1 Thursday, 15 July 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.28 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
6 everybody 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, Mr. Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone.
11 May we have begin, as usual, by taking the appearances, please.
12 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner assisted
13 by Jasmina Bosnjakovic, Case Manager, this morning. For the Prosecution.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
16 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honour. Dragan Krgovic
18 appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours --
21 JUDGE HALL: Before we begin today's business, the Chamber has a
22 brief oral decision to deliver.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: On June 24th, the Prosecution filed a motion
24 seeking leave to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit list by adding the second
25 part of a report authored by upcoming witness Sreto Gajic, ST-204,
1 through whom the Prosecutor intends to tender the report.
2 On June 30th, the Prosecution filed an addendum to the motion.
3 Neither Defence teams has responded to the motion.
4 The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the report, the first part of
5 which is already on the Prosecutor's Rule 65 ter exhibit list, is
6 prima facie relevant and of sufficient importance so as to justify its
7 late addition onto the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list. Although
8 disclosed on 23 of June, 2010, the Defence has been aware of the report
9 at least since 22 April 2010 when the Zupljanin Defence first used it in
10 court. The Trial Chamber is therefore satisfied that the addition of the
11 report would not cause undue prejudice to the Defence.
12 Having also considered all other relevant factors for amendments
13 of the Rule 65 ter list, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that granting the
14 request is in the interests of justice and therefore grants the
15 Prosecution leave to add the second part the Gajic report to its
16 Rule 65 ter exhibit list.
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 Yes, Ms. Korner.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's what, actually, I was going to
22 Your Honour, however, both the Defence and I wish to address
23 Your Honours on yesterday's ruling, and we will have to do it today
24 because of the timings given in Your Honours orders.
25 Obviously there is going to be problems, as it appears, over the
1 videolink, so it's better that we start, I think, with the witness. But
2 I would ask that we have 15 minutes before proceedings end today to deal
3 with that matter. I'm asking for 15 because both the Defence and the
4 Prosecution have matters to raise arising out of that decision.
5 The second matter is can I -- can I --
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is that about the challenge of adjudicated facts,
7 Ms. Korner?
8 MS. KORNER: It's about your ruling on the witnesses. You
9 delivered, yesterday, a decision.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Oh, yes. Not -- of course, it was not an oral
11 decision because yesterday we were not in court, sorry.
12 MS. KORNER: No. No, it was a written decision, Your Honours.
13 Your Honours, the other matter is I'm sorry to keep pestering you
14 about this, but next week, depending on how long the witnesses actually
15 take, we proposed to call -- we proposed to call Ewa Tabeau. And I now
16 you've been reminded over and over again, but we really do need to know,
17 as do the Defence: Is she an expert, and can we use her report?
18 And, Your Honours, maybe we can leave that to the end as well.
19 JUDGE HALL: So whoever -- whichever counsel is on his or her
20 feet at the time at about 1 .30 would remind themselves of the fact that
21 we need take a break.
22 MS. KORNER: Yep.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Well, that we need to take a break in the
24 trial to deal with these matters to which you have alerted us. Thank
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I say, I don't any of us have any
2 doubt that this witness will finish within the normal allotted time which
3 is this morning, plus tomorrow morning.
4 JUDGE HALL: That is useful information. Thank you, Ms. Korner.
5 Because one of the -- we begin with the frustrations caused by the
6 technical problems, so it is -- we -- it's useful learn that that is not
7 going to mean us juggling the time in order to complete this witness.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that is, of course, subject to the
9 technical problems being thoroughly solved.
10 JUDGE HALL: The -- lest I forget, before we proceed further, I
11 would wish, for the record, to indicate the Trial Chamber's gratitude for
12 the efforts by Court Management Support Services to overcome the
13 difficulties to which I have alluded and which put us in the position
14 of -- to be to able to begin this witness.
15 And we note also the intrepid trek that our Court Officer had to
16 take to put her in the position where she is now. Her facial response
17 indicate that the works and that she can hear us.
18 Could you confirm that?
19 Thank you. So the -- could you have the witness make the solemn
20 declaration, please.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated] I
23 solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and
24 nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: SRETO GAJIC
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 [Witness testified via videolink]
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir, you may be seated.
