testimony, if that isn't a redundant concept. In other words the --
16 what the Chamber hears at the end of the day is inclusive of documents
17 that are exhibited. What the witness says and such summaries as would be
18 provided in advance exactly that, a summary, because otherwise if it were
19 merely a repetition in its entirety of what's -- of what's in the -- in
20 the previous statements, the testimony would be redundant and we needn't
21 come here and assemble, we could just read what the witnesses have --
22 would have prepared beforehand.
23 Anyway, Ms. Korner.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but, Your Honour, may I just be very brief.
25 The point is that during proofing of Mr. Njegus, they were
1 obliged to raise these particular issues that they will follow during the
2 examination-in-chief otherwise this is clear attempt to -- to have --
3 ambush trial by them because what prevented them to ask him on
4 May 13th -- 11 May, 13th May, and 6 of June to ask this witness certain
5 issues regarding our client, which they did yesterday during the
6 examination-in-chief. And then we might be entitled to -- to have the
7 adjournment to discuss this new issues which we're not -- which was
8 absolutely not -- not put in this proofing note and then to ask to
9 consult with our client. That's -- that's my point, Your Honour.
10 So we have to -- we are officer of justice. We have to fulfil
11 obligations. We have to be fair, and -- and do our best in -- in our --
12 in our work.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, if I may presume to summarize what I
15 understand Mr. Pantelic's --
16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
17 JUDGE HALL: Pardon me? Yes, they're being caught by surprise.
18 That seems to be the substance of his ...
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
20 Your Honours, I suppose it was rather foolish of me to imagine
21 that Mr. Pantelic might actually read the interview on which basis we are
22 calling this witness. Your Honour, the 65 ter summary is really an
23 indication more to the Court than to Defence counsel of what is contained
24 in already disclosed, for the large part, statements or interviews. The
25 Court doesn't have perhaps the same facility and so that is why we put in
1 the summaries.
2 Your Honour, Mr. Njegus is being called on the basis of what he
3 said in his interview in 2007. I will come to the -- the more legitimate
4 complaint that Mr. Pantelic has about the late disclosure of the notes of
5 interview in -- in 2003.
6 Throughout that interview, and the part that I was attempting to
7 get to yesterday, Mr. Zupljanin was mentioned by Mr. Njegus. Can I start
8 with page 20 of the interview where he was asked to listen to an
9 intercept, which I haven't troubled the Court with, the Court has had it
10 before, between Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Stanisic, and he said: I recognise
11 Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Stanisic's voice. He was asked a number of
12 questions about the relationship on that page, at page 21, between
13 Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Stanisic, which I was attempting to get to
14 yesterday -- to get the witness to come to yesterday.
15 Your Honours, we can put it up on the screen, if you like, if
16 that helps. Properly quicker in Sanction than in -- oh. All right.
17 9035 -- sorry, it's 65 ter 9035.
18 Then if you go over the page to page --
19 MR. ZECEVIC: May I -- I'm really sorry to interrupt. But I
20 would need to object to this. I believe Your Honours gave the -- the
21 floor to Ms. Korner to respond to what Mr. Pantelic have said.
22 I don't think we need to go into the -- the actual evidence
23 for -- for the purposes of -- of response, Your Honour, and showing the
24 documents on that basis, I don't think it is appropriate.
25 Thank you very much.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the allegation, which is a serious one
2 and which we take seriously, is that we have behaved improperly and that
3 we gone beyond the scope of the 65 ter summary that we've led evidence
4 that Mr. Pantelic was not informed of in advance, not by the interview,
5 not by the proofing note. So I'm now entitled to show Your Honours
6 exactly what that evidence is in the interviews, and I'm going, unless
7 Your Honours stop me.
8 JUDGE HALL: The -- in the interests of time, the -- I suppose it
9 may be useful to -- for us to be shown the particular examples, but the
10 principle which Mr. Pantelic raises about generally being -- his word was
11 ambush but the rule with which everybody is familiar about the
12 entitlement of the Defence not to be taken by surprise.
13 So if you could summarize your response to that. And as I said,
14 the details we may need to come to because the remedy if -- if -- if a
15 remedy is available to Mr. Pantelic, is that if, indeed, in the Chamber's
16 view he was caught by surprise then he would be entitled to an
17 adjournment to consider the new evidence, but that's -- that's the -- if
18 you focus on that very narrow question --
19 MS. KORNER: I hope that is exactly what have I been doing, Your
20 Honour, by taking you through everything single entry in this interview
21 about Mr. Zupljanin.
22 In particular, the part that I was attempting to address
23 yesterday comes very early on in the interview.
24 Page 22 - can we have that up, please - forget about the B/C/S.
25 We just need the English.
1 He is being asked why Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Stanisic were
2 communicating during the blockade, and he says, he can conclude the
3 following question by the investigator, I mentioned that Mico Stanisic
4 was with the city SUP. He was sorry and he's correct himself, he was the
5 advisor in the MUP but because of that position was he supposed to speak
6 to Zupljanin.
7 "A. Probably I know the following thing which happened after
8 this. This happened after the 1st of April. When Mico was officially
9 appointed minister, as far as I remember, Zupljanin at the very beginning
10 even had a formal decision on his appointment as his deputy. He was at
11 the same time the chief of CSB Banja Luka but as the deputy of Mico
12 Stanisic too."
13 And then he goes on to deal with how he knew Zupljanin on the
14 next page.
15 Your Honours, can I put it this way, there are ten or so
16 different pages that deal with the witness's knowledge of Mr. Zupljanin,
17 and he repeats again, later, in the interview, that he was under the firm
18 impression that Zupljanin was formally deputy to the minister of the
20 The proofing note is meant to deal with matters that are not
21 dealt with in the interview but are additional to other matters that the
22 witness has mentioned. And in relation to that, and this is on the third
23 page of the proofing note which I believe Your Honours have, he said
24 this, because he said he discovered he made a mistake by talking to
25 Mr. Macar and Mr. Planojevic. Whether or not there was an official
1 appointment he felt that Stojan Zupljanin was Mico Stanisic's deputy.
2 Stojan Zupljanin had a strong personality who was held in high regard in
3 Banja Luka. As such he would have imposed his authority even more in a
4 wartime situation.
5 To say that they had no notice of the evidence which this witness
6 was -- which -- I would have personally liked this witness to give,
7 although he is clearly very reluctant to give it, is really a travesty of
8 the actual situation, Your Honours. As I said to Your Honours before,
9 there's a real difference between the Prosecution and the Defence 65
10 ters. We provide the 65 ter plus statements plus interviews plus massive
11 disclosure. We get nothing from the Defence except for the 65 ter
12 summaries and that's the difference between them. And as I say, the only
13 way that Mr. Pantelic could have been taken by surprise is by not having
14 read the interview or the proofing note.
15 Your Honours, in respect of the note of interview that took place
16 in 2003, Your Honours, it wasn't, as I say, as I led from the witness who
17 feels very strongly about it and if required will explain to Mr. Pantelic
18 about it, at that stage, in 2003, he was in fact the head of the
19 administration, I believe, in the RS MUP, and he was seen by a lawyer and
20 investigator on the basis, as he understood it, that it was an interview
21 for information, that he wasn't being formally interviewed. There was no
22 tape-recording, and regrettably, because of that situation maybe it
23 didn't get into the system. When I was checking the interview for the
24 purposes of calling Mr. Njegus, I saw there was a reference to an earlier
25 conversation with the OTP. I therefore made inquiries. We did searches,
1 and we discovered that there was indeed that record of interview. Not
2 tape-recorded, not shown to the witness, not checked by him, and really
3 as I understand the matter and certainly from the witness he understood
4 that it was a conversation with him in his capacity as the then-head of
5 the RS MUP, administrative section. So it can't be used by us as
6 evidence but obviously it had to be disclosed. So at the last moment we
7 got it translated. We disclosed it as soon as we found it. We then had
8 it translated.
9 In the e-mail which went with this document, we said, in terms,
10 the only redactions that we have made to this are where they contain
11 comments by the lawyer. They are not what the witness said. That is
12 what the e-mail said. I noticed that Mr. Pantelic didn't mention that to
13 you. What we redacted, because we didn't think what the lawyer thought
14 was at all relevant, was the lawyer's comment under the -- the -- the
15 heading cabinet meetings. I can assure Mr. Pantelic, and I'm perfectly
16 prepared to tell him what the lawyer's comment was, if he really wants to
17 know, but I don't see how it assists him, so that's the situation, Your
19 It is unfortunate at that stage in 2003, Mr. Njegus doesn't seem
20 to have been contemplated as any kind of a witness. I believe it was
21 even before the arrest of Mr. Stanisic. He was being interviewed in fact
22 by lawyers engaged on the Krajisnik case then I think for the purpose of
23 information, but it didn't -- and therefore for some reason or another it
24 didn't get into the system.
25 So, Your Honour, that's the explanation. I hope that Your
1 Honours will accept that explanation from me.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, first of all, I was very precise in
3 my submission. I said the footnotes I'm not challenging. That's the
5 Let me -- let me just read this particular paragraph. Cabinet
6 meetings, and then there is deleted part which is a part of information
7 of that statement and certain -- certain -- certain facts by -- by
8 Mr. Njegus, witness. Then after this deleted part in the middle of the
9 page, we have the following; he states that they did not meet frequently
10 because war activities has commenced and things were not centralised. He
11 says that there was not much contact with the regions.
12 So I assume with -- with significant ground that first part is --
13 contains certain names because the -- the -- the statements, sentence
14 that I just read actually directs to that. I'm not speaking about
15 footnotes where possible remarks of OTP team could be made. But this
16 particular part I would like to have disclosed as soon as possible.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour --
18 MR. PANTELIC: As soon as possible.
19 MS. KORNER: I hear you Mr. Pantelic.
20 Your Honours, I promise you, I was referring to that part. That
21 was -- it starts with a lawyer's comment on what then follows, but I'm
22 perfectly happy, as Mr. Pantelic clearly -- and I will show him the
23 original document doesn't accept -- accept what -- what we say. It
24 begins as follows in that paragraph: Njegus's comments in respect of
25 cabinet meetings minimise the role of the cabinet and are most probably
1 not reliable.
2 I'm perfectly happy to show that to Mr. Pantelic.
3 JUDGE HALL: So for practical purposes the issue has been
4 resolved. And we can get -- Mr. Zecevic, yes.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Just for the sake of truthfulness, Your Honours,
6 page 11, line 17, the -- the indictment against Mr. Stanisic was issued
7 in 2005, and he was not arrested. He voluntarily surrendered. Thank
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you for the correction.
10 MS. KORNER: It was before Mr. Stanisic, in any event, had been
11 indicted, and I should add, Your Honours, everything that is in that note
12 effectively was repeated in the interview so that Mr. Njegus had a chance
13 to deal with it.
14 JUDGE HALL: So counsel for both sides having had an opportunity
15 to express their views on this issue, formally and on the record, we can
16 have the witness escorted back to the stand.
