Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11736

 1                           Tuesday, 15 June 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 6             Good morning, everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Good morning to everyone.

11             May we have the appearances for today, please.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Matthew Olmsted,

13     Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic for

17     Zupljanin Defence.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

19             Before we begin, there are two matters.  One is that the -- we

20     have been made aware through the Registrar of the Defence counsel's

21     concern that LiveNote is not immediately available, and the -- we --

22     we -- because of the uncertainty of when it is likely to come up --

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Problem solved.  It's on already.

25             Which means that I can move to the second matter.

Page 11737

 1             The Chamber is in receipt of a motion yesterday to permit the

 2     testimony of a witness by videolink, and we inquire as to whether, A, the

 3     Defence intends to respond; and, if so, whether we would request an

 4     expedited response.  Again, this is something that we -- we are not

 5     asking for an answer immediately but in the course of today Defence

 6     counsel could indicate where we are.

 7             Thank you.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  We will, Your Honours.  If -- if you permit us, we

 9     will be able to give you an answer tomorrow?  I mean, on the -- on the

10     merit of the -- of the issue.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning, ma'am.  Could you take the solemn

15     declaration, please.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

17             I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,

18     and nothing but the truth.

19                           WITNESS:  Staka Gojkovic

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  You may be seated.

22             Just give us a moment.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, are we correctly advised that we should

25     have anticipated an application from the Office of the Prosecutor in

Page 11738

 1     respect of this witness?

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.  We just want to be safe.  We

 3     only have an hour for this witness, who is a viva voce witness, and there

 4     may be some areas that we want to explore with this witness that will

 5     take us slightly over that.  I don't anticipate much more time than the

 6     hour, but we do want to look at a couple of the log-books.  And since

 7     this is our first judicial witness from the 1992 time-period as well as

 8     the first higher prosecutor from the time-period, we want to go over some

 9     organisational matters.  And it might go a little bit beyond the hour,

10     but we don't anticipate much beyond that.  And I think with the

11     cross-examination we still finish today.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE HALL:  Could you begin by giving us your name, please.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Staka Gojkovic.

16             JUDGE HALL:  And what is your date of birth, and what is your

17     profession?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 19 October 1955.  And I have a

19     degree in law.

20             JUDGE HALL:  And you say you have a degree in law.  Could you

21     tell us in what capacity that you work.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I work as a judge of the

23     Supreme Court of Republika Srpska.

24             JUDGE HALL:  And what is your ethnicity, please.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Serb.

Page 11739

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Have you testified previously before this Tribunal

 2     or at any trial in any of the countries of the former Yugoslavia?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  The procedure before this Tribunal is one that you

 5     would not be unfamiliar with, in that it is -- it has features in common

 6     with any court anywhere in the world, with its own peculiarities, of

 7     course.

 8             You have been called by the Prosecution, and the -- as you would

 9     have heard in what has just passed between the Bench and counsel for the

10     Prosecution, Mr. Olmsted, they expect that their examination of you would

11     take a little more than an hour.  You would then be cross-examined by

12     counsel for each of the two accused men, Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin,

13     and counsel for the first accused has requested two hours and counsel for

14     the second accused an hour.  And as Mr. Olmsted has said, we expect that

15     your testimony would be completed within the compass of today.

16             A sitting day for this Tribunal is ordinarily from 9.00 in the

17     morning, which is the session we're beginning now, until 1.45 in the

18     afternoon.  The reason for that is that there are other trials going on,

19     and the courtrooms have to be shared.  That sitting day is divided into

20     periods of not more than 90 minutes for technical reasons because tapes

21     have to be changed and so on.  So we would take two 20-minute breaks

22     within the sitting day.  Of course, if, for any reason, before the

23     regular time of taking a break you need, for whatever reason, to indicate

24     that -- that the Chamber needs to rise, you would let us know and we

25     would accommodate you.

Page 11740

 1             And, unless there is any other area in which you have questions

 2     that I might answer, I would invite Mr. Olmsted to begin his

 3     examination-in-chief.

 4                           Examination by Mr. Olmsted:

 5        Q.   Good morning, Judge Gojkovic.

 6        A.   Good morning.

 7        Q.   I first want to go rather quickly through your professional

 8     background.

 9             From 1980 until October 1983, you were a judge of the basic court

10     in Sokolac; and then from 1985 until May 1992, you were a judge of the

11     BiH Basic Court I in Sarajevo.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Yes, it is.

13        Q.   And after that, you were appointed judge of the basic court in

14     Serb Sarajevo; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   When were you appointed to that position?

17        A.   The appointment happened on the 20th of June, 1992.

18        Q.   And how long did you remain a basic court judge in Sarajevo,

19     under that appointment?

20        A.   Up to the 19th of December of the same year.

21        Q.   And what position were you appointed to in December of 1992?

22        A.   I was appointed as a senior prosecutor in Serbian Sarajevo.

23        Q.   And how long did you remain in that position?

24        A.   I remained in that position up to December 2005.

25        Q.   Let me clarify that.  How long were you in the position of

Page 11741

 1     Sarajevo higher prosecutor?  Was it -- the record says here until

 2     December 2005.  Is that correct?

 3        A.   Well, I believe so.

 4        Q.   What --

 5        A.   Perhaps -- I think so.

 6        Q.   Well, let me ask it this way:  How many years -- for how many

 7     years were you a higher prosecutor for Sarajevo?

 8        A.   A little over two years.  And I'm really confused now.  I'm

 9     sorry.  I believe that I remained in the position of senior prosecutor

10     for a little over two years, or perhaps three.  I don't know.

11        Q.   That's fine.  I just wanted to clarify the years.  Yes.

12             Now, after you were a higher prosecutor, it's my understanding

13     that you served as secretary of the Assembly of the Republika Srpska

14     until approximately 1998; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And in 2001, you were appointed judge of the Serb Sarajevo

17     district court; and in 2003, you were appointed to the RS Supreme Court.

18     Is that correct?

19        A.   Correct.  All of that is correct.

20        Q.   Let's take a look at 65 ter 2442.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  And if we can turn to page 10 of the B/C/S, page 12

22     of the English.

23        Q.   This is the Official Gazette of the Serbian People of BiH dated

24     30 June 1992.  And if we can look at decision number 239, we see a

25     20 June 1992 decision by President Radovan Karadzic.

Page 11742

 1             Was this the decision appointing you to the basic court in

 2     Sarajevo?

 3        A.   Yes, it was.

 4        Q.   Were you the only judge appointed to the Sarajevo basic court in

 5     June 1992, or were there others?

 6        A.   I was not the only one.  Some other judges were appointed on the

 7     same day.

 8        Q.   Do you recall how many were appointed that day?

 9        A.   I believe that four were appointed for the basic court.

10        Q.   Were judges for the higher court for Sarajevo also appointed at

11     that time?

12        A.   Yes, there were.

13        Q.   And can you recall how many higher court judges were appointed in

14     June 1992?

15        A.   Six, I believe.

16        Q.   Also at this time, were the public prosecutor and deputy public

17     prosecutors for Sarajevo basic prosecutor's office appointed?

18        A.   Yes, to the basic prosecutor's office.

19        Q.   Can you tell us, what were the ethnicities of these judges and

20     prosecutors who were appointed in June 1992?

21        A.   In June 1992, I believe that they were all Serbs.

22        Q.   Where were the offices of the Sarajevo higher and basic court

23     judges in 1992?

24        A.   The main office was in Lukavica, on the premises of -- of the

25     former administration building of Energoinvest; a company, Energoinvest.

Page 11743

 1        Q.   And where were the offices of the Sarajevo basic prosecutor and

 2     his deputies located?

 3        A.   At first, we shared the same building.

 4        Q.   And where were the offices of the centre for public security, the

 5     CSB for Romanija-Birac region, located.

 6        A.   Well, when we were given offices in Energoinvest, they were in a

 7     different building but within the same perimeter, the parameter of the

 8     Energoinvest building.

 9        Q.   When the basic court in Sarajevo was first established, over

10     which municipalities did it have jurisdiction?

11        A.   Those were all the municipalities which had formally belonged to

12     Sarajevo.  And I'm referring to parts thereof.  Novo Sarajevo, Novi Grad,

13     Centar, and Vogosca, as well as Ilijas, Ilidza, Hadzici, and Trnovo.

14        Q.   Now, at some point, were the Sarajevo basic court and basic

15     prosecutor's offices divided into two?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   When did this division occur; do you recall?

18        A.   Well, I believe that that happened in Autumn 1992.  But I

19     wouldn't be able to give you the exact date.  I don't know the date,

20     although I believe that it was in November.

21        Q.   And after this division, which Sarajevo basic court and

22     prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over crimes committed in Vogosca and

23     Ilijas?

24        A.   The Basic Court II in Sarajevo.

25        Q.   And where was that court located?

Page 11744

 1        A.   That court was located in Ilidza.

 2        Q.   Were additional judges and prosecutors appointed to the

 3     Basic Court and Prosecutor Office II in Ilidza?

 4        A.   Yes, of course.  Several persons were appointed at the time.

 5     Some prosecutors which were formerly appointed to work in the basic

 6     prosecutor's office were subsequently appointed as prosecutors in Ilidza.

 7     I'm referring to Milana Popadic, who was the deputy prosecutor in

 8     Sarajevo; and after the division, she was appointed the deputy prosecutor

 9     in the prosecutor -- Prosecutor's Office II in Sarajevo.

10        Q.   I want to ask you some just very general procedural

11     questions now.

12             Looking back to 1992 and the procedures that existed then, when

13     would have a judge such as yourself first become involved in a criminal

14     investigation?

15        A.   As soon as a public prosecutor issued an order for investigation.

16        Q.   And in order to conduct an investigation, what assistance did the

17     judge need from the police?

18        A.   In the course of an investigation, if there was a need to locate

19     certain individuals who were either suspects or potential witnesses or

20     when information was needed, an investigating judge could request all

21     those services from the police.  For example, an investigative judge

22     could order the police to check whether a person had a criminal record or

23     not.

24        Q.   If the judge wanted to have a search warrant or an arrest warrant

25     executed, who would do that?  Who would execute those warrants?

Page 11745

 1        A.   The police.

 2        Q.   And if the judge wanted some forensic analysis performed, either

 3     finger-print or ballistics or what have you, who would provide that

 4     forensic expertise?

 5        A.   There were institutions that provided such expertise.  And there

 6     were also forensic experts who provided different sorts of expertise.

 7     And a judge issued an order in which it was decided who would perform the

 8     expertise and what kind of expertise would be performed.

 9        Q.   Were you aware, did the police perform any forensic analysis?

10        A.   The police were able to perform some types of forensic analyses

11     during the pre-criminal procedure, when data was collected, with a view

12     to issuing a criminal report and preparations to launch a proper

13     investigation.

14        Q.   How many cases do you -- do you recall investigating as a basic

15     court judge from June 1992 until you were appointed higher prosecutor?

16        A.   I was in charge of the investigation in one case; and in one case

17     I was in charge of the first-instance procedure, the trial, once the

18     indictment was issued.

19             Maybe I can explain.  An indictment could be issued for certain

20     crimes without any prior investigation, which means that the prosecutor

21     could issue an indictment immediately.  And what followed was an

22     immediate trial and conviction, or a decision.

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm really

24     sorry, the -- I think this needs to be clarified because it will create a

25     problem afterwards.