4 I would, first of all, thank you for your coming to assist the
5 Tribunal in its work, and remind you that the solemn declaration that you
6 have just taken means that you could be subject to the penalties which
7 the Tribunal is entitled to impose on persons who give false or
8 incomplete testimony.
9 The -- we also apologise for the further inconvenience which
10 would have, I'm sure, been explained to you as a result of certain
11 technical challenges which we have managed to solve, but now we are ready
12 to begin. And I don't need to ask you whether you can hear me because
13 you have already responded to certain formal questions that have been
15 So could you begin by giving us your name, sir.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sreto Gajic.
17 JUDGE HALL: And could you tell us your present occupation, your
18 date of birth, and your ethnicity, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm retired, as of the
20 1st of March, 2003. I'm a Serb, and I was born on 9th of February, 1952,
21 in Mirkovac.
22 JUDGE HALL: Have you testified previously before this Tribunal
23 or before any of the domestic courts in the countries that would have
24 made up the former Yugoslavia?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I have not.
1 JUDGE HALL: Well, I will explain to you briefly the procedure
2 that will be followed.
3 The side calling you, in this case the Prosecution, would begin
4 by asking you questions. And then counsel for each of the two accused
5 would have a right to cross-examine you. Following that, the Prosecution
6 may have further questions of you, as may the Chamber. Indeed, the
7 Chamber may have questions of you at any time in the course of your
8 examination-in-chief or your cross-examination.
9 The counsel have indicated that it is fully expected that your
10 testimony would be completed by tomorrow. The ordinary sittings of the
11 chamber means that we break for each day at 1.45 local time. But between
12 when we begin and when we break, there are breaks to accommodate the
13 technical requirements of taping the proceedings and things of that
15 If, however, for any reason, you need a break to -- before the
16 ordinary time that we would rise to accommodate those things, you would
17 indicate that to the Court Officer who will -- who will then let us know
18 and we will certainly accommodate you.
19 And with that, I will invite counsel for the Prosecution to begin
20 her examination-in-chief.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, before I do that can I ask: Are we
22 sticking to the normal break time, in other words, about 10.25?
23 JUDGE HALL: I always think that -- I always bear in mind, apart
24 from counsel's convenience, the accused, whose routine would have been
25 premised on the usual breaks, so that is what I do plan to do.
1 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
2 Examination by Ms. Korner:
3 Q. Mr. Gajic, I want to begin by dealing very shortly with your
5 Did you, from 1984 until the beginning of April of 1992, work for
6 the -- the SUP, as it then was, of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And were you, in fact, a police inspector in Sarajevo SUP working
9 on defence preparations?
10 A. Defence preparations of the police.
11 Q. Yes, sorry, I should have said that.
12 And just so that we understand it, was -- was its function to
13 organise, to manage, and to train police personnel for the purposes of
14 national Defence?
15 A. Well, that was the work that involved organisation, training,
16 professional training, and materiel for the entire police force which was
17 the militia, called the militia then, for the active duty and the reserve
19 Q. Did that involve any type of partition -- partition, sorry. Did
20 that involve any type of coordination and participation in joint
21 exercises with the military?
22 A. They were joint exercises at the level of the
23 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as that was then, and units of the
24 Territorial Defence took part. Or, rather, the police had its own
25 exercises. We were independent and autonomous compared to the other
2 Q. Right. During those exercises that were carried out, was there
3 any element of resubordination by the police to military command?
4 A. That was governed by the Law on National Defence. It regulated
5 matters of that kind. However, those situations were very rare, and I
6 don't ever remember actually it happening. There was no resubordination,
7 as far as I can remember.
8 Q. All right. Thank you. That's all I want to ask you about that.
9 Now, after the division of the MUP, did you, in fact, around the
10 10th of April, go with your family to Montenegro?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. And did you stay there until the beginning of May of 1992, when
13 you went to the headquarters of the Serbian MUP, Serbian Republic MUP,
14 which were, at that stage, in Vrace?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. And did you there see Cedo Kljajic who was, at the time, the head
17 of the public security, as it were, the head of public security at
18 headquarters level?
19 A. Cedo Kljajic was the under-secretary, or, rather, the head of the
20 public security section, so I reported to him and he appointed me head of
21 the defence preparations of police section, as chief.