17 MS. KORNER: Well, no, Your Honour. The allegation was, and I do
18 think that in fairness to us you ought to say that you find no
19 foundation, that we had not given the Defence advance notice of evidence
20 that we were going to lead, and I think it is only right that Your
21 Honours should say you don't find any foundation in that allegation.
22 JUDGE HALL: I appreciate your anxiety that the Chamber should so
23 formally pronounce, Ms. Korner. But your articulation of your position
24 and the historical overview of how you would have dealt with this matter
25 seems to me to have put them -- to have -- to have dealt with the issue
1 much more eloquently and accurately than anything that we could say, and
2 I don't know that it would be of assistance for us to say anything more.
3 MS. KORNER: All I can say then, Your Honours, I would hope that
4 in the spirit of co-operation and good relations between counsel,
5 Mr. Pantelic might acknowledge that what he put forward, certainly in
6 respect of the leading of evidence, was not totally accurate.
7 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] ... as he comes to
8 appreciate the fullness of your explanation, that may be forthcoming.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Njegus, good afternoon to you. I remind you,
12 before Ms. Korner continues, that you're still on your oath.
13 Yes, Ms. Korner.
14 WITNESS: RADOMIR NJEGUS [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
17 Q. [Microphone not activated] ... Mr. Njegus, I want to go back --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for --
19 Q. I want to go back this afternoon to a question that His Honour
20 Judge Harhoff was asking you yesterday. You were being asked questions
21 about the -- the -- the document that showed that some kind of advisory
22 staff was going to be set up. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes, I do remember that.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Judge Harhoff asked you some
25 questions about it because you said it was never actually brought into
1 operation. And the question was by Judge Harhoff at the top of page
3 "Your testimony is that it was just because of the fact that the
4 head of the staff" -- who you said was Mr. Stanisic -- "never convened
5 the persons who had been appointed, and that was the reason why it never
6 became effective."
7 Is that your testimony?
8 And then for various reasons we moved on.
9 Can I ask you now to answer that question, please. Is it because
10 Mr. Stanisic never convened a meeting that this staff never became
12 A. My conclusion would be that that was the reason that that's why
13 the staff never became effective. It is possible that there are other
14 reasons, but I think that was the most important one.
15 MS. KORNER: Can't hear anything. All right. Thank you.
16 Q. Sorry, I'm having slight problems with my earphones today.
17 All right. I'd like to move, please, then to ask you about
18 another document in connection with this delegation of -- of authority to
19 CSB chiefs and the like to appoint personnel.
20 Could you have a look, please, at document -- it's 65 ter 2747.
21 MS. KORNER: Tab 22 for counsel.
22 Q. This is a document of the 26th of April, 1992, and it's addressed
23 to the five CSBs, the heads thereof. And if you look at the third
24 paragraph, it says:
25 "Bearing in mind the fact that the minister of the interior
1 transferred his authorities to the heads of Security Services Centres in
2 regard to the distribution of ... employees. I draw your attention to
3 the fact the employment of the employees must be limited with the
4 situation ..."
5 And then:
6 "All the decisions issued" -- in the next paragraph -- "so far by
7 this ministry are still in effect and produce legal consequences.
8 Proposals [sic] for personnel decisions."
9 And then this:
10 "However, in the future, heads of Security Services Centres will
11 issue decisions for the employees within Security Services Centres and
12 public security stations in their area and inform the ministry -- this
13 ministry thereafter."
14 And if we look, please, at the second page, which we already seem
15 to, yeah, have. That's fine. Already in the B/C/S.
16 Is that a genuine signature or facsimile of Mico Stanisic? Are
17 you able to tell us? It's not very clear, I agree.
18 A. I cannot confirm this. I am not familiar with the signature of
19 Mr. Stanisic. It was not something one could see often. I cannot
20 confirm whether this is his signature.
21 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Your Honours, I'm so sorry, I can see why I
22 can hear nothing because it's come apart. Sorry about this. That's it.
23 It's okay. Thank you.
24 Q. All right. So you can't say whether it's his signature. What
25 about the content of the document? Were you familiar with that?
1 A. To be honest, today after -- after -- after 18 years, I wasn't
2 familiar with it before I -- had I had an opportunity to read this
3 document, maybe I would have remembered the context. I'm sure it was
4 drafted by several of us -- but I haven't had an opportunity to read it
5 recently nor did I have an opportunity to read it two or three years ago,
6 so I cannot be very precise about this document.
7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... didn't you read it on
8 Sunday? You went through all these documents I'm asking you about.
9 A. Yes, I understand I should have read it, but I did not. There
10 were many documents there, and I didn't go into the contents of it, and I
11 just made decisions as to whether I'm familiar or not familiar with the
12 document in the sense of the conversation we had.
13 Q. All right. Well, would you like to read through the whole
14 document? I'm afraid -- I can hand you the copy. And if could just --
15 and see if you can tell us anything more about it.
16 You say that -- you're sure it was drafted by several of you.
17 Any of how, I'm sure the Court would give you the time to read through
18 the document.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, perhaps before that, I'm a little bit
20 confused about your question and the answer about the signature.
21 You asked the witness whether he could say whether it is
22 Mr. Stanisic's signature. If --
23 MS. KORNER: Or a facsimile.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Or a facsimile.
25 MS. KORNER: Yes.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Answer: I can't tell. But the witness
2 recognised several times yesterday the facsimile, so he should be able
3 to -- to recognise whether this is the facsimile or not, because
4 facsimile is always identical, if I'm not wrong.
5 MS. KORNER: I think Your Honour probably is right.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, His Honour is absolutely
7 right, and I would recognise the facsimile, but this is not the
9 MS. KORNER:
10 Q. So is it Mr. Stanisic's real signature?
11 A. As I've already told you, his original signature was something
12 one wouldn't see often. I didn't have many opportunities to see them
13 often, and it's possible that it is, but it is also possible that it
15 Q. Perhaps you would just like to have a quick read through the
16 document then and tell us if can you say whether you drafted it or other
17 people drafted it.
18 A. I don't want to spend too much time on this. This document is
19 rather illegible, since it's a photocopy. But based on the content I
20 cannot confirm with absolute certainty but it is highly likely that I
21 took part in the drafting of it, possibly with someone else, because
22 what's dealt with in this document is the issues related to personnel, an
23 appointment of personnel. So I believe I may have taken part in the
24 drafting of this document either directly or indirectly.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MS. KORNER: Sorry.
2 Q. And was the purpose of this document, as we can see, to give more
3 authority to the chiefs of the CSBs?
4 A. Yes, it is. As I've told you yesterday, I'm certain that in some
5 of the instructions that were sent to the CSBs, we kept talking about
6 transfer of authority and that the authorities were, indeed, transferred
7 upon them.
8 Q. Yes. All right.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I believe the witness should repeat his
10 answer, because his complete answer has not been recorded.
11 He was actually giving the reference to a time when this was
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. Mr. Njegus, you heard that. Did you say at what period of time
15 authority was being transferred? This document is dated the 26th of
17 A. This is one of the documents that was drafted during the month of
18 April, and most probably not the only one such. There may have been
19 other decisions where one can see that authorities were transferred from
20 the minister to the chiefs of the CSBs, and -- and also to some other
21 leadership structures within the MUP. I'm certain one of them was the
22 chief of State Security Service and the commander of the special
23 detachment of police.
24 Q. Yes, thank you very much. The usher can give that back to me.
25 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, may that be admitted and marked,
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P1420, Your Honours.
4 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
5 Q. Yes. Can I ask you now, please, to have a look at the
6 document --
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MS. KORNER: Okay.
9 Q. At a document, which is 363, please. 65 ter 363.
10 MS. KORNER: Tab 29 - sorry - for the Defence.
11 Q. This is a report dated the 8th of June, and it's a report on the
12 status of personnel in the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian
13 Republic. And it's a quite a long report. It runs to - one, two, three,
14 four - six pages in English. Yes, four pages in B/C/S.
15 Did you read that?
16 A. Yes, I did, but only a glance. There's no need for us to dwell
17 on that issue because I am familiar with the content of this report.
18 Q. All right. Well, then just two matters I want you to -- to deal
19 with -- or three, first of all.
20 Who actually drafted the report; do you know?
21 A. Again, I cannot remember with certainty, but I, either directly
22 or indirectly, did take part in drafting of this report. Someone else
23 may have also been included in addition to me.
24 Q. This says -- the first paragraph, it says: According to
25 incomplete and imprecise indicator, the records kept by the Serbian
1 Republic, the ministry in June had 1.831 employees. And then somebody's
2 written, obviously later, that it has been increased by the end of
3 June to 2054, and that's without Banja Luka Services Centre.
4 And then over the page in English, same page in B/C/S, third
5 paragraph: "All employees are Serbian except six who are Muslim (five in
6 Kalinovik, one in Ljubinje)."
7 So between -- well, sorry, by the 8th of June, there were only,
8 from your records, six employees of the MUP who were Muslim; is that
10 MR. KRGOVIC: I think this is slightly misleading. In this
11 report it's not including CSB Banja Luka, so the question must be
12 [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, look, I've already
14 read that it excludes the CSB. It is obvious, is it not, that in the
15 MUP, excluding the CSB Banja Luka, there were only six non -- six Muslim
16 employees left in the Serbian MUP.
17 A. With your permission, two comments. This correction that can be
18 found in the first paragraph, it is in my handwriting. I can confirm
19 that the -- the data that was put in instead of the previous number is in
20 my handwriting.
21 Now I cannot tell you today whether this is or is not correct.
22 However, since I most probably did take part in drafting of the report, I
23 would say that my assumption is that this is correct.
24 Q. All right. The addition that you did, was that to take into
25 account Banja Luka? Because you didn't have it originally or -- on the
1 8th of June, but you added in, effectively, 200-odd further employees.
2 Do you know how many employees Banja Luka CSB had?
3 A. I don't know from this vantage point, of course, I don't know
4 that. I don't even remember why did I increase the number for the 200 or
5 so. I can't remember that now.
6 Q. Well, I don't think I want to ask you anything more.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may that be admitted and marked,
9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P1421, Your Honours.
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. Next could you have a look, please, at document 1423.
13 MS. KORNER: Tab 30A.
14 Q. This document's going out under the name of Mico Stanisic, and it
15 has a stamp. But do you recognise the signature?
16 A. Yes. This is my signature.
17 Q. Now, this is an order to the special police unit of the Ministry
18 of Interior in Sokolac to carry out mobilisation. It's dated the 15th of
20 Is that the same unit that we saw yesterday, that was headed by
22 A. It is possible, but I cannot confirm that today, whether this
23 refers to his unit or to some other unit.
24 Q. Well, we saw -- it's -- it's -- this document is actually sent to
25 the Sokolac Special Police Unit, and we saw yesterday the list of
1 employees there.
2 So are you saying there were two special police units at Sokolac?
3 A. No, no. That's not what I meant. My comment is about the order
4 I have signed on -- for the minister after consultations. But one thing
5 is certain, there were no two such units there.
6 Q. All right. Thank you. So you signed that order after you had
7 consulted with Mr. Stanisic?
8 A. No, I didn't say that. I think I didn't have any communications
9 with him in relation to this order and this topic. It must have been
10 with Cedo Kljajic that I have had consultations with.