Page 11746

 1             I believe the witness was talking about the specific procedure

 2     which is called the "direct indictment," and it wasn't recorded.

 3             Therefore -- therefore, this has to be clarified because this is

 4     one of the options given by the law that you can directly indict somebody

 5     without the -- the investigation.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:

 7        Q.   Let's talk about this first case.  Council raised the issue.

 8             This was a case in which an indictment was issued directly

 9     without an investigation by an investigative judge; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11        Q.   And can you tell us just generally what kind of case this was?

12        A.   The case was manslaughter.

13        Q.   And can you tell us the ethnicities of the perpetrator and the

14     victim?

15        A.   Serb.

16        Q.   And you mentioned the case went to trial.

17             When did the trial occur?

18        A.   I can't remember the date.  As far as I could remember, it was

19     during the summer.  The summer of 1992; I'm sure of the year.

20        Q.   Let's talk about the second case that you worked on.

21             Can you tell us what that case was about?

22        A.   In that case, the basic prosecutor issued a request to launch an

23     investigation against Vladimir Srebrov for a crime pursuant to

24     Article 118 of the then-Penal Code of the SFRY.  He was taken into

25     custody; he was remanded in custody.  The prosecutor issued a request,

Page 11747

 1     and the case was handed over to me to carry out the investigation in that

 2     case.

 3        Q.   Can you tell us, what was the ethnicity of Mr. Srebrov?

 4        A.   I believe that he was a Serb.  Yes, I'm sure he was a Serb.

 5        Q.   And you mentioned Article 118 of the SFRY Criminal Code.

 6             Can you tell us what that provision is?  What's the crime at

 7     stake?

 8        A.   I cannot give you the exact title of the crime, but it was to do

 9     with persuading people to join the enemy army; something to that effect.

10        Q.   Can you tell us when and where this crime took place?

11        A.   Well, he was charged with acting in Sarajevo, with regard to his

12     public appearances in Sarajevo, which was in the part under the Muslim

13     control, and his arrival at Ilidza in order to discuss the cessation of

14     hostilities.  He arrived in Ilidza, and he had talks with some

15     representatives of the Serbs there.  Actually, he arrived at the police

16     station in Ilidza, according to him.  That's what he told us.  And then

17     he was arrested.

18        Q.   He was arrested in Ilidza?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And when did this occur; do you recall?  When in 1992?

21        A.   I think it was in August 1992.

22        Q.   And I think you had an opportunity to review the case file.  Do

23     you recall who signed the police Official Note at the outset of the case?

24        A.   I believe it was signed by Petko Budisa.

25        Q.   And who was Petko Budisa at the time?

Page 11748

 1        A.   Well, that document says that he was commander of that police

 2     station.

 3        Q.   Do you recall who from the RS MUP issued the initial remand order

 4     to detain this perpetrator?

 5        A.   Mico Stanisic did.

 6        Q.   Do you know why the minister of the interior himself issued the

 7     remand order in this case?

 8        A.   I don't know.

 9        Q.   When did you receive the request from the prosecutor's office to

10     initiate the investigation in this case?  Approximately when?

11        A.   In September.  I think it was the 7th of September.

12        Q.   And then, once you received that request, did you, in fact,

13     conduct an investigation?

14        A.   Well, I, of course, interviewed the accused, Vladimir Srebrov,

15     and I issued a decision to launch an investigation, and I also signed an

16     order for him to remain in custody for 30 days.  The interview took two

17     days.

18        Q.   Do you recall attending any meetings with police officers from

19     the RS MUP in 1992?

20        A.   I remember attending one meeting.

21        Q.   And where was that meeting?

22        A.   At Vogosca.

23        Q.   And do you recall roughly when did that meeting occur?

24        A.   I really cannot remember.

25        Q.   Can you give us a season?  Was it summer or fall?

Page 11749

 1        A.   It was certainly summer, but I can't be more precise than that.

 2     It must have been at some time from June to September.  It can't have

 3     been later.  But I can't be more precise than that.

 4        Q.   And who do you recall attended this meeting in Vogosca?

 5        A.   As far as I recall, there were the representatives of the

 6     civilian police, the military police, and the municipality of Vogosca.

 7        Q.   And what was --

 8        A.   And ...

 9        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry.

10             I'm sorry, I interrupted the interpretation.  Was there anything

11     more to be interpreted?

12             All right.  I'll just move on then.

13             Can you tell us, what was the purpose of this meeting in Vogosca?

14        A.   The purpose of the meeting was to prevent - that's what I would

15     call it - stealing vehicles from the perimeter of the factory at Vogosca.

16     There was a large number of newly manufactured vehicles there.

17        Q.   Was that the Tas car factory?

18        A.   Yes, it was the Tas factory.

19        Q.   And what was the outcome of the meeting?

20        A.   As far as I remember, the decision was taken for mixed patrols of

21     the civilian police and the military police to guard the perimeter.  This

22     south-western part was completely cut off from the north-eastern part,

23     and, therefore, the initiative was made to establish a separate court and

24     public prosecutor's office for that area.  It was then that people came

25     up with this idea.

Page 11750

 1        Q.   Why did you, as a judge, attend this particular meeting?

 2        A.   Well, I think that the Ministry of Justice wanted somebody from

 3     the court to attend the meeting.  And as far as I remember, they wanted

 4     somebody from the court because of the psychological effect, because it

 5     was all about preserving property and reducing the number of criminal

 6     offences.  At least that's how it was explained to us.  I don't remember

 7     why I was chosen to go; but, anyway, I went there as a representative of

 8     our court.

 9        Q.   Other than this one meeting in Vogosca, do you recall attending

10     any other meetings with the police, either from the CSB Romanija-Birac or

11     the RS MUP in 1992?

12        A.   Not as far as I remember.

13        Q.   While you were a judge, between June and December 1992, do you

14     recall any criminal cases initiated against Serb perpetrators for crimes

15     committed against non-Serb victims?

16        A.   I never received such a file.

17        Q.   I want to turn to your position as a Sarajevo higher prosecutor.

18             When you were a higher prosecutor, where was your office located?

19        A.   My office was at Pale.

20        Q.   And where in Pale?

21        A.   At the Panorama Hotel, the administrative wing of that hotel.

22        Q.   And which other government offices were located at that hotel?

23        A.   The Supreme Court of the RS had its premises there at the time,

24     as well as the public prosecutor's office of the republic.

25        Q.   And who was the republican prosecutor at that time?

Page 11751

 1        A.   Miroslav Godanac.

 2        Q.   As higher prosecutor, which basic prosecutor's offices reported

 3     to you?

 4        A.   The Basic Prosecutor's Office I in Sarajevo, then number II in

 5     Sarajevo, then the basic prosecutor's office at Sokolac, Vlasenica, and

 6     Visegrad.

 7        Q.   We already talked about how Vogosca and Ilijas were part of the

 8     Sarajevo Prosecutor Office II in Ilidza.

 9             Which prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over Pale?

10        A.   The basic prosecutor's office from Sokolac.

11        Q.   And while you were a higher prosecutor, did the basic

12     prosecutor's offices submit reports to you on their work?

13        A.   Yes.  They submitted annual reports.

14        Q.   And did you also hold meetings in Pale with your basic

15     prosecutors?

16        A.   Well, I cannot remember exactly whether we held meetings, and, if

17     so, how many, because there were constant interruptions of communication

18     lines with certain areas.  But I went to the individual basic

19     prosecutor's offices.  And it would also happen that on the occasion of

20     being sworn in, they would come to Pale.

21             We didn't assemble all of us.  But, on some occasions, I would

22     meet with one prosecutor, or two, or three, but we didn't have plenary

23     meetings.

24        Q.   During your two years as a Sarajevo higher prosecutor, do you

25     recall receiving any reports about criminal charges brought against Serb

Page 11752

 1     perpetrators for committing crimes against non-Serb victims in 1992?

 2        A.   Well, if I may explain how the were reports made, the annual

 3     reports.

 4             An annual report contained information about the total number of

 5     criminal reports, what kind of decisions the prosecutor took pursuant to

 6     these reports, and the structure of crime -- criminal offences, which

 7     means that the names of the perpetrators were not mentioned.  From those

 8     reports, one could see the results of the work of each prosecutor's

 9     office and the type of criminal offence committed in their area.  Those

10     reports did not contain any names.

11             As for direct contact with those prosecutors, no prosecutor

12     informed me specifically about what you were asking me about.

13        Q.   At the level of the basic prosecutor's offices, what log-books

14     were maintained of criminal reports received by those offices?

15        A.   Mm-hm.  Log-books were maintained for some types of offences.

16     They had their respective -- they were marked differently.  KT included

17     all criminal offences against known perpetrators.  KTN stood for the

18     log-book containing criminal reports against unknown perpetrators.  KTM

19     was how the log-book containing criminal reports against minor

20     perpetrators was marked.  And there was a fourth mark for the log-book

21     containing information about the administrative duties of the prosecutor.

22        Q.   And the fourth log-book that you mentioned, that was the KTA?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   As higher prosecutor, why was it important that the basic

25     prosecutor's offices under your jurisdiction maintained these log-books?

Page 11753

 1        A.   These log-books had always been maintained, before the war and

 2     after the war.  Even now.  They are an objective reflection of the

 3     activities of the prosecutor's office.  It contains the basic information

 4     about all activities of a prosecutor's office as a governmental

 5     institution.

 6        Q.   And would these log-books allow for the auditing of the work of

 7     the basic prosecutor's office?

 8        A.   Of course.  Because you can see everything there; what was done,

 9     how it was done.

10        Q.   Prior to testifying here today, did you have the opportunity to

11     review 1992 KT and KTN log-books, from Sarajevo, Sokolac, Vlasenica, and

12     Visegrad Basic Prosecutor's Offices?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And from each of those log-books, did you compile some statistics

15     for us?

16        A.   Yes, I did.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  May we have 65 ter 10387 on the screen.

18        Q.   Could you tell us, is this the statistical data that you

19     collected from the KT and KTN log-books that you reviewed?

20        A.   Yes.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, to save time, I would propose to

22     tender this document into evidence, and then I'll just ask a small

23     handful of questions, general questions, regarding some of its data and

24     some of the log-books that it refers to.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence is

Page 11754

 1     opposed to this admission.  This document is actually a reminder for the

 2     witness.  This is not a document per se.  The witness drafted this

 3     document, and, I suppose, following the instructions of my learned

 4     friend.

 5             If this document refers to the original documents in our

 6     possession and it is to be understood as a summary of those documents,

 7     then I see no reason why we shouldn't tender the original documents.

 8     Because, unless we do, there are -- there's no foundation for the

 9     allegations found in this document the Prosecutor wishes to tender.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, to what end do you seek to -- to

11     exhibit these summaries which the witness has made?

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, the summaries are of log-books, prosecutor

13     log-books, and I think you've had an opportunity to see a couple of them

14     so far; they're rather large.  To translate them all would be a

15     tremendous effort for this Tribunal.  And so it's much better to have a

16     witness who has some familiarity with them and can testify about them as

17     to what they contain.

18             I certainly can go through all the information contained in this

19     document that's in front of us right now; that's going to take a little

20     bit of time.  She's basically going to affirm the information into it --

21     in it because she created it and she signed it.  And I think that doesn't

22     really maximise the time of the this Trial Chamber for her to do so.

23             I note that we've done the same practice with two other

24     witnesses, Judge witnesses or prosecutor witnesses, and so I'm just

25     following that precedent.