22 Q. So that was effectively the same job you'd been doing in the old
23 BiH MUP. Did you just do defence preparations again, or did you
24 undertake other tasks?
25 A. It was more or less the same kind of work that I'd done
1 previously, although I was a sort of leader, being the chief. I was an
2 inspector in the secretariat, beforehand, but at the time, I didn't
3 actually work on defence preparations. I quite simply carried out the
4 assignments I was given by my superior. And I've already told that to
5 the investigators. I had to write certain dispatches and other
6 documents, information, reports, that kind of thing.
7 Q. And who would instruct you to write these dispatches?
8 A. The chief of the police administration was Milos Zuban. So he
9 was my superior, and he assigned me tasks. He told me when to write
10 dispatches or analyse documents and things like that. So most of my
11 assignments came from Zuban, and I was in the police administration, and
12 the head of that administration was Milan [as interpreted] Zuban.
13 Q. I think that it -- that's Milos Zuban, is that right, Z-u-b-a-n?
14 A. Yes, that's correct. Milos Zuban.
15 Q. All right. Now, these dispatches that you were writing, to whom
16 were they being sent?
17 A. They were usually sent to the public security centres or
19 Q. All right. And did you get responses from the public security
21 A. Well, since that was a period of time where there were quite lot
22 of problems in setting up communications, sometimes they would arrive on
23 time, sometimes they would arrive late, and, at times, they never arrived
24 and then we had to use telephone communication. But, in principle, those
25 dispatches did reach their destination, and we received feedback, a
1 response. But as I say, there were a lot of problems during that period
2 of time with the establishing communications and so forth.
3 Q. Right. The sort of information that you -- that was being
4 requested in these dispatches, what sort of areas did it cover?
5 A. Well, it's difficult for me to remember now because it was a long
6 time ago, but mostly they were related to a situation report, involving
7 who to send -- looking at the law and order situation and what the
8 problems were in that regard. Various violations were committed, whether
9 by police members or anybody else, whether police had to be called in.
10 Then you had the battle-front. We would send out information about the
11 number of persons injured. Well, the topics were very varied. I can't
12 remember all of them because it's been a long time since then. But
13 that's what we sent dispatches for. Dispatches are very short, brief;
14 you couldn't write a long dispatch, especially not at the time. So just
15 in a few sentences, we would size up the situation and report on it. So
16 we would summarise and send out brief pieces of information.
17 Q. When you received responses, to whom did you pass on those
19 A. The responses that came in, as I say, I was one of the people
20 working in the police administration. But, any way, the head had to be
21 informed with the response. Now where this was forwarded to, did it go
22 to the analytics department to be studied and analysed and then reports
23 written and sent on to the minister, I'm not quite sure. But we would
24 gather the information together, collect up all the dispatches, analyse
25 them, process them, and then it was decided whether it would go to the
1 minister's office or some other administration. So that's roughly what
3 Q. The minister, Mico Stanisic, was he at Vrace while you were
5 A. He appeared very rarely.
6 Q. When you say "very rarely," you were at Vrace for what, for a
7 period of -- well, until moved from -- to Lukavica; is that right?
8 A. Well, I can't quite remember. But, yes. Yes, that's it. I
9 can't give you a date, whether it was two months. So don't hold me to
10 that. I don't remember exactly. But it was roughly May and maybe the
11 first part of June. I can't remember.
12 Q. All right. During -- you say he was there rarely. Can you give
13 us a rough estimate? I appreciate it's a long time. Was he there once a
14 week, twice a week? Less or more?
15 A. Well, I can't really say. If we're talking about averages,
16 perhaps once in ten days. Or perhaps I didn't notice him and he might
17 have been there. But as far as I remember, for about ten days. As far
18 as I could know.
19 Q. All right. And as you say, logically he might have been there
20 and you didn't see him.
21 Now, I want to move on, please, to the reports that you did, the
22 inspection reports.
23 MS. KORNER: And can we start, please, with looking at a document
24 which, in your binder, is, I believe, tab 2; and the 65 ter number is --
25 it is actually already an exhibit, 1D00176.