11 Q. What you said earlier was my comment about the order that I have
12 signed on for the minister after consultations.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Ms. Korner. It hasn't been recorded. I
14 wanted to get up but then I said, it wasn't recorded correctly what the
15 witness said. Witness exactly said what he repeated in his next answer.
16 Well, we can ask for verification, but I know what I heard. I
17 wanted to -- to raise it, but I didn't want to interrupt Ms. Korner. Now
18 it appears it's better that I should have.
19 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps we need to clarify this from the witness
21 MS. KORNER: I'm going to, Your Honour. I -- I -- I really am a
22 little unhappy about -- about what's going on in -- in questions of
23 what's being interpreted.
24 Q. All right. You signed this order, it's your signature. There is
25 only one special police unit which goes to Mr. Malovic with whom you
1 would not have signed such an order, I take it, without authority from
3 A. As I was explaining I think yesterday and also previously, what
4 kind of situations one faced in relation to implementation of commitments
5 and daily needs. This is yet another such example. I can confirm with
6 full responsibility this is something I would have remembered since I
7 have had very few conversations with Mr. Stanisic, the minister. In
8 relation to signing of this order, I did not communicate with him. I
9 signed it, I assume, in agreement with or having been ordered by security
10 chief Cedo Kljajic. Whether the two of them had had any conversations
11 about it, I cannot confirm.
12 Q. All right. How are you able to say about this particular,
13 document, as opposed to many others that you may have signed, that you
14 did not talk to Mr. Stanisic about it? What is it about this document
15 that sticks in your mind that says, I did not speak to Stanisic; I spoke
16 to Kljajic?
17 A. I have no reason to tell you things the way they were not. I was
18 trying to explain yesterday and to the Prosecution in general that I have
19 had very few contacts with Mr. Stanisic in person. Very seldom we had
20 conversations. Very seldom I received orders from him. I would have
21 remembered any order received from him because there were just a few of
22 those. And that's why I can say that I did not have a conversation with
23 him in relation to this particular order.
24 Q. This is an order for mobilisation. Could anybody except the
25 minister of the interior have made -- given such an order?
1 A. As you can see, it was possible.
2 MS. KORNER: No, no, no, not who signed --
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, I have to object, Ms. Korner. I don't -- I
4 don't see how can you say that this is the order on mobilisation.
5 MS. KORNER: If we read --
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I haven't read the English translation, but I
7 know what it -- what it says in the Serbian original. That's why I'm
9 MS. KORNER: The English original, if you look at that time on
10 the screen, Mr. Zecevic, says: Order to the special police unit of the
11 Ministry of the Interior (Sokolac unit) to carry out mobilisation of
12 conscripts ... those who have not responded to the mobilisation in the
13 Serbian municipality of, et cetera, et cetera.
14 Now are you saying that is a mistranslation?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I'm not saying -- then what I'm saying is that
16 you are misinterpreting the order. This is not the order for
17 mobilisation. This is the order for arrest of the people who have not
18 responded to mobilisation and bringing them to the military organs so
19 they can mobilise them. That is the meaning of this order.
20 MS. KORNER: Well, that's -- I'm glad you gave evidence,
21 Mr. Zecevic, but perhaps we might just ask the witness.
22 Q. What was this order that you were signing and let's -- let's
23 concentrate on you're signing. You weren't signing in your own name and
24 in your own authority, were you?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. You were signing on behalf of Mico Stanisic?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... anywhere but it may be, of
4 course the copy is so bad -- actually it is not that bad, the word "za."
5 But it could be there, I suppose. All right.
6 What does this order actually say? Forgetting about what
7 Mr. Zecevic told you it said.
8 A. I could not forget that. The gentleman was correct in what he
9 said. When I read what I signed, the purpose of this document was to
10 convey to this special unit in Sokolac, to carry out the mobilisation of
11 conscripts, who had failed to respond to previous call-up. That is the
12 essence of what I just signed. Whether I had a right to or not is
13 another matter.
14 Just one more thing. You see this small letter Z, so the "za,"
15 for the minister, is there. That's also in my handwriting. The small
16 letter Z in Roman script.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... could anybody, other than
18 Mico Stanisic as the minister, have given such an order?
19 A. Well, that's debatable now. Why not?
20 Because it's obvious. We're talking about the month of June,
21 right? Conscripts are not responding to mobilisation call-ups. The army
22 is still not fully established. Police officers have to contribute,
23 obviously, to the carrying out of mobilisation. And I'm sure that
24 activities of this kind took place on the ground in most municipalities.
25 Q. All right. If you say that Cedo Kljajic was the one who gave you
1 the instructions to send out this order and not Mico Stanisic, why, if
2 anybody could make such an order, didn't it go out under his name?
3 A. I don't know that. It's possible that the man was just not there
4 at Vrace.
5 Q. Which man was just not there?
6 A. I mean Cedo Kljajic.
7 Q. If he wasn't there, and Mico Stanisic wasn't there, who gave the
8 order to you to send out this order?
9 A. We're coming back to the starting point again.
10 My recollection is that I was instructed to this -- to do this by
11 Cedo Kljajic, under-secretary for public security, who had the powers to
12 issue such a decree, and since I signed it, I suppose that at that
13 moment, the moment of signing, Cedo Kljajic was physically not present at
15 Q. It's my fault, and it may be the question. What I meant was, if
16 Cedo Kljajic had the authority to issue an order such as this, why did
17 the order have to bear the signature -- the typed signature of Mico
18 Stanisic and not that of Cedo Kljajic, whether or not Cedo Kljajic
19 himself actually physically signed the document?
20 A. That is the right question, and I can answer it.
21 Most of the things that we issued from the locality of Vrace,
22 most of similar documents, instructions, et cetera, went under the name
23 of the minister, Mr. Stanisic. It's highly likely that not a single
24 document went out under the name of the under-secretary, Mr. Cedo
25 Kljajic. Most of these documents were signed minister.
1 Q. I understand that they were, and you're -- in fact, I can tell
2 you, you're right, very little goes out under Mr. Kljajic's name, that we
4 But what I want to know is, why does it bear the minister's
5 signature and not of that Cedo Kljajic, unless it was the minister's
6 authority that was required to give these orders?
7 And I hope you understand that.
8 A. I understand that. I'm just trying to explain what our practice
10 The common practice was that everything issued from our offices
11 in Vrace at the time went out under the name of the minister, not the
12 others, the under-secretary for public security or the chief of
13 administration. You will rarely find any documents signed by chiefs of
14 administrations. Most of the documents were signed Mico Stanisic.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... try it another way. Was
16 that because these documents, these orders, these dispatches, only had
17 authority if they went out in the minister's name?
18 A. No, no, certainly not. If anyone else had signed the documents,
19 they would have had the same force.
20 Q. No, I think we're getting -- I hope we can distinguish through
21 the interpretation between writing, signing a document, and the typed
22 signature. Whoever signed the document, physically signed with a pen,
23 did it require, however, to have the name of the minister and his stamp
24 in order for the document to have authority?
25 A. Now if we look at this specific case, it's possible that somebody
1 else's powers and signature would have sufficed. I'm just trying to
2 explain to you the practice that prevailed at the time. The bulk of the
3 documents that we drafted were drafted in this format, with the heading
4 of the ministry, and under the name of the minister at the bottom.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that was the practice. I'm
6 not disputing that. I'm asking why. And you were a member of this
7 ministry for a long time, Mr. Njegus. Why was that the practice?
8 A. Because it had been introduced at the beginning and then it
9 remained in place. Now why it was introduced in the first place, it's
10 hard to explain.
11 Q. Repeat for the final time and then I will move on. Was that
12 because it required to have the typewritten name of the minister and the
13 stamp for it to have any authority?
14 A. I've already said no to this question. Similar documents could
15 be signed by other senior officials at the base, at the headquarters, who
16 would have enough powers.
17 MS. KORNER: All right. I think we tried, Your Honour, enough on
18 this one.
19 Your Honours, may that finally be admitted and marked?
20 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
21 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
22 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P1422, Your Honours.
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. Yes, Mr. Njegus, I'm not going to trouble you with the documents.
25 But I think it's right that you attended on behalf of Mico Stanisic a
1 number of sessions of the government, three in all. Is that right?
2 A. It is right. Three sessions. And I was not the only one.
3 Q. No. The purpose of sending you to those sessions was what?
4 A. I don't know what made the minister decide to send me to attend
5 government sessions on his behalf in any one of the cases. In any case,
6 I complied, I attended these sessions. I can only suppose that he sent
7 placements because there was friction between him and the then-prime
9 Q. Did you report back on discussions at those meetings which
10 affected the MUP?
11 A. I'm not sure. I possibly did once. But in any case, nothing
12 much was decided at government sessions regarding our field of work, with
13 the exception of one session, which discussed the Law on Citizenship.
14 Nothing else concerning the MUP was discussed at government sessions.
15 Q. I don't want to waste time because the Court has seen this but,
16 in fact, wasn't there a discussion about the use of the Vila Bosanka in
18 A. No, no, I don't remember. And I don't know why it would have
19 mattered to the MUP.
20 Q. Well, all right. Not to mention a discussion about who was
21 entitled to wear camouflage and other uniforms in the Ministry of
23 A. I don't remember that.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. But it's possible.
1 Q. Can you look, please, at document 1D0059. I just want you to
2 identify the signature, please.
3 A. Yes, I can see that.
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
5 A. Yes, yes, I can see that, and I recognise my signature, and I
6 recognise the signature of Goran Macar who was either coordinator or
7 acting chief of the crime investigation administration.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... your signature?
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apology. I misheard. The
10 witness did not say apparently it was his signature.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand what you're
12 asking me. There's no signature of mine here.
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. Don't worry. That's Mr. Macar's signature signing for
15 Mr. Stanisic, is it, at that time?
16 A. Correct. I confirm what I've just said, that Mr. Stanisic was
17 mostly indicated in the signature place, and somebody else signed for
19 Q. Right.
20 JUDGE HALL: If you're about to go on to something else, perhaps
21 we should take the break.
22 MS. KORNER: Certainly, Your Honour, yes.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 4.08 p.m.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 MS. KORNER:
3 Q. [Microphone not activated] ... I've just got two or three more
4 documents to show you, Mr. Njegus.
5 MS. KORNER: Could we have up, please, first of all, document
6 221 -- yes, 218. 65 ter 218.
7 Tab 43.
8 Q. This is a document, is that right, addressed to you for your
9 personal attention -- yes. And it tells you there's going to be a
10 meeting in Trebinje on the 20th of August. And this time, can you tell
11 us, is that a facsimile, Mr. Stanisic?
12 A. I don't think this is a facsimile. This is one of the few signed
14 Q. All right. And so this meeting was considered important enough
15 by Mr. Stanisic for him to have signed this document himself; is that
17 A. I don't know if that was the reason why he signed.
18 Q. But nothing could be more uninteresting, could it, given the
19 number of documents that you say he didn't sign or didn't know anything
20 about. Why would he bother to personally sign something telling you to
21 attend a meeting?
22 A. I'm not the one who is supposed to make such conclusions. That's
23 all could I say.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may that be admitted and marked,
1 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As P01423. Thank you, Your Honours.