Page 11755

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, we see the utility of the witness

 4     having compiled this synthesis of material herself.  But the -- we -- in

 5     our view, Mr. Zecevic has correctly pointed out that that the limited

 6     utility of it is to assist the -- or to facilitate the examination and, I

 7     suppose, cross-examination of the witness in the box.  The document by

 8     itself would have no use whatever as an exhibit, and I would even go so

 9     far as to say it, taken in isolation, would be misleading.

10             So we understand the shortcut that you wish to take, but,

11     unfortunately, this is one of those areas in which there is no getting

12     around the fundamental material, bulky though it is, on which you would

13     wish to rely.

14             And the witness who is in the box could, I suppose, be asked

15     questions about the summary that she would have presented and what

16     specific items mean by way of example, but this cannot, in the Chamber's

17     view, be admissible as an exhibit.

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, I certainly can take her through it, and I

19     guess that's what I will have to do to come with the results of her

20     analysis of these log-books.

21        Q.   Well, let's turn to the first log-book that you reviewed.

22             You reviewed the Serb Sarajevo Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTA

23     log-book.  Can you tell us, what was date of the first entry you found in

24     that log-book?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Could we have the indication of the document you

Page 11756

 1     are talking about, Mr. Olmsted?  Does it have a name or tab number or

 2     anything like that?

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  This will be tab 19.

 4        Q.   What was the date of the first entry in the KTA log-book?

 5        A.   Of the Sarajevo Prosecutor's Office?  The 6th of July, 1992.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm really sorry, but can we have the 65 ter number

 7     also so this can be shown to the -- to the accused?

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  It --

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  It really --

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, I'll give the 65 ter numbers; but these are

11     large log-books, and to load them all up in the system just so she can

12     give her conclusions on that I think will take a lot of time.

13             So let me just announce the 65 ter number, and they can take it

14     from there.

15             The 65 ter of this log-book was 2956.

16        Q.   Now, you also reviewed the Ilidza Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT

17     log-book.  What was the date of the first entry you found in that

18     log-book?

19             MR. OLMSTED:  And this is -- this is 65 ter 2955.

20        A.   The 1st of December, 1992.

21        Q.   And what was the total number of criminal reports received by

22     that office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?

23        A.   The total number of criminal reports is 46.

24        Q.   Now, we talked about how the Prosecutor's Office II in Sarajevo

25     was created sometime in November of 1992.  So does this entry, this first

Page 11757

 1     entry, conform with, basically, your understanding of when that

 2     prosecutor's office was created?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Okay.  You also reviewed the Sokolac Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT

 5     log-book.  What was the date of the first entry found after 1 April 1992

 6     in that log-book?

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  And this is 65 ter 1544.

 8        A.   The 8th of April, 1992.

 9        Q.   And how many entries -- how many criminal reports were received

10     by this office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?

11        A.   176.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours,

13     I'm really sorry.  The accused are protesting because they cannot follow

14     any -- any -- anything.  They don't get any kind of information, what

15     Mr. Olmsted is directing the witness about.  Because what we have on

16     the -- on the screen is, I believe, the first document.  We are now on

17     the third log-book.  And we still have the first log-book on the -- on

18     the ELMO.

19             I'm just saying this for the purposes of the accused.  The

20     accused should be able to follow, at the very least, what is going on --

21     and what documents is -- are the parties referring to.

22             Thank you very much.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, I'm not sure I understand the utility in

25     bringing up the log-books.  We certainly can.  But this witness is saying

Page 11758

 1     when the first entry was and how many entries are in the log-book.  I

 2     think that that is something that would require -- you know, I'm not sure

 3     what the Defence wants us to do; flip through each page and count them

 4     for ourselves?  Or can this witness simply divulge what she found when

 5     she reviewed these log-books?

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, I suppose the alarm of the accused is

 7     understandable.  But isn't the -- don't we come back to what the Chamber

 8     would have indicated to Mr. Olmsted when we started down this path?  That

 9     what we are really concerned about is the oral testimony of the witness

10     on the basis of what she would have examined; and the back documents, as

11     it were, are -- have -- obviously form the basis of the line of

12     questions.  But what we should all, including the accused, concentrate

13     on, are the specific questions that counsel is now putting to the

14     witness.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, with all -- with all due respect,

16     I -- I fully understand and appreciate the position of the Trial Chamber,

17     and I understand the position of my learned friend.

18             However, if, for example, Mr. Olmsted is asking the witness to

19     confirm which is the first date in the log-book and she confirms a

20     certain date, it is -- it is a couple of seconds that, before that,

21     Mr. Olmsted says 65 ter 1554, page 1.  So the accused can see actually

22     that the witness is reading the actual date where -- where it's -- what

23     is written in the log-book.

24             That is my opinion that it would be only fair to the accused.

25             Thank you.

Page 11759

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, it seems to -- to us that it only adds

 3     a layer of confusion to be showing these documents, which we don't see,

 4     at the end of this present exercise, being exhibited in any event.

 5             To repeat what I said earlier, what we are concentrating on is

 6     the witness's oral evidence.  Admittedly, that her -- what she would say

 7     is based on the documents that she would have examined.  She has already

 8     said that; that's a part of the record.  But it only, as I said, adds

 9     confusion to -- to be running these documents on the screen, which we

10     don't see, at the end -- we have already said that the summary would not

11     be admissible, and we don't see the log-books being admitted either.

12             As you have said, they are, A, voluminous, and, B, haven't all

13     been translated.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.  But it is important to our case

15     to get this information in, and I think this is by far the most expedient

16     way of doing it.  The Defence will have the opportunity to question any

17     information she derived from these log-books, and they can do it through

18     this witness or they can do it through any future witness.  Or they can

19     file something otherwise to -- to question the -- the veracity of her

20     calculations.  But these are, you know, such basic information, based

21     upon a review, that to bring up the log-book and to confirm everything

22     she's determined from them will -- it would just, I think, needlessly

23     take the time of this Trial Chamber.

24             JUDGE HALL:  I don't know if we're at cross purposes,

25     Mr. Olmsted.  We're inviting you to continue asking her questions.  And

Page 11760

 1     it is the duty of counsel on both sides to, at some point, seek to match

 2     those questions to the basic documents, which are the log-books.  But

 3     what we are saying is that while you're asking her questions we don't

 4     need to have the log -- these documents put up on the screen.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Now I understand you, Your Honour.  I apologise for

 6     that.  Thank you.

 7        Q.   You also -- Judge Gojkovic, you also had the opportunity to

 8     review the Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT log-book.  Can you tell

 9     us, what was the date of the first entry in that log-book on or after

10     1 April 1992?

11        A.   The date is 14th of May, 1992.

12        Q.   And what was the total number of criminal reports --

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm really sorry.  Again, we don't have a 65 ter

14     number.  I'm sorry.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, if I may be of assistance, it seems

16     to me that the summary which this witness has put together and which is

17     now -- which was offered by the Prosecution contains nothing more than

18     figures relating to the date of the beginning of the log-book and the

19     number of crimes that were registered.

20             The Defence, of course, is free challenge the correctness of what

21     the witness has put together.  If there is a challenge, say, against the

22     number of crimes that were registered in Ilidza and you're able to prove

23     that it wasn't 46 crimes, it was only 44 crimes, then, of course, you

24     should do so.

25             But at this point in time in the Prosecution's chief examination,

Page 11761

 1     I guess the interest is not so much about ascertaining the number of

 2     crimes or the correctness of the information which the witness has

 3     offered in this summary, but, rather, the breakdown of the numbers.

 4     Because, as Judge Hall, the Presiding Judge, has already said, in

 5     isolation this information is useless, unless we get a breakdown of

 6     numbers:  Out of the 46 crimes registered in Ilidza, how many crimes

 7     were -- were concerning Muslim perpetrators, how many were concerning

 8     Serb perpetrators, who were the victims, what was the charge, and so on.

 9             So that is, I think, in the end, the information that the Chamber

10     is looking for.

11             So as much as I understand your -- your unhappiness with the fact

12     that we don't see the underlying material, I think at this point in time

13     we can proceed without having to use time to go into each and every one

14     of these log-books and confirm and ascertain that the number of crimes

15     that the witness has offered in her summary is correct.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours' position, and I

17     appreciate it very much.  I'm just trying to explain the two things.

18             Number one, for the record, we need the 65 ter number of the

19     document that the witness is referring to.  I think that's only logical.

20     We can't -- we can't play with the tab numbers, because the tab numbers

21     do not appear anywhere else.  They are just for the purposes of our

22     facilitating work in the courtroom.  That is why I insisted that the

23     65 ter number is always used; so I know what is the document and we know

24     in the record afterward.

25             The -- the problem I see, Your Honours, is that this doesn't help

Page 11762

 1     saving the time.  It -- it only - it only - increases the time.  Because

 2     Mr. Olmsted prepared this summary document last night.  He sends it to us

 3     with the data which is -- which Your Honours correctly suggested are the

 4     numbers and the -- the qualification of some of the criminal -- criminal

 5     filings.

 6             Now, we are going to challenge that.  Of course we are going to

 7     challenge that.  Because there is no basis for these conclusions from the

 8     documents which -- which are -- which are before us.  And now we will

 9     have to go through each and every entry in these log-books to show the

10     Trial Chamber that the witness did not have the basis to confirm this.

11             Now it will take maybe two days.  Instead that the Prosecution,

12     who has the burden of proof, shows the document, shows the -- shows the

13     example on which they base their -- their -- their assertion that the

14     witness is -- has -- on the basis of which the witness has created this

15     document.

16             That is all I'm saying.  Nothing else.  And I think, with all due

17     respect, I think the Defence position is very justified in this respect.

18             Thank you.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I wasn't in any way trying to say that you were

20     not justified in -- in bringing up ... it's just that I'm surprised that

21     the very limited information which is contained in the witness's summary

22     can actually be challenged.  I mean, is that -- was the witness wrong in

23     providing the information that in Ilidza from 1st of April to

24     31st December there were 46 crimes registered?  I mean, is that the

25     challenge?  Or where does the challenge come in?

Page 11763

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I think the witness should be excused before

 2     I answer that question, or maybe the witness can be withdrawn before the

 3     time.  Or we are about the time to break, so maybe the witness can be

 4     excused and can I answer that question.

 5             Thank you.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 7             Judge Gojkovic, we are near the time that we would ordinarily

 8     take a break.  The usher will escort you from the courtroom at this

 9     point.  Thank you.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11             JUDGE HALL:  The -- rather than -- Mr. Zecevic, rather than

12     your continuing your representation to the Chamber at this point, it

13     seems that the more efficient thing - it mightn't work out - may be if

14     counsel, during the break, could see if a practical solution to this very

15     real problem can be worked out.  Because we appreciate what you --

16     what -- what both counsel have said, and it may very well -- it -- it

17     appears that the Prosecution may not have anticipated the problems that

18     would have been created by the shortcut, what they thought would have

19     been a shortcut.

20             So if counsel can get together during the break and report back

21     when we resume as to whether there is anything that they have to offer

22     as -- as to how we go forward.

23             Thank you.

24                           --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

Page 11764

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Before the witness is escorted back to the stand,

 2     the Chamber would wish to -- unless, of course, counsel have something to

 3     report about progress they would have made.

 4             So let's hear from counsel first.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours, we spoke with Defence counsel,

 6     and I think it was primarily a misunderstanding.  We're not going seek to

 7     tender this document into evidence; we're simply having her use it to

 8     refresh her recollection based upon a review of the log-books.