1 Q. Now this is an order with a very --
2 MS. KORNER: If we go to the last -- second page B/C/S, second
3 page in English. Yeah. Very, very bad copy I'm afraid, and it's not
4 possible, really, to see the signature.
5 Q. But had you seen -- had you actually seen Mico Stanisic's
7 A. As far as I remember, yes, I did see it.
8 Q. So are you able to say whether that's his signature or not? If
9 you're not - and I agree it's a very bad copy - then say so straight
11 A. It's a poor copy. The signature not very legible, and I really
12 can't say.
13 Q. That's fair enough. Now, this order relates - if we go to the
14 first page, please, in both English and in B/C/S - dated the
15 27th of July, and the number of this order is 10-17/92. In paragraph 2,
16 he is ordering that immediately the removal of individuals who have been
17 held criminally responsible for crimes that are officially prosecuted
18 (except for political and verbal offences).
19 As a matter of interest, Mr. Gajic, are you able to tell what you
20 say was meant by "political offences"?
21 A. I assume, but I'm not sure, that it's probably in the sense of
22 political orientation or some kind of political or national or ethnic
23 orientation. I assume this, but I'm not sure.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. Probably it was a politically delicate [as interpreted] matter
1 from the previous system.
2 Q. Yes, I was going ask you that. But it's refer -- because in the
3 previous system you couldn't belong to a nationalist party?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry. Before the witness answers, I
5 don't think that --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
7 MS. KORNER: You don't think it was recorded?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't think that -- that what he says was
9 probably properly recorded in his previous answer, page 12, 12/13 lines,
10 he said I think he was -- he was mentioning a political delict.
11 MS. KORNER: Delict?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
13 MS. KORNER: Okay. Which is, I agree, different.
14 Q. Sir, Mr. Gajic, did you -- could you just tell us, when I asked
15 you what was meant by "political," you -- you answered that it was
16 probably in the sense of political orientation or some kind of political
17 or national or ethnic orientation. And then you went on to say:
18 "Probably," and this is how it's been recorded, "it was a
19 politically delicate matter."
20 Did you use the word "delicate," or some other word?
21 A. Not delicate. Delicate is something different. It has a
22 different meaning. What I said was "political delict." I assume that
23 what was meant was the orientation from a previous system. All the
24 police staff who worked in that system were forbidden from being a member
25 of any political party. And since most of them were members of the
1 League of Communists, they didn't have to be, so, simply, they could not
2 be held responsible on that basis. We were all accepted and could work
3 normally in this Ministry of Interior.
4 Q. All right. It then goes on to say that the surplus of available
5 individuals referred to in items 1, which was the optimum number, and
6 those who were referred to in paragraph 2 should be placed at the
7 disposal of the army.
8 And then 4:
9 "Immediately disband and place under the command of the army of
10 the Serbian republic all special units formed during the war in areas of
11 Security Services Centre [sic]."
12 And it goes on to say what should happen to the people in there.
13 Now, were aware at headquarters that a number of special police
14 units also been formed at the level of the Security Services Centres and
15 sometimes below?
16 A. I'm not really able to answer this question, since I wasn't in
17 that inner leadership of the ministry. I -- some information did reach
18 me through the chief or something like that. But I knew more or less
19 that some centres had special units but not that stations had that as
20 well. I didn't have that information at my disposal, no.
21 Q. Did you ever hear about something called intervention squads or
22 intervention platoons that were maintained at the level of some of the
24 A. No, no, I didn't hear that at the time. No.
25 Q. All right. Well, let's go on, please, to the next
1 paragraph because this is the one that I want to ask you about in
3 Paragraph 6, which is on the second page in English and B/C/S:
4 "The execution of this order and the provision of specialist
5 assistance in the Autonomous Region of Krajina shall be overseen by the
6 chief of police affairs, Milos Zuban; in the SAO Semberija by ...
7 Cedo Kljajic; ... Herzegovina by Draskovic ... and Mr. Vukovic ... in the
8 SAO of Northern Bosnia by Mr. --" I think that should be Kusmuk - is that
9 right? - and then, "in Romanija-Birac ... Mr. Radovic."