3 MS. KORNER: And now can we look at the record, please, of the
4 actual meeting, which is already exhibited as P163.
5 If we turn, please, to the second page in English and B/C/S.
6 Q. And you're shown there, is that right, as an assistant minister,
7 together with Mr. Kovac?
8 A. I think we clarified yesterday what my status was.
9 Q. Yes. All right. Well, I'm just asking, why was it that
10 everybody else had their appointments confirmed but you don't seem to
11 have? This is August and you're still acting.
12 A. Precisely. I did not get final appointment for what I was doing,
13 in practice, but I continued to do that in practice and everybody
14 accepted me in that position.
15 Q. Can you look, please, now at some of the things that were said.
16 At this meeting, Mr. Zupljanin was not present.
17 Could you turn, please - one, two, three - to the fifth page in
18 English and the fourth page in B/C/S.
19 Mr. Cvijetic, I think it was, no, Mr. Savic, the Trebinje CSB
20 chief was reporting and stated that in the Bileca area about 140
21 military-fit Muslims were arrested and were recently visited by the
22 representatives of the International Red Cross.
23 Did you understand for that that the reason for the arrest, from
24 what Mr. Savic was saying, was simply that they were fit for military
1 A. I don't know about that. But as I said yesterday, all of these
2 broader major meetings took the following course. The chief of the
3 public security station, each chief of the public security station, would
4 give a briefing to those present about the situation in that area -- in
5 his area. Of course, the chief of that centre found it necessary to
6 inform the others of the problem he was facing in his area, Bileca.
7 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, the question wasn't how the meetings went on.
8 The question was: From what Mr. Savic said, did you understand him to be
9 saying that they had arrested these Muslims simply because they were fit
10 for military service, as opposed to having committed any crimes?
11 A. No.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. No.
14 Q. What you did understand him to be saying then?
15 A. Of course, I can't remember now. In any case, we
16 misunderstood -- in fact, we did not understand at the time that they
17 were arrested just because they were fit for military service. We
18 understood that those were able-bodied military-age men and that there
19 was a problem with a large number of them and the problem was what to do.
20 I suppose after this meeting, some decisions were made as to how to deal
21 with this problem.
22 Q. Yes. Did you understand that these Muslims - I'm sorry to go on
23 about this - had committed any crime?
24 A. In part, yes; and, in part, there were men who could be a
25 potential problem. Because many civilians at the time were already in
1 possession of arms.
2 Q. All right. Was Mico Stanisic present throughout this -- this
4 A. If I remember well, the meeting in Trebinje was divided into two
5 parts. In the first part of the meeting, the minister was present. He
6 did not attend the second part.
7 The second part was chaired by Cedo Kljajic,
9 Q. Yes. Well, we'll see later on that those you say rightly, there
10 was a second part.
11 So he was here when Mr. Savic said this?
12 A. Probably.
13 Q. Would you describe Mr. Savic as a man with authority?
14 A. In that period, as in the previous period, he was a man with
16 Q. Did it ever cross your mind that he was the deputy minister to
17 Mico Stanisic?
18 A. No. Why would it?
19 Q. Next can I ask you to look, please, at the -- in English, it is
20 page 11, at the bottom, and in B/C/S, it is page 8. At least I think it
21 is. Yes.
22 The -- at the bottom paragraph in English and both in B/C/S and
23 English says:
24 "After the minister explained the reasoning behind the order to
25 disband all special units in CSBs and SJBs, he explained the principles
1 of further engagement of the special unit of the MUP police detachment?"
2 What were the reasons that Mico Stanisic gave for the order to
3 disband the special units?
4 A. I really couldn't remember that. It was such a long time ago.
5 Q. All right. Then can we look at the minister of the interior's
6 summary of the discussions.
7 MS. KORNER: If we go, please, to page 13 in English and, in
8 B/C/S, to page 10. I'd like the third paragraph. Sorry, in B/C/S, oh,
9 must be page 11. It says page 10 at the top n B/C/S. Thanks.
10 Q. "The internal affairs bodies have been infiltrated" -- he
11 said -- "by individuals whose criminal and otherwise anti-social
12 behaviour defiles the reputation of the MUP as a whole, and we must
13 immediately rid ourselves of such individuals."
14 Was that something that you personally were aware of, Mr. Njegus,
15 that there were criminals and anti-social persons who displayed
16 anti-social behaviour who were in the MUP?
17 A. It was exactly as is written here.
18 This was a very good conclusion, like many others, I don't think
19 this was debatable, and if the minister highlighted this as a topical
20 problem, of which we were all aware, namely, that at the outset of the
21 war there were people - not many of them - but, still, there were people
22 admitted into the reserve force of the police who shouldn't have been.
23 That is why, among other things, we held these meetings. And every time,
24 if I remember well, fair and professional conclusions and decisions were
1 Q. So you were aware of this. And were you aware of this before
2 August, in August, a long time before August?
3 A. Of course we knew of it even before August. And we saw a minute
4 ago the order written by -- signed by Mr. Macar that refers to the same
5 thing. And we -- I'm sure we all remember that it was signed in -- in
6 the month of June.
7 Q. July, actually. But, never mind.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, July.
9 MS. KORNER: Yeah.
10 Q. We've seen at this meeting and at the meeting in July, Mico
11 Stanisic made some, as you put it, good -- I think the right words were
12 "fair and professional conclusions and decisions."
13 What exactly did he do himself to ensure that these decisions
14 that were made were actually implemented?
15 A. I personally think, being a participant of the events at the time
16 unfortunately, that everything was done that could be done at the time.
17 Let's be realistic. As minister, he insisted on several things
18 at every meeting of this type. To deal with the people who joined the
19 police and should not have. He insisted on that at every meeting. And
20 outside those meetings officially and unofficially. And what more can a
21 minister do than issue orders and make decisions and demand that his
22 subordinates do or act accordingly.
23 Q. Have you ever said to anyone that Mr. Stanisic, although he would
24 make public pronouncement on policies by the MUP, he took few, if any,
25 steps to ensure that his orders were carried out?
1 A. I don't quite understand your question. Could it be more
2 precise, please.
3 Q. Have you ever told anyone, not what you said here in court, but
4 that, although Mico Stanisic would make public pronouncements on the
5 policies, like these decisions we've looked at that were to be followed,
6 he took few, if any, steps to ensure that those pronouncements, those
7 orders, those decisions, were carried out?
8 A. I don't think that I ever said anything to that effect.
9 Certainly not in such a context. I said what my impression was a short
10 while ago and how I saw his attitude towards some matters of principle.
11 Q. Can you point to any steps that he took after the meeting to
12 ensure that those who had criminal records or who had committed crimes
13 were thrown out of the MUP or prosecuted?
14 A. But what more than this do you -- do you want? What else should
15 he have done?
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... did he go to visit the CSBs
17 and asked for a copy of their records?
18 A. I don't know whether he went there; and, if he did, how often and
20 Q. Did you ever see any reports, in your capacity as head of
21 personnel, requested by Mico Stanisic as to the steps which had been
22 taken in the SJBs or the CSBs to rid themselves of these criminal
23 elements in the police?
24 A. There haven't been official written reports about that. Such
25 reports were never made. But I'm sure that this item understood as an
1 order was, indeed, implemented in practice.
2 Q. And what makes you so sure?
3 A. I'm sure because, as time passed, the MUP, as an institution,
4 started working ever more professionally and -- and found a firm footing.
5 That's what I know.
6 Q. This meeting took place on the 20th of August.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MS. KORNER:
9 Q. Did you hear about the killings at Mount Vlasic
10 shortly after the meeting?
11 A. Yes. It's those famous Koricanske Stene. Of course, I heard.
12 Everybody did but much later. At that moment, I knew nothing about it,
13 and I believe that most of our members didn't have information about it
15 Q. Was that something you would have been -- would you have expected
16 the investigation to have been pursued with all the resources available
17 to the MUP?
18 A. Of course.
19 Q. All right. One final thing on this meeting then, please. Could
20 you look at item number 7, which is page 15 of the English, and page --
21 it's the twelfth page in B/C/S. This is still Mico Stanisic summing up.
22 "The order to disband the so-called special units established by
23 the CSBs and SJBs has been issued due to certain abuses."
24 Now, that's a summary. Did he mention what those abuses were?
25 A. After 18 years, I cannot remember all those details.
1 I suppose - actually I'm sure - that this is a truthful summary,
2 an accuracy summary, of all the conclusions made.
3 Q. Was the meeting at any stage told that there were allegations
4 that members of these special police units had been involved in killing
5 and looting and rape?
6 A. I don't think so, because I'm sure I would have remembered that.
7 And it would have been a disaster if it had been the case.
8 Q. You were involved -- well, you gave the order for the disbanding
9 of Malovic's special unit much later. At that stage, had you heard any
10 allegations that they had been involved in crimes?
11 A. I don't think so, because I would remember that, even after 18
13 Q. If they had been involved -- if you had heard any allegations
14 they'd been involved in committing crimes, would you have simply agreed
15 to disband them; or would you have tried to arrange for an investigation
16 into these people?
17 A. Not just me. I don't know how much time we have, but I want to
18 point out something to you.
19 Most of us, or all of us, eight or nine of us, who were members
20 of the collegium of the MUP were all serious people and good
21 professionals. Most of us had never been -- or have never been in the
22 SDS. I don't need to list all the names because they have been mentioned
23 here, and you know them. I'm certain that I and most of them, too, would
24 have spoken out publicly about that and would have done everything to
25 launch an investigation into these events to shed light on them.
1 Until the Prosecutor finds what she's looking for and asks her
2 next question, let me add that --
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... all right. I don't want to
4 stop you if you want to say something. I know what I'm going to ask
5 next. Thank you.
6 A. I wanted to add that for most of these crimes and silly events
7 and that happened in those areas, we had no information about them. We
8 learned about them much later. And in some cases we learned about them
9 only after the war. That was, of course, our problem and the reason why
10 adequate measures that should have been taken were not taken.
11 Q. Yes. You're not telling us that you only learnt about the Vlasic
12 mountain killings after the war, are you, Mr. Njegus?
13 A. Even that is possible, or during the war at some point in time.
14 I cannot now say exactly when. The people whose immediate area of
15 responsibility that was know more about that. I know that an on-site
16 investigation was conducted and some other police activities, but why
17 that -- why the investigation wasn't carried out to the full, why it was
18 broken off, I cannot say.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm asking you but when you
20 learned about it. Didn't you learn about it almost immediately
21 afterwards? Through, if nothing else, the outcry from the international
23 A. I made a solemn declaration yesterday, and I state with full
24 responsible that, at that moment, I didn't know about that terrible
1 Q. All right. Can I ask you, then, about one last document.
2 MS. KORNER: Could we have up, please, document P732, which is
3 tab 7, I think. Yup.
4 Q. Now you were asked about this document which relates to the
5 medals that people got during the course of the interview, and I just
6 wanted you to describe the procedure as to how people were awarded these
8 Did -- who -- who proposed the people to be awarded medals?
9 A. Yes, I remember this somewhat better.
10 I remember the entire situation, and here's what I can say. In
11 accordance with the then-Law on Commendations of the RS, that was the
12 name of the law, if I'm not mistaken, the entire procedure was followed
13 which, among others, includes all lower-level bodies of the MUP, submit
14 their proposals with extensive reasonings, and that was done. I know
15 that both police stations and the centres did that, as well as all
16 administrations and the special police centres.