 9             I certainly will note the 65 ter number of the log-book.  We

10     won't put it on the screen, though.  And I think that that was acceptable

11     to the Defence.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  That was the -- basically we -- I understood

13     that the -- the Prosecution offered this document, and -- and that was --

14     that was the basis of my objection.

15             The other objections were concerning the 65 ter.

16             Now, the Prosecution assures me that they're interested in this

17     document in number one and two, which is the first date of entry and the

18     number of entries for 1992, which I don't have a problem with.  The

19     problem I have is under number three and four, but my friend from the

20     Prosecution explained me that he is going to ask the witness directly for

21     her opinion on that.  And that is basically okay with us.

22             Thank you, Your Honours.

23             I hope this satisfies the Trial Chamber.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  What is -- Mr. Zecevic, what is on the three and

Page 11765

 1     four?  Or, Mr. Olmsted, what is on the three and four?  We don't have the

 2     document anymore on the screen.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  The number three is the total number of the

 4     criminal complaints concerning non-Serbs by -- committed by Serbian

 5     perpetrators --

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  And the number four is also related to that.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  But Mr. Olmsted explained to me that he is going

10     ask the witness a question, therefore, and is he not going to rely on

11     this document.  So we'll see what this witness will answer, and then we

12     will cross-examine on that.

13             Thank you.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Olmsted, could you give us an indication as

16     to the -- the purpose of these questions, these precise questions?

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's two-fold.  The ones I'm

18     asking her, with regard to the statistical sheet, is establishing that

19     the prosecutor's offices were open for business in 1992, they were

20     accepting criminal reports, and several of them processed quite a few of

21     them.  That's what I'm going to use the statistical sheet for.  I will

22     ask her, generally, what her -- what she found.

23             With regard to number three, I'm not going refer her to the

24     sheet, I going to ask her, just outright, based upon a review of these

25     log-books, was she able to identify any cases in which the Serb was a

Page 11766

 1     perpetrator and a non-Serb was a victim.  And we'll hear her answer at

 2     that stage on that.  Based upon her looking at these seven or eight

 3     log-books.

 4             And I note that's exactly what we did with two witnesses who have

 5     testified here already.  So it's simply -- there -- she's the higher

 6     prosecutor; these log-books fell within her purview because they were her

 7     basic prosecutors who were collecting this information and maintaining

 8     these log-books which were used for auditing purposes and which were the

 9     basis of reports going up the chain of command, and she, simply, has

10     reviewed them and told us what she's been able to find in them.

11             JUDGE HALL:  So we would have the witness back.

12             If the usher would please escort the witness back to the stand.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             MR. OLMSTED:

15        Q.   Judge Gojkovic, we apologise for the delay.  We just had to deal

16     with a couple of procedural matters.

17             I want to return to the results of your review of the log-books.

18     We were talking about the Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT log-book.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  Which I just note for the record is 65 ter 1552.

20        Q.   Can you tell us, based upon your review, the total number of

21     criminal reports received by that prosecutor's office between 1 April and

22     31 December, 1992?

23        A.   191 criminal reports.

24        Q.   I want to turn now to the Visegrad Prosecutor's Office 1992 KT

25     log-book.

Page 11767

 1             MR. OLMSTED:  And I note for the record this is 65 ter 1550.

 2        Q.   Based upon your review, what was the date of the first entry in

 3     that log-book on or after 1 April 1992?

 4        A.   9 September 1992.

 5        Q.   And what was the total number of criminal reports received by

 6     that office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?

 7        A.   Five.

 8        Q.   Now, you also looked at the Ilidza Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTN

 9     log-book.  Can you tell us, what was the total number of unknown

10     perpetrator criminal reports received between 1 April and

11     31 December 1992 by that office?

12        A.   18.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  And, for the record, that's 65 ter 2969.

14        Q.   You also reviewed the Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTN

15     log-book.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  That's 65 ter 2968.

17        Q.   Can you tell us the total number of unknown perpetrator criminal

18     reports received by that office between 1 April and 31 December 1992?

19        A.   33.

20        Q.   And, finally, the Visegrad Prosecutor's Office 1992 KTN log-book.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  That's 65 ter 2971.

22        Q.   Can you tell us what was the total number of unknown perpetrator

23     criminal reports received between 1 April and 31 December 1992 by that

24     office?

25        A.   One.

Page 11768

 1        Q.   From your review of the 1992 KTN -- or strike that.

 2             From your review of the 1992 KT log-books, were you able to

 3     identify any criminal reports filed by the police for crimes committed by

 4     Serb perpetrators against non-Serb victims?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   And from your review of the three 1992 KTN log-books, were you

 7     able to identify any criminal reports for crimes against non-Serb

 8     victims?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   When the Serb Sarajevo Prosecutor's Office was located solely in

11     Lukavica, so before the split in November of 1992, did the prosecutor's

12     office maintain a KT log-book?

13        A.   I believe so.

14        Q.   Our investigators were unable to locate this log-book.

15             Can you tell us what happened to it?

16        A.   I wouldn't know what happened to it.  But I do know that this

17     prosecutor's office had transferred its offices to Grbavica and that the

18     premises where they were originally located were shelled.  I don't know

19     whether they were destroyed, whether it was destroyed, their log-book.  I

20     don't know what may have happened to it.  I cannot tell you.

21        Q.   Let's take a quick look at 65 ter 10385.

22             This is a request to initiate an investigation dated

23     7 September 1992.  And we've already talked about this Srebrov case in

24     which you were investigative judge.  I just want you to take a look at

25     the upper left of the first page.  We see written "KT 24/92."

Page 11769

 1             Could you tell us, what is the purpose of that number?

 2        A.   This number shows the sequence of these criminal reports that

 3     were entered into the KT log-book.

 4        Q.   So as of the beginning of September 1992, how many criminal

 5     reports were received by the Serb Sarajevo Basic Prosecutor's Office,

 6     according to this document?

 7        A.   According to this number here, this is the 24th criminal report.

 8     For this log-book.

 9        Q.   Let's take a look at 65 ter 2955.  This will be the 1992 through

10     1993 Sarajevo Basic Prosecutor's Office II KT log-book.

11             And while we're pulling that up, did you also review, during

12     proofing, the 1993 entries in the KT log-book from the Sarajevo

13     Basic Prosecutor's Office II?

14        A.   Only for the Sarajevo Basic Prosecutor's Office II.

15        Q.   That's right.  And were you able to identify any cases in the

16     1993 KT log-book against a Serb perpetrator for a crime committed against

17     a non-Serb victim, in 1992?

18        A.   There was one case that was entered in 1993, and the criminal

19     report bore the date of, I think, December 1992.  The perpetrator was a

20     Serb, and the damaged parties were described as members of "other

21     nationalities."

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Let's look at page 23 of the B/C/S and page 6 of

23     the English.

24             And if we can zoom in to the last entry on the page; I believe

25     it's entry 30.  And zoom in a little bit more on the B/C/S so she can

Page 11770

 1     take a look at it.

 2        Q.   Judge Gojkovic, is this the case that you identified, this entry

 3     number 30?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And what was the name of the perpetrator?

 6        A.   Stanko Knezevic.

 7        Q.   And when was the criminal report received by the prosecutor's

 8     office?

 9        A.   The 9th of April, 1993.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  Let's scroll over to column 23.

11        Q.   According to this --

12             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, move -- move -- scroll over in the B/C/S.  No,

13     not up; over.  Yeah.  Now keep on going.  Keep on going.  Okay.  Stop

14     there.

15        Q.   According to this log-book, what happened to this case in 1995?

16        A.   It says here that the investigation was interrupted.  It was

17     dropped.

18        Q.   Do you have any personal knowledge why the investigation was

19     interrupted or dropped?

20        A.   It was just interrupted.  It was not ended.  And I don't know

21     why.

22        Q.   Other than this one case that you identified, were you able to

23     identify any other criminal reports of crimes committed in 1992 by Serb

24     perpetrators against non-Serb victims in this 1993 KT log-book?

25        A.   Well, I can say that there were examples where victims are not

Page 11771

 1     even identified.  There are no names of the victims in any of the

 2     log-books that I reviewed.  The one in 2003 [as interpreted] shows

 3     another example where the victim was a woman who bore a Serbian family

 4     name and her first name was not Serbian, I believe.

 5        Q.   Do you recall, was that crime committed in 1992 or 1993?

 6        A.   I'm not sure.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, may this log-book be tendered into

 8     evidence?

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

10             MR. OLMSTED:  I just want to show you one more document and then

11     I'm done.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise.  As Exhibit P1445, Your Honours.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  If we can have on the screen P275.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Olmsted, could you repeat the 65 ter number

15     of this log-book we just admitted?

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  It's 2955.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

18             MR. OLMSTED:

19        Q.   Judge Gojkovic, what we're looking at now is the minutes from the

20     8th Session of the RS Presidency, dated 17 June 1992.  If we look at

21     number 3, it states:

22             "The following conclusion was adopted:  That the government draft

23     a decision on the establishment of a state documentation centre which

24     will gather all genuine documents on crimes committed against the

25     Serbian People during this war."

Page 11772

 1             Do you recall whether this documentation centre was, in fact,

 2     established?

 3        A.   Yes, it was.

 4        Q.   And who was responsible for collecting this documentation?

 5        A.   Well, Miroslav Toholj was -- I don't know whether he was

 6     appointed its director or whether he bore a different title.  The

 7     documentation centre organised a collection of all the documents, and I

 8     believe that he was in charge of the overall organisation of setting up a

 9     team that would be working on collecting all those documents.

10        Q.   Are you aware of whether the police played any role in collecting

11     documents --or documenting the crimes committed against the Serb

12     population, for the centre?

13        A.   As far as I know, yes, they did.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I have no further questions for this

15     witness.

16             I'm wondering whether it would be beneficial to mark the

17     log-books that this witness summarised as exhibits at this stage, until

18     we can figure out the best means of -- of whether we need to tender

19     themselves into evidence or whether it's going to be acceptable to have

20     them summarised.  But at least to have them --

21             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, you do mean marked for identification?

22             MR. OLMSTED:  That's right; marked for identification.

23             I could provide a list to the Registrar, and they could just

24     assign P numbers for them.  And then at least we know they're on the --

25     they're in the record, and we can figure out what's the best way to get

Page 11773

 1     this evidence in, if it's necessary at all to get it in.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Isn't this premature, Mr. Olmsted?  We see the

 4     practical aspect of your application.  But isn't this premature?  Because

 5     the -- inasmuch as the log-books have not yet all been translated, the --

 6     I think that's as far as we can go for the time being.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, a few of them have, that she reviewed --

 8     well, partially translated, let's say.  We'll never get them fully

 9     translated just because some of them are quite large.  But she did review

10     them, and she did testify about them, and we did announce their 65 ter

11     numbers on the record.  So I was thinking maybe this would be a good time

12     to do that.  But if the Trial Chamber is of the opinion to wait, we'll

13     address the matter later.

14             JUDGE HALL:  But although she reviewed them, they're still merely

15     foundation documents for her viva voce testimony.  And I -- I think

16     that's where they should be left for the time being.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  That's fine, Your Honour.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Judge.

20        A.   Good morning.

21        Q.   Tell me, please, first of all, about our Criminal Code and

22     criminal procedure.  I would like to clarify a few things with this

23     regard.