10 Now as we're going to see, in fact it was you who went to the
11 Autonomous Region of Krajina, and not Mr. Zuban. How did that come
13 A. I don't know. I was just assigned to go to Banja Luka. I don't
14 know the reasons for that. When we're talking about the
15 Ministry of the Interior, there is a hierarchy there, and orders have to
16 be respected and carried out.
17 Q. All right. Before you went, as we will see, to Banja Luka --
18 A. I think that Milos Zuban went to Doboj.
19 Q. All right. Well, I should -- actually, I should have asked you
20 this first of all: Who assigned you to go to Banja Luka?
21 A. Before we went to Banja Luka, there was meeting, as far as I can
22 remember, a meeting was scheduled. I assume that Milos Zuban informed
23 about it. I don't know who else it could have been. Informed me to
24 attend this meeting, where we received brief instructions about what we
25 were supposed to do in the field.
1 Q. I'm going to come to the meeting and who was there. But had you
2 been told before the meeting that you were to go to Banja Luka to
3 implement this order, or to oversee the implementation of the order?
4 A. I don't know. I really cannot remember. I cannot answer that
5 question. I don't know if I was informed before the meeting or on the
6 actual day of the meeting. I really cannot say.
7 Q. All right. Well, let's move to the meeting.
8 But this stage, end of July and early August, had the
9 headquarters of the Serbian MUP moved to Jahorina?
10 A. Yes, we were in Jahorina then.
11 Q. And do you remember where exactly the meeting took place?
12 A. I'm not sure, but I think it was at Kosuta. I'm not sure.
13 Q. And who was at the meeting?
14 A. I'm not sure if I will manage to list all the people. I don't
15 think so.
16 But I think it was Mr. Zuban who was there. I was there. I
17 think Njegus was there, Radovan Njegus. I'm not sure if Cedo Kljajic was
18 there or not. I don't remember.
19 I don't know. I simply cannot remember. It's been a long time
20 since then, and I really cannot say something that I'm not sure about.
21 Q. All right. You said Mr. Njegus, Radovan. Was that
22 Radomir Njegus who was head of the administration?
23 A. Radomir, Radomir.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. Radomir Njegus.
1 Q. And what --
2 A. I think that he was the chef de cabinet at the time. I think so.
3 Q. The chef de cabinet to ... to whom?
4 A. I think he was the chef de cabinet to the minister when we were
5 at Vrace. When we moved to Jahorina, I don't remember whether he was
6 chief of the personnel administration. I don't remember. But I think by
7 that time he was the chief of the personnel administration. But this is
8 something that can be checked.
9 Q. What about the minister? Was the minister there at this meeting?
10 A. I can't remember, no. I can't remember whether the minister was
11 there or not. All I know is that the minister was there when we came
12 back, when we drafted the report. Then I remember the minister being
13 there. I cannot remember whether he was there at this first meeting or
15 Q. Well, do you remember making a statement to the investigator
16 about this meeting?
17 A. The meeting was discussed. The investigator asked me about it.
18 Q. Yes. Would it help you to refresh your memory about who was
19 actually present at the meeting and, indeed, who spoke, if you had a
20 chance to look at your statement?
21 A. Yes, I did look at the statement. I think there is a statement
22 here, too, so I'm going to ask --
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if you -- yes, if you
24 look --
25 A. -- if can I look at my statement, please.
1 Q. Yes, you can.
2 Could you look, please, at tab -- it's at tab 1. And you will
3 find, on the second page -- or, sorry, it's page 3 at the bottom,
4 paragraph 17.
5 MS. KORNER: We can put it up for the purposes of the Defence.
6 It's, in e-court, as 9033. And it's the third page in both the English
7 and the B/C/S.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I comment?
9 MS. KORNER:
10 Q. Of course. First of all, just before you comment, do you see
11 paragraph 17 of the statement that you made?
12 A. I see.
13 Q. And do you say there that the meeting in Jahorina was attended by
14 Minister Stanisic, as well as the other people you've mentioned,
15 Cedo Kljajic, not sure; Radomir Njegus; Milos Zuban; and somebody called
16 Rade Radovic?
17 A. Yes. Yes. I said earlier in the statement that I wasn't sure.
18 But it's possible that he was there. The statement that I gave to the
19 Prosecutor, I signed that statement in the English version, not the
20 Serbian version. And I was quite categorical when I said that, while
21 giving the statement, but it's possible that he was there.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, again --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's been a long time since then,
24 so it's really not possible to remember everything.