17 So the full procedure was followed.
18 Q. All right. So all levels of the MUP could submit their proposals
19 for those who got awards with, as you put it, extensive reasonings. Was
20 that then submit to the MUP headquarters?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And was there then a discussion about who should get a medal?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And was Mico Stanisic involved in effectively making the final
25 decision, in the consultations and making the final decision?
1 A. There are two versions of the event. But I would be more in
2 favour of the version that he didn't.
3 Q. Hmm. And let's -- why do you say there are two versions; and why
4 would you come down in favour of the one where he didn't get involved?
5 A. Because I took part -- in fact, I'm positive that he didn't --
6 wasn't involved in most of the procedure. He didn't sit with most of us
7 from the MUP who drafted any proposals. He wasn't there physically or in
8 any other way. And I don't believe that there was communication with
9 him. I'm more in favour of that version, because Mr. Nenad Radovic on
10 that evening when the proposal for the commendations was finalized left
11 for Belgrade
12 informed us that he did so.
13 But according to the information I have, he never met him.
14 That's why I'm more in favour of the version that Mr. Stanisic was not
15 involved in making these proposals, and I don't believe that he took the
16 final decision. But I may be wrong.
17 Q. Well, how -- how would you like to fresh your memory about this
18 from the interview that you had a couple of years ago with us? How about
19 that, Mr. Njegus?
20 MS. KORNER: What's page 164 in ...
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
23 Q. Look at, please, in the B/C/S version, which you have.
24 MS. KORNER: It's page 164 in English for counsel and Your
1 Q. We'll put it up on the screen.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Ms. Korner. I have -- I have here
3 the -- the interview of the witness, 23rd and 24th September, 2007 in
5 MS. KORNER: Mm-hm. Yup, at the bottom of page 164.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I have the Serbian version. It only has 154 pages.
7 It will take me sometime to find --
8 MS. KORNER: We'll give you the number in Serbian.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
10 MS. KORNER: 144, I'm told.
11 Q. You had the interview with you yesterday, Mr. Njegus. Have you
12 got it today?
13 Mr. Njegus, have you got your interview with you?
14 A. No.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you didn't bring it today?
16 A. No. I haven't brought it, but go ahead. You can interpret it;
17 I'll remember.
18 Q. We can put it up on the screen for you. It's 146 in your
20 MS. KORNER: Can we have that up. What's the number of it?
21 9035, please. And in English.
22 Q. All right.
23 MS. KORNER: Can we have page 164 in English; 144 in the Serbian
24 or B/C/S. 146, sorry.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I think it's 147 that you want.
1 MS. KORNER: 147. All right. Page 164 in English and 146 in ...
2 Can we move ... no. In English, 164. Yes. Thank you and
3 apparently in B/C/S, 146.
4 I don't ... okay. All right. Yes.
5 Q. Right. Do you see in the middle of the page, Mr. Njegus, the
6 investigator asks you:
7 "Now my question is you received the recommendation from the
8 organisation. Then had you a meeting at MUP headquarters and they were
9 finalized, narrowed down, and then sent out. Can you tell my whether
10 Mr. Stanisic was also involved in these consultations and finalizing
11 these recommendations?
13 "That these people should be awarded these medals?
15 Now, does that refresh your memory about what you --
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry here. I'm sorry, Ms. Korner, but
17 in all fairness to the witness you posed another question and then he
18 gives the answer that he gave today on the next page, please. In all
19 fairness to the witness, you should give him the whole context of his
20 answer, please.
21 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. I appreciate he -- later on says that
22 Radic went to see Mico Stanisic, but I'm asking him about this answer
23 here which is -- certainly to me, but -- I am certainly prepared to read
24 the next bit about why he says Mr. Radic was the trusted man of Mico
25 Stanisic, but can we deal with this?
1 Q. When you said "yes" there, what were you agreeing to?
2 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to my learned friend, it's a
3 correction. 44, line 23, it is not Radic. Who -- who is Radic?
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. I'll repeat the question now that you've had more time to think,
6 Mr. Njegus.
7 What was it when you said "yes" to those two questions that you
8 were agreeing to?
9 A. Here's what I can say. I believe that here too, as before, I
10 have been sincere. I'm not saying that Mr. Stanisic was not familiar
11 with the process and so on. That's what I meant when I said this three
12 years ago. But then there was my statement that I made today and the
13 statement that I gave three years ago. And what did I say? The same
14 thing that I'm saying today, that I think that Mr. Stanisic was not the
15 final authority to decide about these proposals. That's why I mentioned
16 Radovic and so on.
17 Q. No. My original question was whether Mr. Stanisic was involved -
18 and I'll go back to that - just a moment, Mr. Njegus. Don't speak until
19 I've reminded you of what you said.
20 I asked at line --
21 MR. ZECEVIC: May I suggest, Your Honours, that the Serbian copy
22 of the witness statement, the -- the three relevant pages be handed over
23 to the witness so he can refresh his memory. I think that's the only
24 proper way to --
25 MS. KORNER: Believe you me -- Your Honours, it is -- I would
1 submit, completely unfair to be interrupted constantly during
2 examination-in-chief in this way. When I have finished if it is thought
3 that I have left something out, which I ought not to, then counsel can
4 object. At the moment, I would be grateful if I may be allowed to
5 conduct my examination-in-chief without interruption.
6 Q. Now, I asked you, sir, at line -- page 42, line 4, and I'll read
7 from page 41, line 23:
8 "So all levels of the MUP could submit their proposals for those
9 who got awards with, as you put it, extensive reasonings and then submit
10 them to MUP headquarters?
12 "And was there then a discussion about how should get a medal?
14 "Q. And was Mico Stanisic involved in effectively making the
15 final decision in the consultations and making the final decision?
16 "A. There are two versions of the event, but I would be more in
17 favour of the version that he didn't, because I took part and, in
18 fact" -- you then went on to say, I'm sorry, the question was: "Why do
19 you say you there are two versions, and why did you come down in favour
20 of the one where he didn't get involved because I took part, in fact, I'm
21 positive that he didn't. He wasn't involved in most of the procedure.
22 He didn't sit with" -- sorry.
23 I lost it completely.
24 In any event -- oh, for the days of binders. None of this ...
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MS. KORNER:
2 Q. "He didn't sit with most of us from the MUP who drafted any
3 procedure proposals. He wasn't there physically or in any other way, and
4 I don't believe there was communication with him."
5 Right. Now, which is right, please, sir: That he took no part
6 in these decisions at all, as you now say, didn't get involved; or, as
7 you told the investigator in 2007, that he was involved in the
8 consultations and finalizing those recommendations that people should be
9 awarded these medals?
10 A. Yes. My definite opinion is you can't have both, and as I've
11 told you just a moment ago, I'm closer to believing my conclusion from
12 before that he was aware of the process, the number of medals, hundred or
13 200 people. In that sense, I'm sure he was informed and aware of that.
14 But whether he knew about details, names, that I don't know. How could I
15 have known something like that?
16 My conclusion, my personal conclusion, was that he didn't know
17 about it, based on the unofficial information that I have about
18 Mr. Radovic going to Belgrade
19 finally approved to complete the list. Much later I found out, and I
20 still cannot claim with certainty whether that is true or not, so later I
21 found out that he wasn't there with him at all.
22 So, in the end, I'm more prone to believe that he did not see the
23 minister, that he was not with the minister than the opposite.
24 Q. But then how did you come to say, with no qualification at all,
25 yes, Mr. Stanisic was involved with the discussions about the medals to
1 the investigator three years ago?
2 A. It is possible, I'm certain that I said that, but even then, I
3 was thinking in those terms, namely that Stanisic had known about the
4 entire activity, of course, it's not something insignificant, and he must
5 have known about it.
6 Q. All right. And to keep Mr. Zecevic happy, you did, in fact, tell
7 the investigator that, if we look at, please, page 165 in English and
8 presumably the next page in B/C/S as well. Yes, we can see it at the top
9 there, that Radovic was the trusted man of Mico Stanisic, went to Mico
10 Stanisic in Belgrade
11 Now pausing there for a moment, the final decision had to be the
12 minister's, didn't it?
13 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
14 Q. And I think he returned very quickly, maybe a day after tomorrow,
15 the day after, and I know that the list which was verified again suffered
16 certain changes, amendments, changes. Of course, part of us were unhappy
17 with such corrections, or, however, I heard later that Radovic did not
18 even see Stanisic and that he, on his own initiative, changed the
19 proposal. What's true about those stories, I really don't know today.
20 Right. Who told you that Mico Stanisic didn't know anything
21 about the proposals that Radovic on his own had changed them?
22 A. I do not wish to change my statement given three years ago. My
23 conviction and the information I have are such. I still today claim that
24 based on the information I had, things transpired the way I said. Now,
25 whether there were any changes under what circumstances I do not have any
1 further information about that. There's nothing I can add to what I've
3 Q. Yes, you can. Who told you that Radovic never saw Stanisic?
4 A. Someone must have, but at this moment, I cannot remember who.
5 Must have been someone serious, someone who had such information in his
6 hands because, otherwise, I wouldn't have believed the information.
7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you've told us yesterday
8 that you saw Goran Macar quite recently. Was it him who told you?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm -- I'm really sorry, Your Honours. I have to
10 intervene in this -- in this situation.
11 Ms. Korner just read to the witness his explanation, his answer,
12 that he gave three years ago and in that particular place, he mentions
13 the very same issue, that he heard that Nenad Radovic did not ever went
14 to see Mico Stanisic.
15 Now, implying that he saw somebody in between before his
16 testimony over here clearly is without any merit.
17 MS. KORNER: No. And I didn't mean -- when I said, saw him
18 yesterday, it's my fault, I accept that. It was a bad question.
19 Q. Was it Goran Macar who told you this?
20 A. I really cannot remember. There is no reason why I wouldn't
21 remember. It is possible, but I cannot tell you now, cannot remember it
23 Q. You live in Bijeljina, don't you?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... as does Macar?
1 A. That's right. As well as Dobro Planojevic and many other people
2 I co-operated in 1992 and later.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Stanisic's brother-in-law
4 live there?
5 A. According to my information, yes.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... is he somebody that you
8 A. I know of him. I know that he's Mico Stanisic son --
9 brother-in-law, but I wouldn't even recognise him. I don't know what he
10 looks like.
11 Q. So you have never had any meetings with him or discussed any of
12 this with him?
13 A. No.
14 Q. All right. Well, let's just, finally, on this topic, just look
15 at the some of the people who were awarded medals.
16 Did you see the list before it went off?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you have a look, please, in that --
19 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry. Have I asked for the list to be put up?
20 No. Document 1281 -- oh, sorry, P732.
21 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, are aware that you are nearly 60 minutes
22 over the three hours that you requested?