24             According to our criminal procedure - and when I say "our," I

25     mean the procedure that was in place in 1992, which is relevant for this

Page 11774

 1     indictment - the police filed criminal reports whenever there was

 2     reasonable grounds to suspect that a person committed a crime; is that

 3     correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   In addition to the police, of course, such a criminal report is

 6     filed with the competent prosecutor's office; right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   In addition to the police, citizens also had the right, and even

 9     an obligation, and I believe that was stipulated by the law, to file

10     criminal reports; am I right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   At the moment when the police or citizens filed a criminal report

13     or when they reported a crime and when they specified the type of the

14     crime that was committed, such a specification in no way limited the

15     prosecutor to file a request to investigate the crime, such as committed

16     in the eyes of the prosecutor; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Let's clarify.  If, for example, somebody filed a criminal

19     report -- for example, the police did that for an aggravated theft,

20     whereas, the facts established, during the so-called pre-trial procedure

21     conducted by the police, indicate that the crime is -- can be

22     characterised as a robbery, then the prosecutor will follow the logic and

23     will charge the perpetrator with the more serious crime - robbery in this

24     case - irrespective of the fact that the initial criminal report was

25     filed for an aggravated robbery -- aggravated theft; right?

Page 11775

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   For the interpretation, we have to make pauses between my

 3     questions and your answers.  I thank you kindly for your consideration.

 4        A.   Okay.

 5        Q.   After that, after the prosecutor reviewed the documents provided

 6     to him by the police, together with the criminal report, or a citizen, a

 7     victim, who could also file a criminal report, and then the prosecutor

 8     filed a request for investigation and based it on his view that there

 9     were reasonable grounds to believe that a certain individual had

10     committed a crime, which the prosecutor specified in their written

11     request submitted to the investigative judge.

12             Am I right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Once a request for investigation is filed, the investigating

15     judge will decide whether there are grounds for the investigation to be

16     launched; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   From the moment when the request for investigation is handed over

19     to the investigating judge the investigating judge agrees that there

20     should be an investigation of a case or of an individual, from that

21     moment on, the dominus, to put it that way, the main person, the person

22     in charge in the proceedings, is undoubtedly the investigating judge;

23     right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   The investigating judge has a certain body of rights which

Page 11776

 1     include and which he is duty-bound to issue for the enforcement agencies

 2     to carry out concern actions every time upon his specific order; right?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Within the scope of the investigation, the police -- or, rather,

 5     the bodies of the -- of interior affairs, do not act on their own will;

 6     they act either on the order of the investigating judge or the

 7     prosecutor.  In other words, at the request of the prosecutor; right?

 8        A.   Yes.  After the criminal report was filed.

 9        Q.   The fact is also, is it not, madam, that if a serious crime was

10     committed and the duty investigating judge and the duty prosecutor go to

11     the site immediately after that crime had taken place to carry out an

12     on-site investigation, from that moment on, effectively, both the

13     investigating judge and the prosecutor provide instructions to the police

14     as to what to do; right?

15        A.   Yes.  That's right.

16        Q.   That's because, effectively, the presence of an investigating

17     judge and the prosecutor on the crime scene is the beginning of an

18     investigation.  An order is issued.  But the fact that they came to the

19     site, in case of a serious crime, violent death, or any such situations,

20     such a development, constitutes the launching of an investigation?

21        A.   These are investigative actions that precede, following

22     procedure.

23        Q.   I'm really glad that you mentioned "investigative actions."

24             The fact is that some crimes which one might call the less

25     serious crimes - and I'm again talking about the year 1992 and the

Page 11777

 1     regulations that were in effect at the time - for all those less serious

 2     crimes, and I believe that they were qualified by a prison sentence of up

 3     to three years, there was no investigation as such.  Actually, what

 4     happened was investigative actions were carried out in order to establish

 5     whether there were elements and reasons for proceedings to be initiated

 6     against a certain person; right?

 7        A.   Yes.  Only certain actions were undertaken that were absolutely

 8     indispensable to proceed, an indictment with a lesser or milder effect.

 9     That was just an indictment proposal.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, let me check.

11             JUDGE HALL:  The -- although the interpreters haven't so

12     indicated, I get the impression that the gap between the question and the

13     answer isn't sufficiently long.  So if both the witness and counsel would

14     bear that in mind, the need for interpretation.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] The two of us speak the same language, and we

17     are rightfully inclined to follow each other immediately; but both my

18     question and your answer have to be recorded, hence the need for a short

19     break.

20             At the beginning of your testimony earlier today, you referred to

21     a case where a direct indictment was issued.  And you were the presiding

22     judge in that case, in 1992.  Do you remember?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And in the proceeding that preceded that indictment, although

25     this crime was a serious crime, the facts were very clear.  And I assume

Page 11778

 1     that only some investigative actions were undertaken, and the prosecutor,

 2     after that, directly charged the person, without launching a proper

 3     investigation; right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Let's just clarify one specific matter.  Since you worked both --

 6     also as a prosecutor for a while, a prosecutor who was not happy or

 7     satisfied with the contents of the criminal report he is seized with, he

 8     could propose that certain investigative actions be taken so as to

 9     establish whether there was, indeed, reasonable grounds to suspect that a

10     certain perpetrator committed a certain crime; right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   A prosecutor also had a possibility to do the following:  When he

13     received a criminal report, he could turn to the police -- or, rather,

14     before he even received a criminal report, when he received information

15     that a certain crime had been committed, the prosecutor's office could

16     request from the police to collect the -- the so-called preliminary

17     information; right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   If I'm not mistaken, there was a special log-book, the so-called

20     P.O. log-book for that purpose?

21        A.   I'm not aware of that.

22        Q.   I'm sure that you will agree with me that in any case every such

23     prosecutor's request for an action by the police had to be recorded

24     somewhere; right?

25        A.   I'm sure you're right.  It must have been.

Page 11779

 1        Q.   And in such a case, when the prosecutor's office requested

 2     preliminary information to be gathered, they also provided the

 3     enforcement bodies with a set of instructions as to who they were

 4     interested in, which additional information about certain persons had to

 5     be gathered, about what facts, the time-frame, the place, and so on and

 6     so forth; right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   All right.  So we saw that the prosecutor's office is not bound

 9     in any way by the legal qualification used by the body of the

10     Ministry of the Interior or the person filing the criminal report, except

11     with respect to the facts; right?

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   That is, the public prosecutor can freely decide which criminal

14     offence he will state in the request to conduct an investigation and,

15     after that, in the indictment.  And that is at the discretion of the

16     prosecutor, which is based on the facts that have been established in the

17     procedure until that time, which make the prosecutor think that there are

18     reasonable grounds to suspect that such a crime has been committed and

19     that it can be proved before a court of law; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   When the file makes it to court - that is, when the indictment

22     enters into legal force and a court hearing starts - after the hearing,

23     the court is supposed to decide.  It is a fact, isn't it, that the

24     trial chamber that makes the decision is not bound by the prosecutor's

25     qualification in the indictment, but, rather is only bound by the facts

Page 11780

 1     stated in that indictment; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, that is also correct.

 3        Q.   In essence, that means that the trial chamber can convict a

 4     person of a crime if the trial chamber thinks that it has been proved

 5     during the hearing that this crime was committed.  That crime, however,

 6     must not be the same as the one that the prosecutor states in the

 7     indictment -- need not --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  "Need not," rather

 9     than -- "must not."

10        A.   Correct.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   All right.  I apologise, I'm trying to control the transcript.

13             So, if an indictment is issued for the crime of qualified murder,

14     aggravated murder, and during the hearing before court it is established

15     that there are elements of another offence, such as a war crime, then the

16     court can pronounce that person guilty of committing a war crime;

17     correct?

18        A.   Yes, if the facts of the criminal offence are all the relevant

19     facts that prove that the person has, indeed, committed what he or she is

20     charged with.

21        Q.   Absolutely.  I believe we have clarified as much.  The court is

22     bound by the facts from the indictment rather than by the legal

23     qualification.  That's the essence, isn't it?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Tell me, please, I won't show it to you because I believe it

Page 11781

 1     isn't necessary; but for the sake of reference, it is P119.  That's the

 2     Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of BiH.

 3             Madam, in 1992, there was, still, the death penalty in the

 4     legislation of that republic; right?

 5        A.   Yes.  And even later than that.

 6        Q.   And that was certainly the most severe sentence; right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   I'll read it out to you to remind you.

 9             In the second part of chapter 6 of the Criminal Code of the

10     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was applied in the

11     territory of the Republika Srpska in 1992 also, Article 36 describes the

12     offence of murder.

13             Do you remember?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And murder, in paragraph 2, is -- or, rather, paragraph 2

16     describes aggravated murder, and the sentence -- punishment for that is

17     ten years at least, and the severest sentence is the death penalty;

18     right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And then the types and descriptions of various types of

21     aggravated murders is listed:  Item 1 is in a cruel or insidious way;

22     then item 2, whoever deprives somebody else of his or her life, and, with

23     premeditation, jeopardizes the life of another person; and then

24     recklessness; then authorised officials; then several persons.  And so

25     on.

Page 11782

 1             Do you remember, so I needn't read it out?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   Let me remind you of another criminal offence from Article 151.

 4     I'm again referring to the Law of the Socialist Republic of

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina which in 1992 was also applied in the territory of the

 6     Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  As I said, the Article in

 7     question is 151, that deal with severe cases of robbery or -- robbery and

 8     theft combined with robbery.

 9             And Article 2 describes a qualified type of that offence; namely,

10     a situation when, during the performance of a robbery, a person is

11     deprived of his or her life with premeditation.  And, in that case, that

12     offence is punishable by at least ten years, up to the death sentence?

13        A.   Yes, that is an aggravated form of that criminal offence.

14        Q.   What I want to ask you is the following -- or, rather, what I

15     would like to you confirm, and I hope you will:  It's a fact, isn't it,

16     that under the rules and regulations in force at the time, the most

17     severe sentence is the death penalty, and it could be imposed, as we have

18     just seen, in these two cases; and the same sentence, the most severe

19     one, could be imposed also for war crime, crimes against humanity -- or,

20     rather, it was a sentence stipulated by the law for these offences.

21             Correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   So from the aspect of penalties, the law does not distinguish

24     between persons indicted of some type of qualified murders or a type of

25     aggravated robbery or crimes against humanity; correct?

Page 11783

 1        A.   Not with regard to the sanctions envisaged by the law.

 2        Q.   You may remember that at the very outset of your evidence today

 3     you were asked by my learned friend about an investigation that you

 4     conducted as investigating judge in 1992 against Vladimir Srebrov.  Do

 5     you remember?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Then the Prosecutor suggested to you, and you accepted, as you

 8     have already stated in your answer, that the decision to place that

 9     person in remand was signed by the minister of the interior,

10     Mr. Mico Stanisic.  Do you remember?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 65 ter

13     document 10383 to the witness.

14        Q.   Let me ask you something, Ms. Gojkovic:  Did you ever receive any

15     document from Mr. Stanisic?

16        A.   No.  At least I don't remember.

17        Q.   Please enlarge the section of the document that contains the

18     signature.

19             This is the document shown to you by the Prosecution; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Madam, here we see the title typed out:

22             "Minister of the Interior, Mico Stanisic."

23             But take a look at the stamp.  We can see that inside the stamp

24     there is the letter Z.  I believe that it stands for "za," 4, and it's

25     followed by a signature.  Can you see it?