25 MS. KORNER:
1 Q. Just pause for a moment, sir.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Page 17, line 22. I believe the witness says, I
3 don't know how categorical I was when I said that.
4 Maybe this can be clarified with the witness. I heard him say
6 MS. KORNER: Yes, I think -- as I said before, I think it would
7 be better if you simply ask us to repeat it, rather than saying what you
8 heard, but.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.
10 MS. KORNER:
11 Q. Sir, did you say you were quite categorical when you said that,
12 or did you say something else? In other words, when you said, in giving
13 the statement - which, I agree, you -- was read back to you and you
14 signed in English - did you -- were you -- did you say to the Court you
15 were being categorical, or did you say something different?
16 A. The statement that I gave to the Prosecutor, I signed the English
17 version of the statement, not the Serbian version. And the interpreter
18 read back the statement to me in the Serbian.
19 When I gave the statement, regarding the presence of Stanisic, I
20 said that I wasn't sure. I said that I don't know how categorical I was
21 in the sense of mentioning Minister Stanisic. I don't know how
22 categorical I was, how convincing I was, or convinced in what I was
23 saying. I don't know how categorical I was. Please believe me, I cannot
24 remember all of that.
25 Q. All right. I'll come back to the meeting. But, Mr. Gajic, were
1 you not seen about a week ago, on the 8th of July, by the same
2 investigator who took your statement, and a lawyer was present as well,
3 and did you -- were you then given the opportunity to read the statement
4 because it was -- it had been translated?
5 A. Yes, yes. I was given the opportunity, and I read the statement.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... exactly. And you --
7 A. I don't know if that was my mistake, or perhaps I didn't pay
8 enough attention. I mean, I really cannot answer now. I don't know what
9 to say now.
10 Q. Yeah, because you did make a number of corrections. You
11 obviously read it carefully because you corrected how you described --
12 A. I don't know whether it's a lack of experience in testifying or
13 something. I don't know.
14 Q. Just wait a moment. You see, you did correct a number of
16 A. Yes, I did make a few corrections.
17 Q. But you didn't correct this one. Do you agree? You didn't say,
18 I know - just wait for a moment so I can finish my question - you didn't
19 say, I know I said in the statement that Mico Stanisic was there, but now
20 I can't say that I'm sure, did you?
21 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, I would remind you that the -- this --
22 we're in the area of the witness refreshing his memory.
23 MS. KORNER: Yes.
24 JUDGE HALL: Only. And the -- although you sometime back -- we
25 have on the record a question which, in my view, shouldn't have been --
1 did you say the -- so the actual paragraph 17 was put to him. I think
2 that that's as far as it can go. The evidence is what the witness is
3 testifying to now, and he has explained why there are any discrepancies,
4 as there do appear to be discrepancies. And I don't know that this
5 matter can be taken any further.
6 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour, he's saying -- what I think he
7 was agreeing that what he said was that he couldn't be categorical about
8 it. And I'm merely asking him why, in that event, if he didn't, when he
9 re-read the statement, he couldn't be categorical. A week ago, he didn't
10 correct it. That's all.
11 JUDGE HALL: We have an answer, so let's move on.
12 MS. KORNER: I don't know that we do, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
14 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry?
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think the witness said twice that he simply
16 couldn't remember whether Mr. Stanisic was or was not present at the
17 meeting, and that's as far as we can take it.
18 MS. KORNER: All right.
19 Q. You're saying, now, while testifying, you -- you can't be sure
20 whether or not Mr. Stanisic was present?
21 Is that right, sir? Think back to that meeting.
22 A. Yes, yes. Earlier I explained. I don't know how many times I
23 explained. Simply, I cannot guarantee 100 per cent and assert that he
24 was present. Yes, it's true that that is said in the statement and that
25 I didn't intervene about this seven days ago. It was perhaps an
1 oversight on my part, but I cannot claim with 100 per cent -- with 100
2 per cent certainty that he was present at the first meeting. He was
3 present at the second meeting, however.