23 MS. KORNER: No, but you don't surprise me, Your Honour. But it
24 has taken some time. If Your Honours don't want me to go through this, I
1 JUDGE HALL: The -- the -- we -- of course, take -- expect that
2 counsel know where they are going, but we are at a loss as to where this
3 line of questions that has engaged the past 30 minutes or so has been
4 taking us in terms of relevance. We don't immediately appreciate the --
5 MS. KORNER: Well, if -- in that case, Your Honours, perhaps I
6 can -- I thought we had looked at this document before but maybe we
7 haven't. Can we just look at some of the people who were given some
8 serious gongs, if I can put it that way. Can we have the third page,
9 second page in English, please.
10 Q. These were medals were awarded in 1993, it would appear; is that
11 right, Mr. Njegus?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Second page in English, and still the first page, I think, in
14 B/C/S -- yes, B/C/S.
15 Q. The Karadjordjevo Star, the first class commendation, is that a
16 seriously impressive medal?
17 A. Yes, of course.
18 Q. Number 5, Simo Drljaca; correct?
19 A. Yes, as we can see.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... 1993, were people aware of
21 what had happened in Omarska and Keraterm in the camps that were run by
22 the Prijedor police?
23 A. I'm not sure if you're asking me.
24 Q. I am asking you. Didn't anybody, when you had discussions about
25 giving Mr. Drljaca this medal, say, Would that be the right thing to do,
1 given he was in charge of the Prijedor camps?
2 A. I see where you're going, and if you want me to comment this, I
3 can, in a few sentences, explain things further.
4 The initiative came from Tomo Kovac, and according to my views,
5 at the time, maybe, but certainly now, this whole thing was done with too
6 much haste. It was only several months after the events and the process
7 was initiated, I don't know to what degree, Mr. Stanisic was familiar
8 with it. I told you about the two versions. And it is true, as you say,
9 that we can find here a few names who are on the list who did receive
10 commendations, very high rank. But that's a fact. What can one do it
11 about it? This is my comment.
12 Q. Yes. Well, I don't think I'll go through any of the other names.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I appreciate that I'm well over the
14 time, and I have no further questions.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: If you will just bear with me, Your Honours, one
16 moment, while I organise.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Njegus.
19 My name is Slobodan Zecevic. We haven't had an opportunity to
20 meet before. You refused to have any conversations with the Defence.
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. So I thought I should introduce myself.
23 Sir, I'll start with the last questions put by Ms. Korner.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when Ms. Korner
25 asked for a document, which is this witness's statement made in 2007, we
1 haven't heard the number, I don't know how to ask for this document to be
2 put up, but I believe that Registrar can assist us. I will be needing
3 page 146 and 147 in the Serbian version, and I assume 164 and 165 in the
4 English version.
5 I am being told it is 65 ter 9035. I apologise.
6 Q. Do you remember the interview, sir?
7 A. Yes, of course, I do remember.
8 Q. I need page 146 in the Serbian version, which is 164 in the
9 English version. And then, later on, 147, and 165 respectively.
10 As can you see here, sir, you were asked about the commendation
11 or medal that you received as well, and the Prosecutor asked you the year
12 is important was it 1992 or 1993. You said that. And you respond, I
13 don't remember when the decision was reached and then you say, I really
14 cannot remember if it was in 1992. It must have been late 1992. And
15 also it is possible that it was at the very beginning of 1993.
16 A. Yes, I remember that.
17 Q. And you confirm that here, that the medals may have been awarded
18 in 1993; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. Further in the text, we can find the same lines that were read by
21 Ms. Korner.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And could we now please have page
23 147 in Serbian version and 165 in the English version.
24 Q. Here you can see in the first paragraph we can see your answer.
25 This is what you are saying. It's somewhere in the middle of this text.
1 We have most probably verified the proposal but there were
2 certain changes to it. After that, Nenad Radovic, who was at the time --
3 I don't know what he was at the time but I think was at the position of
4 chief of cabinet, he was the trusted man of Mico Stanisic. I know that
5 he took that verified proposal and went to Mico Stanisic in Belgrade
6 consult him and get the final decision. I think he returned rather
7 quickly, maybe tomorrow or the day after. And I know that the lists
8 which was verified suffered certain amendments changes. Of course, parts
9 of us were unhappy with such corrections, however, I heard later that
10 Nenad Radovic did not even see Mico Stanisic and that he put in the
11 changes to the proposal on his own initiative. What's true about this
12 story, I really don't know.
13 So this is what you said in 2007, and when answering to
14 Ms. Korner you gave the exact -- exactly the same answer. Is that
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. Mr. Njegus, let us take a look at the document P732.
18 You will remember, Mr. Njegus, that the government -- that the
19 government, where Mr. Mico Stanisic was the minister of the interior,
20 after the 24th of November, 1992, when the prime minister returned his
21 mandate to the Assembly was disbanded. Do you remember that?
22 A. Yes, I do remember the events, but I cannot tell you when exactly
23 did that take place.
24 Q. It is a fact, is it not, that since the government stopped
25 functioning, together with the prime minister, all the ministers had to
1 return their mandates and as of that moment Mico Stanisic, as the
2 minister of the interior, carried out only technical part of the work.
3 A. Yes, that's something that is described as -- as a care-taker
5 Q. Sir, please take a look at this document -- take a good look at
6 it. In the preamble and when one is reading documents, it is very
7 important to read that introductory piece. Here we can see that they
8 quote the regulations according to which the president of the Republic,
9 Radovan Karadzic, issued a decree on awarding medals. Among other items
10 mentioned, there is the Law on Commendations and Recognitions, the
11 "Official Gazette" of the Republika Srpska number 4, year 1993. I will
12 put it to you that this Law on Commendations and Recognitions of
13 Republika Srpska and this "Official Gazette" 4/1993 was published on the
14 8th of April, 1993. In other words, the commendations were only
15 distributed after that date. That's obvious.
16 A. If you're asking me, I would say anything is possible. It is
17 possible that this all may have happened during the second mandate of
18 Mr. Stanisic.
19 Q. This is what we're trying to determine here, because here you
20 stated that this is something from 1992 or 1993, and I'm stating here
21 that in the introductory part one is quoting a law that was enacted on
22 the 28th of April 1993, which means that the events took place after the
23 law was enacted.
24 A. That shows that obviously that all the activities took place
25 during the second mandate when Mr. Stanisic was appointed minister for
1 the second time.
2 Q. Since the situation is not relevant for these proceedings, we
3 will drop the subject. Thank you, Mr. Njegus.
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, it's a convenient point to take the
5 break now.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: This is a convenient point now. Thank you, Your
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Recess taken at 5.21 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honour?
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please, Mr. Zecevic.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Just a few more questions in relation to the
16 previous issue. I did say that we'd finished it, but there are a few
17 more things that I wanted to clear up.
18 Sir, it's a fact, isn't it, that Mr. Mico Stanisic was the
19 minister of the interior for the second time between April of 1993 until
20 April of 1994.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter is not sure whether he has given
22 the right date for the beginning of the second mandate.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. To clarify, I'll say this slowly.
25 Mico Stanisic, his second mandate, was from January 1994 until
1 April 1994. I'm not saying this because of you, sir, because the
2 interpreters didn't hear me right and mistranslated it.
3 And your response to this question was, because we don't have
4 your answer in the transcript either.
5 A. You are most probably right, because you're better at determining
6 when happened -- when what happened.
7 Q. Thank you. Sir, I put to you that these medals were issued on
8 the 21st of November, on the St. Archangel Day, so all of these medals
9 that were awarded by the President of the Republic were distributed on
10 the 21st of November, 1993, on Jahorina mountain, on archangel's day and
11 that there Tomo Kovac was the one who gave them the medals?
12 A. I think you're right. Now I'm beginning to remember the events,
13 because I remember it was the -- the snow was deep. It was winter-time.
14 I was travelling with a colleague of mine from Bijeljina. I know his
15 name. We had problems with the car, and we managed to get there in time
16 for the awards ceremony, but I think it took place on Pale at Koran, Pale
17 facility. Yes, you're right, you refreshed my memory.
18 Q. Thank you. I would like to have P1434 put up on the screen.
19 It is a document that the Prosecutor showed to you just a moment
20 ago, and we need to go back to it and look at the document again.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 218. Admitted perhaps two
22 hours ago, as P1434 [sic].
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1434.
25 THE REGISTRAR: This is Exhibit P1423 for the counsel.
1 MR. ZECEVIC:
2 Q. [Interpretation] I'm really sorry. I copied it from the
3 transcript. Perhaps there was a mistake. Could we zoom in for the
4 witness on the signature, that you looked at with the Prosecutor, the
5 signature and the stamp.
6 Sir, you remember discussing it with the Prosecutor. The
7 Prosecutor asked you how you explained that Mr. Mico Stanisic signed
8 this. You said it was not your job to go into that, and you gave some
9 other explanations.
10 I put it to you that before the typewritten words "minister of
11 the interior" there are words, letters POM, probably meaning assistant,
12 and the signature is that of Mico Vujicic not Mico Stanisic.
13 A. Yes, that is indubitable. When you zoom in on it and look at it
14 carefully I can confirm what the counsel just said. It says POM, meaning
15 assistant minister, and it is Petar Vujicic in the signature, and I knew
16 Petar Vujicic. There was this similar document that order from Karadzic
17 we looked at yesterday where I thought I recognised the handwriting of
18 Petar Vujicic, but that wasn't really right. This one is, the signature
19 of Petar Vujicic.
20 Q. Thank you, sir.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] To be completely clear, can we
22 show the witness P876.
23 This is good.
24 Now, the fifth column from the left, just below the picture of
25 Mr. Stanisic, needs to be enlarged, if possible. This is good. Perfect.
1 Q. This is in English. I will read it out to you. It says:
2 "05, administration for analytics and information, and it says:
3 Assistant minister for the administration, for statistics and information
4 Petar Vujicic."
5 Is that the person we were talking about?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It seems then quite logical that assistant minister, Petar
8 Vujicic writes to you as another assistant minister in charge of a
9 different area, requesting a draft rule-book for disciplinary measures to
10 be presented.
11 A. I don't know whether he did on his own initiative or he was moved
12 by someone else, but, in any case he did that.
13 Q. We see here that you were head of administration 04.
14 A. Yes, I think we made that quite clear. I was acting in that
15 position without formal appointment.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see P1422.
17 Q. I'd like to shed more light on these documents that have been
18 shown to you earlier today while they're still fresh in everyone's mind.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] P1422.
20 Q. Do you remember this document dated 15 June? You discussed it
21 with the Prosecution.
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. I objected during that examination, claiming that it was not an
24 order to mobilize but, that, instead, this order gives an assignment to a
25 certain unit, to round up conscripts who had failed to refuse -- who had
1 failed to respond to the call-up issued by authority of the Presidency of
2 the Republic of the 20th of May. And that means that you will agree with
3 me, that the Presidency of the Serbian Republic
4 made the decision on mobilisation. Isn't that right?
5 A. Yes. I agreed with that earlier on. And I agree with it again.
6 Q. Now, in paragraph 2 it says that the conscripts mentioned in
7 paragraph 1 should be turned over to the Lukavica Barracks. Isn't that a
8 military barracks?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. So this unit of the Ministry of the Interior, after rounding up
11 these persons who had failed to respond to mobilisation voluntarily,
12 should hand over these people to the military authorities?