Page 11784

 1        A.   Inside the stamp, there is a character.  And the signature itself

 2     is difficult to read.  I saw what was typed on -- on the typewriter.

 3        Q.   I put it to you, madam, that this is not Mico Stanisic's

 4     signature but, rather, that of Mr. Tomislav Kovac, who had met this

 5     gentleman, Mr. Srebrov, to talk with him about some things.

 6        A.   That's not for me to know.  I'm not saying that he signed it in

 7     person.  I only said that I cannot read the signature.

 8             However, I could read, or I was able to read, what was

 9     typewritten, and I read it.

10        Q.   I'll show you another document.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 10384.

12        Q.   It's an Official Note concerning the same case, the case against

13     Vladimir Srebrov.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please enlarge the

15     signatures in the lower right corner.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I'm objecting to what I anticipate

17     will be the line of questioning here.

18             I think that my learned friend is going to ask this witness to

19     compare signatures on two different documents to determine whether that

20     is, in fact, the signature of Mr. Stanisic.

21             I think the most appropriate way to do this would to be tender

22     the two documents into evidence and let the Trial Chamber compare the

23     signatures.  I don't see why this witness is an expert in handwriting or

24     anything else.  She's said that she's not familiar with Mr. Stanisic's

25     signature; she's saying that she's not seen that he, in fact, signed it.

Page 11785

 1             I so I think that's really the end of the inquiry.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, the question hasn't been asked yet.

 3     Perhaps we should allow Mr. Zecevic to ask the question.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Precisely so.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] You see, madam, that this document is signed

 6     by - at least that's what it says, and I'm not sure you can see it - it

 7     is signed by two persons, and the typewritten names are Tomislav Kovac

 8     and Petko Budisa.

 9             Can you see that?

10        A.   Yes, that can be seen.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender both

12     these documents into evidence:  65 ter 10383 and 65 ter 10384.

13             JUDGE HALL:  To establish what?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  To establish that the allegation that Mico Stanisic

15     signed these -- this -- the document on remand -- the decision on remand,

16     as suggested by the Prosecutor, as -- and as confirmed by the witness,

17     which is 65 ter 10383, is basically not --

18             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, I'm certain it isn't peculiar to the

19     system -- to the Rules of Evidence and the system of law with which --

20     from which I come, the rule of presumption of regularity.  There is a

21     document, which is -- will not be disputed as an official document, and

22     it's issued in the name of the minister.  It is a matter for the internal

23     administration of the department at the time as to whether he manually

24     signed it or somebody signed it for him, which I understand to be the

25     purpose for which the Prosecution was tendering the document.

Page 11786

 1             I didn't understand - and perhaps Mr. Olmsted will tell me if I

 2     misunderstood the purpose of his line of questioning - that he -- it is

 3     was being tendered for the witness to establish that the minister

 4     personally signed the document because I don't understand anything to

 5     turn on that.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I'm sorry, Your Honours.  That is precisely

 7     why I am challenging this.  Because he said, Mr. Olmsted said, to the

 8     witness, he proposed to the witness that Mr. Stanisic has signed this

 9     document and even asked the witness, Why do you think Mr. Stanisic signed

10     the decision on remand?

11             So he is suggesting and the -- and the -- very strongly

12     suggesting that it was actually signed by Mr. Stanisic.  And that is what

13     I say is not true.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.

15             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]

16             MR. OLMSTED:  I'm just going back to record, page 12 of the

17     transcript today, and I'm actually quite pleased the Trial Chamber was

18     listening closely to my questions.  I did say:

19             "Do you recall who from the RS MUP issued the initial remand ...

20     to detain this perpetrator?

21             "A.  Mico Stanisic did.

22             "Do you know why the minister of interior himself issued the

23     remand order?"

24             I didn't say anything about his signing it.  It's in his name, as

25     Your Honour has just pointed out.  It's -- it can be presumed that it

Page 11787

 1     came from him.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 4             I'm not sure that I remember where we are now, in terms of the

 5     issue before the -- the Chamber.

 6             It's 12.08.  We would return to this when -- when we come back.

 7     Because it seems to me, from what has passed between the Bench and

 8     counsel, that there is not an issue.  But I suppose your application --

 9     there is no real issue, let me put it that way, and I don't mean to be

10     disrespectful to counsel in respective cases when I say that.

11             But your application was to tender these two documents as

12     exhibits, as I recall, Mr. Zecevic?

13             And I come back --

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... that's correct,

15     Your Honour.

16             JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... and I come back to the

17     question as, To what end?  Because, at bottom, what we are left with are

18     documents which would have been issued on the authority of the -- of the

19     minister who would have been responsible; unless, of course, it is a part

20     of your case that these are wholly fictitious documents, which takes us

21     down another path altogether.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I believe we and the Prosecutor are

23     in agreement about that.  Because it is not the responsibility of the

24     minister to issue decisions on remand.  Not at all.

25             Therefore -- therefore, the -- the -- therefore, that is why

Page 11788

 1     Mr. Olmsted was suggesting -- was asking the witness, Why do you think

 2     minister himself ordered the -- the remand of this -- of this person?

 3     And I say, It wasn't minister at all, and it wasn't done on his authority

 4     at all.  Because --

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Anyway, we'll take the break and come back to this.

 6                           [The witness stands down]

 7                           --- Recess taken at 12.10 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, with your leave, I have several

12     corrections to the transcript from last Friday.

13             On page 11647, the exhibit number should read 1D324.  On page

14     11650, the exhibit number should be 1D325.  And on page 11674, the

15     exhibits admitted are P1430 through P1445.

16             Thank you.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  44, I apologise.  Thank you.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             JUDGE HALL:  In order -- sorry, Mr. Olmsted, you had something

22     to ...

23             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour, just to clarify, when Mr. Zecevic

24     left off at the end of last session, he said that the Prosecutor and the

25     Defence were in agreement that the minister didn't have any authority to

Page 11789

 1     issue remand decisions, and I just want to clarify that there is no

 2     agreement on that.  That is not the position of the Prosecutor.  Nor is

 3     it the reason why I asked the follow-up question as to why the minister

 4     had issued that remand decision.

 5             I just want to clarify that there is no agreement on that issue.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  What -- what we understood the question to be

 7     at the time, was the -- even if Mr. Olmsted over-spoke, as it were, in

 8     terms of, say, emphasizing the -- the -- the minister having signed the

 9     order in question, the ordinary rule of the presumption of regularity of

10     official acts, which goes by the Latin idiom omnia praesumuntur rite esse

11     acta, means that if Mr. Zecevic is challenging that presumption, it means

12     that there would be cast a persuasive burden on him evidentially, and in

13     order to -- it would seem to us that that is the only basis under which

14     he could be seeking to ask to tender these documents, because he is

15     intending to prove that the documents are fictitious.  Otherwise we don't

16     see how the question of admitting them arises.

17             There is the ancillary consideration that it is somewhat curious,

18     in terms of the first document, which -- which was signed on behalf of

19     the minister, that the Prosecution couldn't have tendered it -- well, I

20     shouldn't say couldn't - didn't seek to tender, it not being on their

21     65 exhibit list, that -- that counsel for the Defence would seek to do so

22     now.

23             So in order to consider the application of the Defence to tender

24     these two documents, we want be to be clear that Mr. Zecevic is -- his

25     application is based on the recognition that if his challenge is to

Page 11790

 1     the -- that these documents are wholly irregular, as being wholly

 2     fictitious, it would be necessary for him to state that now.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.  Well, Your Honours -- Your Honours, I

 4     don't know if I can be of -- of assistance to the point which I feel the

 5     Trial Chamber expects me to.

 6             Your Honours, we say, first of all, that this order is not the

 7     order on remand.  This is a completely different situation.  It says, on

 8     the face of it, it says the order of remand, but it's not.  And I'm going

 9     to explore that with the -- with the witness.

10             I say -- we say that the minister does not have the authority for

11     that and that -- that the signature is not the minister's and that in no

12     way was minister -- has minister authorised this person to sign this

13     document, the person who signed the document.

14             JUDGE HALL:  The -- Mr. -- Mr. Olmsted had anticipated something

15     that you were about to -- to -- which he thought you were about to do.

16     In terms of the second document, would you be going so far as to invite

17     the witness to compare the signatures on the two?

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, Your Honours, I agree with the -- I agree

19     with -- with Mr. Olmsted and the witness because the witness said

20     herself, I cannot recognise the signatures, because she never saw the

21     signature of Mico Stanisic.  She confirmed that in my cross-examination.

22             And, of course, she's not an expert.  I just wanted to be of

23     assistance to the Trial Chamber because it's clearly that these two --

24     these two signatures are -- are pretty much similar, and it refers to

25     Mr. Tomislav Kovac.

Page 11791

 1             And, if need be, we will lead evidence in our Defence case to

 2     that respect.  But ...

 3             JUDGE HALL:  So the first document is admitted as an exhibit, and

 4     you would ask the witness such questions that you consider useful to your

 5     case on that.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very, very much, Your Honours.

 7             So just for the clearness of the record, it's 65 ter 10383.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  This will become Exhibit 1D326.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I proceed, Your Honours?

12             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.

13             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Ms. Gojkovic, just one more question about this document, if I

15     may.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1D326, 65 ter 10383; that's the

17     document in question.

18        Q.   In a minute you are going to see it on the screen, and I would

19     invite your comments upon it.

20             Madam, this decision to remand somebody in custody is actually a

21     decision on remand, is it not?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   According to the prevalent regulations, the police could remand a

24     suspect in custody, a potential perpetrator, up to three days, up to 72

25     hours; right?

Page 11792

 1        A.   Right.

 2        Q.   After that, that person had to be brought before the competent

 3     investigative judge who, upon the proposal of the public prosecutor,

 4     could extend the custody for a period of up to a month; right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   The one -- the period of one-month custody ordered by the

 7     investigative judge can be extended up to a maximum of six months, upon

 8     the proposal of both the investigating judge and the public prosecutor;

 9     right?

10        A.   Yes.  That can be done by the trial chamber.

11        Q.   The interpretation we heard is "trial chamber;" however, we're

12     talking about a special chamber which existed in all the courts pursuant

13     to the then-organisation of work.  However, the gist of the matter is

14     that the chamber that decided on keeping somebody in custody for an

15     extended period of time also acted upon the proposal of an investigating

16     judge; right?

17        A.   Upon the proposal of an investigating judge and the public

18     prosecutor.  And that was done during the stage of the investigation.  It

19     could be done up to the moment when the investigation was completed.

20        Q.   The same chamber that decided on remanding somebody in custody

21     also decided on the objections and proposals to abolish somebody's

22     custodial sentence upon the proposal of a defence team?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   In any case, the gist of the matter was this:  Once a person was

25     remanded in custody for up to 72 hours, the police could not keep that

Page 11793

 1     person for any longer.  During that period of time, such a person had to

 2     be brought before the investigating judge who, in turn, instituted

 3     different measures upon the proposal of a -- the competent public

 4     prosecutor; right?

 5        A.   That was the law in place.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             I have a brief question.  On page 35, lines 18 and 19, I believe,

 8     the Prosecutor showed you P275, which is a -- actually a record or the

 9     minutes of a Presidency session.  We are going to have it on the screen

10     in a minute to jog your memory.