4 Q. All right. Well, then, can I just ask you please, now, to look
5 at paragraph 19 of your statement, which is on the next page where you
6 say --
7 JUDGE HALL: No, Ms. Korner, not time. The -- this is not an
8 exhibit. The way the question should be asked is you refer him to the
9 paragraph and then ask the question. But don't read -- this is not an
10 exhibit. It is not likely to become an exhibit.
11 MS. KORNER:
12 Q. Read the paragraph to yourself, please, Mr. Gajic.
13 Do you see what you say there?
14 A. I've read it, and I can see what is stated there.
15 Q. All right. Is that right?
16 A. I said earlier that I wasn't 100 per cent sure that he was there,
17 but I do remember that at the meeting there was word about the unit
18 having to be disbanded, but there was no mention of the reasons for that,
19 specifically. Only the reasons why that unit had to be disbanded
20 specifically at the Banja Luka centre.
21 Q. Right. Well, first of all --
22 JUDGE HALL: If -- we're at the point where we should take the
23 break, Ms. Korner. You seem to be moving on to something -- not
24 something new but a different part of the same question, so this would
25 probably be a convenient point.
1 We would resume in 20 minutes.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner, you may continue.
7 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
8 Q. Well, just dealing, Mr. Gajic, with what you told the
9 investigators at paragraph 19. And you said that somebody - this was
10 your last answer - there was word about the unit having to be disbanded,
11 but there was no mention of the reasons for this special, only the
12 reasons why the unit had to be disbanded specifically at the Banja Luka
14 Now, what was the reason that was given to you as to why the
15 Banja Luka Centre Special Police Unit had to be disbanded?
16 A. As far as I remember, not only at Banja Luka Centre, but all the
17 centres. So it was a general instruction for all special units, which,
18 at that time, existed in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And
19 it applied to units first and foremost, as far as I can remember -- well,
20 local politics had influenced their formation in the first place, and
21 certain crimes were being committed or had been committed in town.
22 Nothing specific. But in the field, just to take a look at everything
23 that was found, but that they had to be disbanded. So nothing specific,
24 but just some -- well, there was no mention of those acts and what the
25 units did at the meeting, as far as I can remember.
1 Q. Well, just pause for a moment, please, sir --
2 A. Because, at that time, there was a lot of theft, looting, and
3 things of that kind.
4 Q. Right. Please tell me, Who was -- certain crimes had been
5 committed, were being committed, or had been committed by whom?
6 A. Well, if some of the members, especially the special units that
7 were established then, if some of their member - if you understand me --
8 well, they were to be disbanded, quite simply. And then those members
9 prosecuted. And you'll see, further on, who was supposed to take the
10 unit over.
11 Now, I don't know the details or the specifics of it all, so it
12 concerned some of the members or members of the police that engaged in
13 crime, so they had to be placed at the army's disposal, they had to be
14 prosecuted, let go, and so on.
15 Q. All right. You said, earlier on:
16 "Certain crimes were being committed or had been committed in
18 In which town?
19 A. Because the emphasis was on that. And this something that at the
20 meeting I ...
21 I'm experiencing interruption in the interpretation.
22 Q. All right. Did -- did --
23 A. I couldn't hear the interpretation properly. There was
25 Q. All right. The question I asked you was: Earlier you said that
1 crimes were being committed, and you've clarified, "by the special police
2 in town." In which town?
3 A. I didn't say "in town." I said quite simply where the
4 special police was active. I don't know where it was active. I don't
5 know where it was engaged, on what territory, in which parts. I didn't
6 know that.
7 Q. Were you told at this meeting --
8 A. I wasn't interested in where the special unit was, for instance,
9 where it was deployed. There was a report on its work, in the work of
10 the special police, and that report was placed ...
11 Q. All right. Now, were you told at that first meeting who had made
12 the decision to disband the special police unit? Or units, in the
14 A. I don't know if I understood it correctly or formulated it
15 correctly, but I said that it was the Presidency of Republika Srpska or
16 the Serbian Republic. Whether it was at an Assembly meeting, or where
17 the decision was taken, that's what I said. But it was the leadership of
18 Republika Srpska which took the decision to disband them. That's the
19 important thing.