13 A. Yes, that's the gist of this order. Now how and why it was
14 issued is something we discussed earlier.
15 Q. Let's look at another document you've already seen.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It's P1420.
17 Q. You remember this document?
18 A. Yes. Although I didn't read every word, but I remember, in
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we turn to page 2 in both
22 And now could we zoom in on the third paragraph where we see the
23 number 18/92. It's the first paragraph on the English page.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you read this out for me?
25 MR. ZECEVIC:
1 Q. [Interpretation] I will.
2 It says:
3 In view of -- in view of everything indicated above, and
4 referencing our document number such and such, dated 20th April, 1992,
5 and I repeat that the heads of Security Services Centre are obliged to
6 obtain the approval of the minister of the interior for the assignment of
7 employees to certain positions (head of the National Security Service
8 sector, head of the public Security Service Centre, head of public
9 security station, commander of the police station, commander of police
10 station departments, and chief of the crime department). Therefore, with
11 regard to these employees, approach the ministry, and concerning other
12 employees make staffing decisions on your own.
13 A. Yes, that's what's written there.
14 Q. That means, Mr. Njegus, that the key positions in CSBs - and when
15 I say "key positions," that means chiefs of sectors of national and
16 public security, station commanders, chiefs of public security stations
17 and the chief of the criminal investigation department - could not, as a
18 rule, and by the rules, and in keeping with this document, be appointed
19 without prior approval of the minister and the ministry.
20 A. Yes, yes, I agree with everything you said.
21 Q. Very well. Now if you can look at the last paragraph in the
22 document, you discussed these stamps with my learned friend yesterday.
23 Now, the last paragraph before the signature says:
24 "This ministry has taken certain measures to develop new seals of
25 the Ministry of the Interior, the CSB, and the SJB. And until they are
1 finalized, please use the existing seals."
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. We'll go back to -- we'll come back to stamps a bit earlier -- a
4 bit later, sorry.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now show the witness 1D73.
6 Q. Now, sir, the previous document we discussed was dated 26 April.
7 And this document is dated 25 April, the day before, giving authority to
8 chiefs of CSBs. And the paragraph 2 specifies which officials, which
9 appointments, and which kind of duties need prior approval of the
10 minister, for someone to be assigned to them. This is related to the
11 document we've just discussed.
12 A. Yes, that's obvious.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now show the witness P1421.
14 Q. Sir, you've also seen this document earlier today, describing the
15 status of personnel in the MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And just to make your answer more complete, I would like to ask
19 you to look at paragraph 2, which says:
20 No information is available as to how many employees there are in
21 individual CSBs or public security stations and no information is
22 available on the number of employees who transferred from the former MUP
23 and how many are newly hired, and there is no information about how many
24 staff are engaged in specific areas of work or the number of retired MUP
1 The fact is the information you had was very limited, wasn't it?
2 A. Certainly. You are right. Now, if you look at this report more
3 carefully you will see my handwriting in the top right corner which says,
4 Pero for the progress report, which means that the work I did with a
5 couple of my assistants was an attachment, a contribution, to Petar
6 Vujicic who was in charge of analytics and information, so that he can
7 make his progress report as complete as possible.
8 Q. At that time, you did not have information from the CSB
9 Banja Luka, because it was early June, and the fact is that the corridor
10 was established only in July, or perhaps even later, in 1992.
11 A. Precisely.
12 Q. On page 2 of this document --
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show page 2 to the witness.
14 Q. In the third paragraph, you include the reservation about the
15 reliability of this information because you say, the information
16 available to the personnel service is not completely reliable because the
17 information we receive is not up to date. And then you criticise some
18 other services. And you say, in some cases two appointments were issued
19 from the -- for the same job. In other cases, there are people who don't
20 have a formal appointment, yet other staff is actually engaged in a
21 completely different kind of work than in their job description. You
22 also note that in some cases, employment contracts were issued even to
23 reserve police officers.
24 Now, if I understand this correctly, and I'd like you to confirm,
25 it means that the reliability of this information is very relative,
1 because you say that the amount of information you have is limited and
2 even the information you have is rather unreliable and not up to date.
3 A. Of course. This is a very problematic report. It was made just
4 a few months into the war. What else could we do, if we were doing this
5 work alone, just me and perhaps one or two assistants? We had no
6 information about reservists and about many other things. My duty, when
7 I took up this job, was to try to improve -- to improve the quality of
8 information we were receiving and we were able to pass on, and certainly
9 what you noted at the beginning is perfectly correct.
10 Q. On the previous page in this document, you are making proposals
11 for measures to be taken.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That is on page 3. Page 3 of the
13 Serbian version, please.
14 Q. You can see the proposals for measures. And the item numbers are
15 from 1 to 9.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If we could see them because I
17 want to comment on only one of these items. It will -- which is on the
18 following page in both language versions, page 5 in English and page 4 in
19 Serbian and I mean item 8.
20 Q. Here, too, you say:
21 "Immediately cease issuing standard decisions bearing the
22 minister's signature. Decisions without the approval of the responsible
23 superior and in case of supervisory positions, decisions without the
24 approval of the responsible managers and the minister."
25 If we put that into the context of what we have discussed, you
1 are indicating that you have information about some instances where
2 standard decisions are issued with the -- with the facsimile of the
3 minister's signature or without the knowledge of the supervisors in the
4 CSBs and SJBs. Do you agree with that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you are here making a proposal that this practice stop
7 immediately, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness
12 Q. Let me just -- let us just briefly comment on one of your letters
13 from November 1992. I suppose, actually, it's yours. You will tell us.
14 It's about the stamps I had said that we would comment on.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please blow this up for
16 Mr. Njegus to be able to see.
17 Q. This document was drafted in Bijeljina, as you see, in
18 November 1992. At that point in time your administration was in
19 Bijeljina, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It says assistant minister and your name. I don't know if it is
22 your signature.
23 A. It is.
24 Q. And you say here that you have information that there are some
25 stamp makers who make stamps that are not authorised by the MUP which was
1 actually a legal requirement; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. It is a fact, sir, isn't it, that in the former SFRY, and the
4 practice has continued, I believe, to the present day, that all stamp
5 makers must have an authorisation issued by the MUP to do that job;
7 A. Yes. And you can see that here, too, I made an effort to
8 introduce order in these activities. Obviously Minister Stanisic didn't
9 value these efforts highly, but that's another story.
10 Q. But, certainly, Minister Stanisic, too, if I've correctly
11 understood your testimony so far, also insisted on introducing the
12 rule of law; that is, the respect for laws and regulations; correct?
13 A. Yes, that is not at issue.
14 Q. All right. Let us move onto a different topic, sir.
15 Yesterday, and to a smaller extent today also, you spoke to my
16 learned friend -- oh, I apologise, I'm being reminded.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there are objections, I
18 seek to tender this document.
19 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D317, Your Honours.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. So yesterday, while giving evidence, and also at the beginning of
23 your testimony today, mention was made of the order dated 15 May about
24 the organisation of the MUP, in accordance with the decree on the
25 declaration of imminent threat of war.
1 Do you remember saying that?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Mr. Njegus, in the SFRY, a federal law on All People's Defence
4 and social self-protection was in force. And there were also laws at
5 republican levels about All People's Defence and social self-protection,
7 A. That is my period, the time of the League of Communists. I know
8 that very well, yes, with all the directives concerning that.
9 Q. It's a fact, isn't it, that, under that law any institution,
10 including the MUP, was duty-bound to draft war plans and have a wartime
11 structure in case of war or imminent threat of war; correct?
12 A. Yes, that's a fact.
13 Q. It's also a fact, isn't it, that in accordance with the former --
14 or structure, that is, in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
15 and all the socialist republics, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was
16 mandatory for every SJB to have a -- an officer in charge of drafting a
17 wartime structure of the MUP and war plans; correct?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. After the establishment of the RS, I suppose you know that all
20 laws and regulations of the former SFRY, as well as the laws and
21 regulations of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were
22 being applied in the territory of the Serbian Republic
24 to the interest of the Serbian people, I believe was the language.
1 A. Yes. We understand each other. That's correct.
2 Q. You agreed with me, so it's a fact that the Law on All People's
3 Defence and social self-protection, either the federal law or the law of
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina was also implemented in the territory of the
5 Serbian Republic
6 A. It was in force, if that's what you mean. Whether it was really
7 implemented is another question.
8 Q. It's a fact, isn't it, that the duty to prepare a wartime
9 structure which included certain procedures and a job classification was
10 adopted at the level of the MUP of the Republic; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We're referring to the time when the SFRY existed; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. This order of 15 May, which is 1D46, an exhibit shown to you
15 yesterday, of which you said that it was not implemented in practice, was
16 the result of the requirements that existed under the law at that moment.
17 Will you agree with me?
18 A. Yes, well, formally speaking you're certainly right. But as far
19 as I'm concerned and the content of this document, this order, and that
20 it really was implemented is not an open issue to me. Because the war
21 had started. How can you organise anything in wartime if you have a
22 peacetime structure? That would be impossible. Even if we disregard the
23 formal aspect of it. That would be my answer.
24 Q. You certainly remember, and I can show you the document too, that
25 the rules on the internal organisation of the MUP under conditions of
1 imminent threat of war and in wartime, was only adopted at sometime in
2 1993. Do you remember?
3 A. Yes. I know that in the early days, after the establishment of
4 the MUP, we didn't have that.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see 65 ter
6 2749. That is an excerpt from the rules on internal organisation which
7 contains some schematics.
8 Q. Do you remember this document, sir?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So I don't want to go into the details of the document because it
11 isn't especially interesting us to as we're dealing with 1992.
12 But I would like to establish a link between these two documents,
13 the one dated 15 May and this one from 1993. That is, only in 1993, when
14 the rules on the internal organisation were adopted, it replaced -- or
15 they replaced the order dated 15 May and outlines the real structure and
16 the way of functioning of the MUP under conditions of imminent threat of
17 war or wartime conditions. Correct?
18 A. Well, yes and no. This document is what it is, and it was really
19 adopted only in early 1993. But I don't see how it could replace that
20 order about the establishment of that staff because it was never
21 implemented, so ... this would be my comment to this.
22 Q. What I wanted to say but maybe wasn't able to express myself very
23 clearly, was that the order dated 15 May could not be implemented because
24 at the time there were no rules on the internal structure. That was part
25 of my suggestion.
1 A. Well, yes, among others.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there is opposition, and I
4 suppose there isn't, because it's a 65 ter document of the Prosecution,
5 2749, I seek to tender it.
6 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D318, Your Honours.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Hvala.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Njegus, yesterday during the
10 examination-in-chief you may not remember, but I'll try to remind you
11 without reading the pages to you.
12 You spoke about the MUP really being created from scratch. I
13 believe that's -- those are roughly the words that you used. Do you
15 A. Yes, exactly. That's how it was.
16 Q. It's a fact, isn't it, that the MUP, and you spoke about your
17 administration being a very important administration in any Ministry of
18 the Interior, and therefore also for the MUP of the RS, that you and your
19 administration were, at first, alone, then you had an assistant; and
20 then, throughout 1992, I believe you only had five to six staff.