11        A.   I remember the document.

12        Q.   The Prosecutor invited your comment on bullet point 3 in this

13     document, whereby the Presidency ordered the government to prepare a

14     decision on the establishment of the State Documentation Centre which

15     would be in charge of collecting authentic documents about crimes

16     committed against the Serbian People in the course of the war.  You said

17     that you're familiar with this decision and that, as far as you know,

18     Mr. Toholj was in charge of that documentation centre; right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Madam, isn't it true that this State Documentation Centre, which

21     gathered documents on crimes committed against the Serbian People,

22     focussed primarily on crimes committed in the territory under the control

23     of the Muslim and Croatian forces and not on the territory of

24     Republika Srpska?

25        A.   I never paid a visit to that documentation centre, so I don't

Page 11794

 1     have any direct knowledge about its functioning.  However, what I heard

 2     and read in the media and what I'm reading here under bullet point 3,

 3     that documentation centre would be operational in the areas where crimes

 4     were committed against the Serbs, whether those areas were constantly

 5     under the control of the enemy side or temporarily taken over by the Serb

 6     side.

 7             One would say that you're right.  I only know about

 8     Presenica [phoen] village near Trnovo.  I know that at one point in time,

 9     when the enemy side entered that village, crimes were committed, and I

10     saw a photo documentation.  But not in my formal capacity, but, rather,

11     in my private capacity.

12        Q.   Madam -- I apologise.  Do you know that the

13     Nationality Security Service particularly dealt with crimes committed

14     against Serbs -- or, rather, they collected information about crimes

15     committed against Serbs in the territory that was not under the control

16     of the military or the authorities of Republika Srpska?

17        A.   Yes.  The Nationality Security Service was engaged in those

18     activities, yes.

19        Q.   This certainly doesn't mean that crimes committed against other

20     ethnic groups in the territory of Republika Srpska would not be

21     documented or processed, prosecuted; right?

22        A.   I think that they should all be documented and prosecuted.

23        Q.   And now I'm going to show you 1D84.

24             This letter was written by the Ministry of the Interior of the

25     Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to all public security

Page 11795

 1     centres in the territory of Republika Srpska.  It is dated 5 June 1992.

 2     The signatory is the assistant minister for prevention and detection of

 3     crime, Mr. Dobro Planojevic.

 4             Did you have an occasion to possibly see this document before I

 5     showed it to you?  Are you familiar with Mr. Dobro Planojevic?  Do you

 6     know him?

 7        A.   I knew Dobro Planojevic even before the war, and I know that he

 8     was assistant minister in 1992.

 9             I don't believe I have seen this particular document before.

10        Q.   In this document, Mr. Dobro Planojevic, about halfway through the

11     text, appeals to the best possible cooperation with the judicial bodies

12     and the police in the efforts to combat crime.

13             Do you think that there were attempts to bring about such

14     cooperation?

15        A.   I don't quite understand.  Could you please explain your

16     question?

17        Q.   I'll ask you something else so as not to waste time.

18             You will see from the text that Mr. Planojevic insists that

19     things must be documented.  He literally says:

20             "Special attention it to be paid to uncovering perpetrators of

21     war crimes ...

22             Can you see that?

23        A.   Yes, I do.

24        Q.   And in the last-but-one sentence, he says -- and I would like to

25     hear your comment on that.  He says:

Page 11796

 1             "In war time, you will encounter numerous obstacles in combatting

 2     crime and will, on occasion, be unable to take adequate measures.  In

 3     such cases, you are to record all information in Official Notes for

 4     subsequent measures, that is, criminal prosecution."

 5             Madam, this means, doesn't it, that in cases when, due to

 6     war-time activities, it's impossible to conduct an on-site investigation

 7     and other activities that, under the law and regulations of the MUP, must

 8     be carried out, at least an Official Note must be drafted to make it

 9     possible for a subsequent investigation to be carried out, once the

10     conditions allow that, in accordance with the regulations in force for

11     and applying to the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior.

12             Is that the way you understood it?

13        A.   Yes, it is.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  The -- my learned friend is asking the witness to

15     interpret a document she never saw from the police which she was not a

16     part of.  It doesn't seem like there is a sufficient foundation.  She's

17     obviously answered the question, but I just raise my objection.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  With all due respect, the witness is -- was a

19     prosecutor at the time, so ...

20             JUDGE HALL:  Let's move -- let's move on.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Madam, it's a fact, isn't it, that under the

23     regulations in force at the time, war crimes and crimes against humanity,

24     that, for them, there was no statute of limitations?

25        A.   Yes.  Those were the regulations.

Page 11797

 1        Q.   The Ministry of Justice of the RS was being established in

 2     April 1992.  That's when it began; right?

 3        A.   I don't know for certain.

 4        Q.   If I followed your testimony attentively and remember all the

 5     relevant facts, then you were appointed judge in June 1992; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Let me show you P1318.23.  That's a -- an activity report for --

 8     of the Ministry of Justice and Administration, dated May 10 1992, for --

 9     for --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  For May through

11     October 1992.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Have you had the opportunity to see this

14     document before?

15        A.   Do you mean in 1992?

16        Q.   Well, at any time before this testimony today.

17        A.   Yes.  Before this testimony I did, but not in 1992.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show page 2 to the

19     witness.

20        Q.   You see that at the very beginning it says that the

21     Ministry of Justice and Administration began functioning in extremely

22     complex conditions due to the well-known war-related events.

23             And then it goes on to speak on the establishment of the rule of

24     law and legal security of the citizens.  And apart from the Supreme Court

25     and the public prosecutor's office, a total of -- a number of courts and

Page 11798

 1     other institutions were set up.  And that 276 judges were appointed, as

 2     well as 80 public prosecutors.

 3             Do you remember that this information is approximately correct?

 4        A.   Well, as for the number of courts and public prosecutors' office,

 5     I think that this is correct.  And as for the number of officials, I'm

 6     not sure.

 7        Q.   You see the last sentence, which says -- and we are referring to

 8     mid-November 1992.  It says:

 9             "The Supreme Court and the Republican public prosecutor's office

10     have not yet started working."

11             And then it goes on to say that there isn't yet enough staff or

12     premises for the work of these institutions.

13             Does the information you have correspond to what is stated here,

14     that the public prosecutor's office, in November 1992, hadn't yet started

15     working?

16        A.   Yes, that's correct.  Because in 1993 I was still -- or, rather,

17     the higher public prosecutor's office was still at the Panorama Hotel,

18     where also a court and a basic prosecutor's office had their premises.

19     They had come there earlier because the higher prosecutor's office was

20     not yet in existence.  That's why I think that this is correct.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             In that structure that in 1992 and for a while even after that

23     existed in the SFRY, apart from the judiciary as a governmental body, in

24     all republics and autonomous provinces as well as the federal level there

25     was also a military judiciary and there were Military Prosecutor's

Page 11799

 1     Offices; correct?

 2        A.   Yes.  And the military ombudsman also.

 3        Q.   Do you know that the military judiciary and the Military

 4     Prosecutor's Offices in 1992 in the territory of the RS weren't

 5     functioning until probably autumn or even the end of the year?

 6             And when I say "functioning," I mean functioning normally.

 7        A.   That is correct.

 8        Q.   Do you know that the Ministry of Justice of the RS repeatedly,

 9     due to the fact that these military bodies - that is, courts and

10     prosecutor's offices weren't functioning - repeatedly requested that

11     civilian courts and civilian prosecutor's offices be allowed to deal with

12     matters and criminal offences which, under the law, were within the

13     exclusive purview of the military judiciary and Military Prosecutor's

14     Offices?

15        A.   I didn't know that at the time.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] could the witness please be shown

17     page 4 of this document, which is a report of the Ministry of Justice.  I

18     need paragraph 1.

19             The sentence starts:

20             "With regard to that" -- it's on the previous page actually,

21     "... has accepted the duty to have regular courts deal with such crimes

22     as would have to be dealt with by the military judiciary as the military

23     judiciary was not functional yet."

24        Q.   Do you know that regular courts conducted investigative actions

25     for criminal offences within the purview of the military judiciary?  I

Page 11800

 1     mean, at least in the framework of the court where you were a judge.

 2        A.   I cannot tell whether any of my colleagues was involved in such

 3     activities.  I only know that I, as a judge, was never requested to do

 4     anything of the kind, and I know that the case that we have mentioned,

 5     namely, the case of Vladimir Srebrov, was within the jurisdiction of the

 6     military court, because the Criminal Code of the SFRY stipulated that

 7     such offences are -- follow in the jurisdiction of the military court.

 8             However, I didn't know about military courts because their

 9     organisation and structure differed from those of regular courts.  When I

10     received such a request, I could not terminate the procedure.  I could

11     only state that I -- this was not in -- in my jurisdiction.  And as this

12     was a case of placing somebody in remand, into custody, I only filed a

13     request for an investigation to be conducted.

14             So I have no such experience, but whether anybody of my

15     colleagues had, I cannot really remember.

16        Q.   This report says that the untimely organisation of the military

17     judiciary organs makes it more difficult for the Rule of Law to be

18     established; and current conditions, military courts, and prosecutor's

19     offices are mainly responsible for criminal activity since the

20     announcement of the general mobilisation.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the Defence counsel please repeat his

22     last sentence, and let's continue from there, please.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   I apologise, I was too fast and have to go back.

Page 11801

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters.

 2        Q.   So the question was:  After I had read out this part that for

 3     acting upon criminal offences, military courts and prosecutor's offices

 4     had jurisdiction because the -- a general mobilisation had been declared,

 5     and I asked you whether or not this confirms what you told us concerning

 6     this case, the case of Mr. Srebrov.

 7             So could you now please repeat slowly the answer that you've

 8     already given me.

 9        A.   Yes, because military courts had jurisdiction over criminal

10     offences committed by military personnel as perpetrators, irrespective of

11     the nature of the offence.

12        Q.   All right.

13             I'm now going to show you document.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] P1328.

15        Q.   Dated 5 August 1992.  It's a letter from the Ministry of Justice

16     to the Presidency of the Serbian Republic of BiH about this very problem

17     with the military judiciary.

18             You see that the then-minister of justice addresses the

19     Presidency of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and says that he

20     repeats the proposal that he made in July 1992.  Namely, that regular

21     courts and public prosecutor's offices temporarily take over the

22     jurisdiction of military courts and prosecutor's offices until the

23     establishment of the latter.

24             If I understood you correctly, then you're unfamiliar with this

25     initiative of the Ministry of Justice?

Page 11802

 1        A.   No.

 2             THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction:  Yes, unfamiliar.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Let me show you document -- a document that will probably also

 5     serve to illustrate this situation.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1D189.

 7        Q.   You see, this is a criminal report filed by the SJB of Vogosca on

 8     12 December 1992.  And it was submitted to the Military Prosecutor's

 9     Office of Sarajevo against one Stanko Knezevic.  And he is charged with a

10     criminal offence against prisoners of war.

11             This person allegedly took 12 prisoners from the prison of the

12     Vogosca Brigade and killed them.

13             Can you see that?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   This criminal report was sent to the Military Prosecutor's Office

16     because it is obvious that the alleged perpetrator is a soldier, this

17     Stanko Knezevic; correct?

18             It says in the statement of reasons that as a member of the

19     Semizovac Battalion, et cetera --

20        A.   Yes, sorry, I was just reading the personal information.  And it

21     isn't mentioned there.  But in the statement of reasons, we see that he

22     was a member of that brigade.

23        Q.   And I think there's no contention about this involving prisoners

24     of war, who are not members of the Serbian ethnic group; am I right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 11803

 1        Q.   I will ask you to briefly comment for us ... some documents that

 2     you've already commented when questioned by my learned colleague.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 2968,

 4     65 ter document, shown to the witness.

 5        Q.   These are the log-books that you reviewed or had reviewed and

 6     then drafted a short document stating certain data from the document in

 7     it.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I need page 3, please.  0665-0214;

 9     that's the ERN number.

10             I don't know whether it would be possible to turn it for 90

11     degrees and thereby make it more easy to read.  When I say "rotate," to

12     put it upwards.  Yes, thank you.

13             Can we please zoom in on the central portion of the document,

14     entries 26 to 30.  Rather, lower part of the document is what I mean.

15        Q.   As you can see, the fifth column is the column where one enters

16     the names of the damaged party.  You told us that in many of the

17     documents you reviewed one cannot find entries concerning the damaged

18     party and that, therefore, you could not say whether these were persons

19     of Serb ethnicity or non-Serb ethnicity or something different.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In any case, it is a fact, isn't it, that all the log-books that

22     you reviewed, KT, KTN, and the others, the log-books you reviewed in the

23     last few days, probably over 90 per cent of perpetrators of crimes or

24     offences logged and against whom criminal reports were brought out are

25     people of Serb ethnicity; am I right?

Page 11804

 1        A.   I cannot give you an exact percentage, but these were mostly

 2     criminal reports against Serbs.

 3        Q.   A small digression:  Since you used to work also as a prosecutor,

 4     I assume you will agree with me that in order to prepare a criminal

 5     report, it is of the essence to have the damaged party, the victim, or

 6     any witness, be interviewed by the law-and-order institutions or take

 7     a -- at least a statement by such a person?

 8        A.   Yes, that's very important.

 9        Q.   It was also very common in the times of war that -- gathering of

10     such essential information to draft a criminal report and that, at that

11     time, it was very difficult to -- to do so, to gather this information?

12        A.   At the time, it was very difficult to conduct even the most

13     simple of activities, let alone the more complex ones.

14        Q.   Thank you.  As can you see here, entry number 26, we have a legal

15     entity.  It's Han Pijesak Agricultural Society, or something like that.

16     It is impossible to determine the ethnicity of a commercial company, and

17     such companies can very often be found in these log-books as the damaged

18     party.  Am I right?

19        A.   Well, it is impossible to determine ethnic affiliation of a legal

20     entity such as an enterprise or anything like that.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at number 30,

22     please.

23        Q.   As we can see here, the damaged party is an elementary school.

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 11805

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 1550.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, I'm just wondering, since questions

 3     have been asked about this particular log-book and particular entries,

 4     would this be a good time to at least mark it for identification, maybe

 5     even admit it?  And the Prosecution will endeavour to get an English

 6     translation, in the near future, of it.  It's not a huge log-book.  But

 7     since it's obviously in the record and it's referring to particular

 8     entries, it seems appropriate to have it in evidence.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I -- first of all, I -- I can't -- I thought

10     that it was -- that it wasn't permitted to offer the document for

11     admittance or to exhibit before we have the -- the translation.  That is

12     why I -- I was reluctant to --

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We have admitted documents, MFI, pending

14     translation, in earlier cases so if -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... but it was my

16     understanding, at the end of Mr. Olmsted's direct, that he will provide

17     the list -- the Registry with the list of all these -- these documents to

18     be MFI'd.  Maybe I'm -- maybe I misunderstood.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  No, that is -- that is a misunderstanding.  I think

20     Judge Hall and I went back and forth on that and the decision was at this

21     time we won't even mark them for identification because the witness

22     simply provided her results upon reviewing them.  But now that we've

23     actually brought a log-book and she's talked about that particular

24     log-book, we could mark this one for identification, pending translation,

25     and then that should take care of it.

Page 11806

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  So marked for identification.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D327, marked for identification,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  While we're on this issue - and if I sound

 5     tentative, it's because I really can't remember whether this would have

 6     arisen in a private discussion that the Judges would have had among

 7     themselves or whether it arose in the colloquy between the Chamber and

 8     counsel - but did we explore the question of dealing with these log-books

 9     by - as we have done with certain other documents in the past - by

10     eventually, for instance, in respect of this one, after it's translated,

11     marking -- only seeking to admit one as a specimen of what all the others

12     in the class would be?

13             Can counsel -- do counsel remember whether we -- we did that in

14     open court?

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE HALL:  Okay.  My colleagues remind me that it wasn't -- it

17     didn't come in open court.  But this is a opportune time for counsel to

18     consider that, because that is one of the things that we certainly

19     consider as a means of dealing with this large volume of -- of material.

20             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour.  And you will notice, I think,

21     we're on the same wavelength because the way we've approached these

22     log-books so far is to only translate the headings, which tend to be the

23     same, universally, throughout the charged municipalities, and then the

24     particular entries that we want to ask questions about to the witness or

25     we want those be considered by the Trial Chamber and not do the whole

Page 11807

 1     book.  Because obviously that would overwhelm our translation resources.

 2             So I think we're basically doing exactly that.  Having one that

 3     is -- more or less indicates what these log-books are all about, and then

 4     focussing on the particular log-books, the entries that are relevant to

 5     this case.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Madam, when I asked you about the ethnicity of some legal

 9     entities, I believe I didn't put my question in the proper way.

10             What I'm primarily interested in is the fact that amongst some of

11     the entries here we have, as the damaged party, legal entities, elements

12     of the economy.  But in these KT log-books, if the damaged party is an

13     institution or a company, an enterprise, one will -- would not see the

14     name of the owner of, for instance, a privately-owned enterprise or a

15     shop?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   So on the basis of this, even -- even if the damaged party is

18     specified, when the party in question is a legal entity, one cannot tell

19     whether the owner may have been a Serb or a non-Serb?

20        A.   For most parts, such legal entities were socially owned.  They

21     were, with the -- with the exception of shops, not owned by individuals.

22        Q.   If it's stated "PP" and then a name, that means a privately-owned

23     enterprise?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   When reviewing these documents, in places where you -- you saw

Page 11808

 1     who the damaged party was, you made your conclusions as to whether these

 2     were Serbs or non-Serbs on the basis of their name and surname, the name

 3     and surname of the person in question, which, of course, in cases you've

 4     mentioned a moment ago, need not be a correct indicator showing what

 5     ethnicity of the damaged party is.

 6        A.   That is correct.  But that is the only possible criterion that

 7     one can use in a log-book such as this to make an assessment.  There are

 8     no other ways to determine that because there is no column defining

 9     ethnic affiliation.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the Prosecutor

11     to assist me with something.

12             I can see that our witness reviewed Vlasenica Prosecutor's Office

13     KT log-book, but I'm not sure what 65 ter number that is.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, the Vlasenica KT is 65 ter exhibit 1552.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   Madam, I have no further questions for you, madam.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic.

18             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, I don't have questions for this

19     witness.

20             JUDGE HALL:   Mr. Olmsted.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, just very briefly, Your Honours.

22                           Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:

23        Q.   Judge Gojkovic, do you recall, while you were a basic court judge

24     in Sarajevo or a higher prosecutor, did the police ever come to you and

25     ask for your cooperation in investigating war crimes against non-Serbs?

Page 11809

 1        A.   While I was a judge at a basic court in Sarajevo, I don't

 2     remember having any official contacts with the police in relation to this

 3     topic.  And while I was a senior or higher public prosecutor, I had

 4     contacts with assistant minister whose name, I think, is Goran Macar but

 5     in relation to issues relating to general crime.  These were mainly

 6     offences related to general crime.  Because he needed to consult us in

 7     relation to several cases, and since the seat of my office was at Pale,

 8     so the closest prosecutor -- although normally they should be consulting

 9     with basic-level prosecutors, I still think that, on several occasions, I

10     did have contacts with Mr. Macar.  But not in relation to war crimes.  I

11     don't think that was part of his jurisdiction.

12        Q.   These conversations you had with Mr. Macar, could you tell us,

13     were they in 1993 or 1994; do you recall?

14        A.   I think - I assume - it was in 1994.  1994 most probably, but I

15     cannot recollect this with any precision.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Can we quickly look at 65 ter 1552.  It was just up

17     on the screen a moment ago.

18             And to save time, I want to hand the witness this log-book, which

19     is the Vlasenica KT log-book from 1992, just so she can quickly flip

20     through it.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I don't see how this came out of the

22     cross-examination.  I didn't -- I didn't pose a single question on this

23     particular log-book.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  You -- it's not so much the log-book but the

25     question that came up.  And you'll see in a moment.  But, essentially,

Page 11810

 1     it's your question with regard to, Were most of these crimes in these

 2     log-books against Serb perpetrators.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Do you expect to finish today, Mr. Olmsted?

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  After this, I'm done.

 5             And then if we can change -- turn to page 2 of both the B/C/S and

 6     the English.

 7        Q.   And, Judge Gojkovic, if you could just flip through the first few

 8     pages.  And can you tell me, are -- the perpetrators listed in these

 9     entries, are they Serb or are they non-Serb?

10             And you can just flip ahead.  I know you reviewed it yesterday,

11     but just to refresh your memory.

12        A.   Yes, I can comment.  In this log-book, the first -- well, I don't

13     how many, but certain number of persons listed are people against whom

14     criminal reports were submitted and who are of other nationality.  And,

15     therefore, in my response when I was asked against which persons criminal

16     reports were issued, I responded by saying that I cannot give you exact

17     percentage but that majority of them were members of other nationalities.

18             In this case, I think it was -- it involved illegal possession of

19     weapons, and the reports were against members of other [as interpreted]

20     nationality.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm really

22     sorry.  At 73, 19, the witness says:  The majority of them were member of

23     "Serb" nationality.  Not -- and it was recorded "other nationalities."

24             MR. OLMSTED:

25        Q.   Just to clarify, Judge, did you say the majority were of Serb

Page 11811

 1     nationality or majority were of non-Serb nationality?  Just to clarify

 2     your answer.

 3        A.   The majority of people against whom, during 1992, criminal

 4     reports were submitted were of Serb ethnicity.  But in this log-book for

 5     Vlasenica, there is a number of people of other nationalities against

 6     whom criminal reports were submitted.  But I haven't counted them, and I

 7     don't know how many of them are mentioned in there.

 8        Q.   Since we've talked about this log-book as well and there is an

 9     English -- partial English translation, may this be admitted into

10     evidence?

11             JUDGE HALL:  Wasn't this the one that was marked for

12     identification?

13             MR. OLMSTED:  No, that was the KTN, the unknown perpetrator

14     log-book.

15             JUDGE HALL:  But you said partial English translation.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  Because this is quite a large log-book, and

17     so we only translated part of it.  And in this case I think it's the

18     first entry from 19 -- from after April 1992 and the last entry from

19     1992 --

20             JUDGE HALL:  Let's mark it for identification and think it

21     through.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1446, marked for identification,

23     Your Honours.

24             MR. OLMSTED:  No further questions, Your Honour.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 11812

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Judge Gojkovic, we thank you for your assistance to

 2     the Tribunal.  You are now released as a witness, and we wish you a safe

 3     journey back to your home.

 4             And we take the adjournment to this --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  We take the adjournment to reconvene in this

 7     courtroom at 9.00 tomorrow morning.

 8             Thank you.

 9                           [The witness withdrew]

10                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

11                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day

12                           of June, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.