22 A. Yes, these are facts.
23 Q. Even though there was such a small number of you, your
24 administration drafted a huge number of instructions and other documents;
1 A. Well, we made -- did our utmost under the given conditions.
2 Q. It's a fact, sir, isn't it, that the entire MUP in the
3 headquarters in the first few months, up until the summer of 1992, hardly
4 had 40 staff, including the minister and all assistants.
5 A. Perhaps even fewer than that; whereas, the former MUP of the BiH
6 may have had as many as 400 staff in headquarters.
7 Q. When I say "40 staff," I include drivers, technical staff,
8 secretaries, et cetera, right?
10 Q. To give an illustration of the work of your administration, I
11 would like to show document 1D00-2996.
12 Do you remember this letter of yours which was sent to the
13 under-secretary and the administrations of the MUP where you put forward
14 an initiative to receive possible amendments to the Law on The MUP?
15 A. Yes, it bears my signature.
16 Q. It is dated 23 September 1992; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there is opposition, I seek
19 to tender this document.
20 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D319, Your Honours.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Q. I don't know whether it's necessary to point out to you or maybe
24 just to read out to you some of the instructions that I assume were
25 drafted by your administration. For instance, administration of urgent,
1 current occasional reporting in the organs of the interiors.
2 A. I know the context. You need not read it.
3 Q. The reference is 1D51.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
5 Q. Sir, let me ask you about some other instructions.
6 The biggest parts of work was to draft the rules that was -- that
7 were drafted during 1992.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And the rules, it was necessary to get proposals from the various
10 stations and centres from the ground, and this was going on throughout
12 A. That's correct. The lawyers who never worked on a document such
13 as that one cannot understand how huge and comprehensive this task is.
14 Q. For your reference, this document bears the number P615.
15 Here, among other documents, we have P850. This is the Rules on
16 Internal Organisation of the Republican Secretariat of Internal Affairs
17 of the Socialist Republic
18 The rules of Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were
19 applied for all practical purposes in the Ministry of the Interior of
20 Republika Srpska throughout 1992 until the moment the rules that you
21 worked on was adopted in 1993.
22 A. Yes, that's exactly so.
23 Q. Do you remember the instruction concerning modes of behaviour and
24 internal relationships between officers of the Ministry of the Interior?
25 A. Yes, the so-called green book.
1 Q. For your reference, it's D -- P150, from September 1992. Do I
2 need to show you this document?
3 A. No, no, there's no need. This document is a constitution for
4 every police officer.
5 Q. A moment ago we discussed a letter of yours -- letter you've
6 recognised the signature of Mr. Vujicic, for which you had thought
7 earlier it was the signature of Mr. Stanisic, and then you changed your
9 Mr. Vujicic proposed for -- a proposal to be made regarding the
10 rules regarding disciplinary responsibility of the workers of the
11 Ministry of the Interior under war conditions. We have document D54
12 here. This document represents the rule-book in question, which was
13 forwarded on the 19th of September 1992.
14 Do you remember the document, or do I need to show it to you?
15 A. There is no need. I know of this document as well. And I know
16 that in accordance to this document, the authority for initiating and
17 conducting disciplinary proceedings against members of the interior of
18 Republika Srpska was transferred to the person we mentioned, the chiefs
19 of centres, commander of the special unit, and maybe some others, yes.
20 Q. The essence of the rule-book is that, according to the rules, the
21 disciplinary system, or the system of disciplinary responsibility, became
22 more efficient, and the procedure was condensed.
23 A. Well, that was the purpose. We wanted to use the rules to
24 simplify the procedure concerning the conditions under which we operated,
1 Q. Okay. Of course the idea behind it was primarily to speed up and
2 facilitate issuing of disciplinary measures against MUP members who
3 violated their duties.
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Another important element related to this rule-book, or rules is
6 the fact that -- that the statute of limitation was extended, meaning
7 that disciplinary procedures could be conducted in relation to events
8 that may have taken earlier so that statute of limitations wouldn't put
9 some incidents beyond the scope of disciplinary measures.
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. I can show you Article 17, if you want. If you remember that
12 this article was in the rules, then there's no need.
13 A. Yes, I do remember. You're most probably right.
14 Q. The purpose of extending the statute of limitations was to make
15 sure that all disciplinary violations would not remain unpunished.
16 A. Well, the purpose of putting in such a provision was exactly
17 that, yes.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 Do you remember, sir, that rules on the form of the ID documents
20 by the official workers of the Ministry of Interior was adopted in 1992?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D00-0644 on the
24 Q. This is a cover letter from the 19th of September.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have the rules, which
1 is page 3 of the document.
2 Q. As I was saying, this is the cover letter that went with the
3 document, and then now we see the rules. Do you remember the rules?
4 A. But of course. The activity that followed up, I was involved in
5 that, not only myself, of course, 24 hours a day.
6 Q. What activities did you mean?
7 A. What follows from the rules. Namely, the making of these IDs.
8 Q. There were cases when people were issued official IDs without
10 A. Well, no. In essence, all the police officers in former Bosnia
11 and Herzegovina
12 and later on police badge. With the start of the war, logically, new
13 members joined the MUP of Republika Srpska, among other things. And in
14 the meantime, there were some serious cases of abuse of such documents,
15 both by staff members and other people, and those were the motives and
16 reasons why relatively early we launched into this activity, and I think
17 we managed to complete the task within a reasonable time-frame. We did a
18 lot. We created a new ID format. And prior to that, we did some
19 checkups on all of our staff members, got some documentation about them,
20 and so on and so forth.
21 Q. In other words, this procedure was used for the purpose of --
22 A. Introducing order, yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Unless there are objections, I
25 seek to tender this document into evidence.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
2 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I just, for a moment, ask where
5 this document comes from and what the date is because it is not very
6 clear on our screen.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It is document of 19
8 September 1992. It comes from -- just a moment.
9 From MUP of Republika Srpska. These are the rules, and it was
10 confirmed by the witness that was adopted in 1992 and was applied for a
11 certain period of time. I don't know exactly until when.
12 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I'm sorry. I have some
13 reservations which I -- for reasons I won't trouble the Court with at the
15 Does the witness say that he recognises this document? Because
16 he says, do you remember the document or do I need to show you? There's
17 no need. I know this document -- I know of this document. Is he saying
18 that he recognises it? That's all I want to know.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I'm trying to save -- I'm
20 really trying to save time because I want to rely on the existence of
21 this document and actually the consequences of what this document meant
22 for the establishment of Republika Srpska or introducing law and order
23 within the MUP of Republika Srpska in 1992.
24 JUDGE HALL: We have a -- an ancillary question to the point
25 Ms. Korner has raised and that is, what is the nature of these rules,
1 whether they are purely internal departmental guide-lines or whether they
2 fall into the category of -- of subsidiary legislation which should be
3 part of the law library that we're building.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, let me try to explain.
5 Your Honours, this is an part of the subsidiary.
6 MS. KORNER: I'm so sorry, Your Honours. If this is going to
7 affect the admission of this document then the witness ought not to be
8 listening to this, and I believe the witness speaks English.
9 JUDGE HALL: Well, inasmuch as this appears to be a matter of
10 some importance, let's marked for identification and move on. Because it
11 may very well be that, upon the queries that Ms. Korner has raised being
12 looked into, that we -- that this falls within and just is subsumed
13 within the law library. But that remains to be seen.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may be heard. With all due
15 respect, I respectively disagree.
16 First of all, the witness confirmed that he actually is the
17 author of this -- of this -- of this -- of this rule-book. He is the
18 author. It is -- it was under his auspices that this rule-book was
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I don't think that there is any
21 major disagreement about allowing this document to come into evidence.
22 The only question that remains is whether we give it a separate exhibit
23 number now or whether we include in the law library.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I wanted to explain but Ms. Korner
25 stood up and said that maybe the witness should be excused. I don't have
1 anything against that. The witness can be excused, it will take me two
2 minutes, and I will explain the nature of this document and all these
3 rule-books and instructions.
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, you just said something, which I
5 confess I missed and Judge Delvoie as well, I don't know about Judge
6 Harhoff. You said that the witness testified that he was part of the
7 authorship of this?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
9 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... no.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, maybe it wasn't recorded. But we can ask the
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: May I ask the witness?
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
15 MR. ZECEVIC:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, the rules concerning the format of the ID
17 of the official organs of the Ministry of Interior, was this document
18 drafted by your administration, the administration you were at the head
19 of in MUP?
20 A. Yes. Not only our administration. Some other administrations
21 also were involved. We were at the time in Bijeljina, and yes, this is
22 what we drafted.
23 Q. Would you want me to show you this document in hard copy so that
24 can you verify whether this is the document we are talking about?
25 There's no need for us to go through every page.
1 A. Well, if necessary, I know what this document is all about.
2 JUDGE HALL: Having regard to what I now understand the answer to
3 be, the document be admitted and marked.
4 MS. KORNER: I want a simple, straightforward question (sic)
5 before I withdraw my objection. I would like the witness to look at the
6 document and confirm that he has seen this document before. And the
7 reason is the provenance of the document. And to read the date, please.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know what this is all about. As
9 I've told you, this was drafted in Bijeljina with the participation of
10 two or three administrations including the analysis. I remember that
11 they typed this in on their computer.
12 MS. KORNER: I know the witness has difficulties. Perhaps he
13 would like to answer the direct question that I asked, or -- I don't want
14 to intervene, but Mr. Zecevic, can you ask the question again.
15 MR. ZECEVIC:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, the question is as follows: Have you seen
17 this document before, and could you please read the date on the document.
18 That was the question that Ms. Korner wanted to put.
19 So we have the first two pages being the cover letter, and then
20 we have the document itself, which is page 3. I would like to ask you to
21 look at it again, because Ms. Korner insists.
22 Have you seen the document before; and please read the date?
23 A. To be perfectly honest, here on the cover letter, we see the
24 date, 19 September 1992
25 letter. But as far as this rule-book is concerned, I remember we wrote
1 it in Bijeljina. Two or three administrations were involved, and mine to
2 a lesser extent. That's why I mentioned a moment ago the administration
3 for analysis, which actually typed the text. And then we endorsed this
4 document, and we applied it in practice.
5 Q. Just reply very simply: Have you seen this document before, and
6 if you have, can you confirm the date, August 1992?
7 A. I have seen this rule-book. Whether it was August or some other
8 time, I can't say with any certainty.
9 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt what is written on the document?
10 August 1992. Do you have reason to suspect that it was maybe written in
11 September 1993?
12 A. None whatsoever.
13 Q. Do you remember that in the second half of 1992 such a rule-book
14 was in use in the MUP of the Serbian Republic
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... explore this
17 and I offer this into evidence if there is no objection from Ms. Korner
19 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
20 I don't think he has answered the question, but I think this is n
21 sufficient -- I withdraw my objection, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE HALL: As we said, the document is admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D320, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE HALL: Which conveniently brings us to the time that we
25 should rise for the day. There is two minutes left, but I don't know
1 that you could usefully make use of that so we're back in this courtroom
2 tomorrow morning at 9.00. Thank you.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th June, 2010,
6 at 9.00 a.m.