20 Q. All right. And who at this meeting gave you, firstly, the
21 information that the president of the Republika Srpska had made the
22 decision to disband the units and the reasons for the disbanding; namely,
23 that they were committing crimes?
24 Who told you that?
25 A. In my statement I said that Mr. Stanisic said that. Now whether
1 it was Mr. Kljajic, any way, one of the two. Now, from paragraph 17, I
2 recount the acts linked to point 19. And it says Stanisic told us, we
3 were told by Stanisic, who made the decision and issued tasks.
4 If it wasn't him, then it's Kljajic. One of the two. And as I'm
5 not certain now, I'm not 100 per cent certain that it was Mr. Stanisic
6 now. But one of the two must have.
7 Q. All right. So there's the meeting --
8 A. Because I was the person executing, implementing the decision.
9 Q. All right. And did you then go, after this meeting, to
10 Banja Luka?
11 A. Yes. Now whether it was the next day, I'm not quite sure. I
12 don't remember the date. But, anyway, with Mr. Josic; I think he went
13 with me.
14 Q. All right.
15 MS. KORNER: Can we look, please, now at your first report, which
16 you will find behind tab 8, and it's P631.
17 And if we go to the last page in each document, which is page 5
18 in English and also in B/C/S.
19 Q. Do we see that you -- you submitted this report on the
20 5th of August, and it was done by you and Mr. Mirosavic. Was he one of
21 your inspectors.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Let's go to the first page again.
24 We see that this is pursuant to the order, which is the one we
25 looked at a few minutes ago of the 27th of July, 1992. You carry out the
1 inspection of CSB Banja Luka and the SJB in Prijedor and Banja Luka.
2 Did you, in fact, visit the premises of both the CSB - and the
3 SJB Banja Luka was in the same building, we've been told - and Prijedor?
4 A. As far as I remember, I went to see the chief of the public
5 security station of Banja Luka, Mr. Turkusa [phoen], and I went to the
6 Prijedor Public Security Station, the late Simo Drljaca.
7 Q. Yeah, well -- sorry, you said Mr. Turkusa; was it Mr. Tutus who
8 was the chief of the public security station?
9 A. Not the centre. He was chief of the public security station of
10 Banja Luka, and Mr. Stojan Zupljanin was the chief of the centre.
11 Q. Yes. All right. Yes, thank you. All right. We see at the
12 second paragraph of your report, between the 2nd and 4th of August, the
13 two of you had a meeting, apparently -- or had meetings with the chief,
14 that's Stojan Zupljanin of the CSB Banja Luka and then his close
16 Now, first of all, can we look at the bottom of the first page
17 where you say that:
18 "... SJB Prijedor has set aside 300 police employees for securing
19 the camps, Keraterm, Omarska, Trnopolje, where war prisoners are held."
20 Who gave you that information?
21 A. The late Simo Drljaca.
22 Q. All right. And he gave you the actual names of the camps, or
23 were you already aware of the names of these camps?
24 A. I think -- I didn't know. He told me. But I think the
25 meeting - but I'm not quite sure, so don't hold me to that - I think that
1 Marko Djenadija was at the meeting too, who was one of his associates,
2 and that they provided that information.
3 Q. Before you were given this information, were you aware that the
4 Prijedor police were running camps for war prisoners?
5 A. No, I was not.
6 Q. Did you consider that an important piece of information, that the
7 Prijedor police were actually running camps?
8 A. I didn't understand the question properly.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I will object to that because in this
10 report, which was quoted to the witness, was said the police secure the
11 camp, not running the camp. The -- so that's the -- why the witness is
13 MS. KORNER: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Krgovic. And no
14 doubt the witness has heard you and you can explain exactly what's going
15 through his mind, but I'd be grateful if we didn't have interruptions
16 like that, please.
17 JUDGE HALL: Except, Ms. Korner, that the observation Mr. Krgovic
18 has made means that perhaps you should --
19 MS. KORNER: I'm going to rephrase the question.
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
21 MS. KORNER: My objection is to the witness effectively being
22 given an answer.
23 JUDGE HALL: I understand that. I take your point.
24 MS. KORNER: All right.
25 Q. You say in your report SJB Prijedor has set aside 300 police
1 employees for securing the camps.
2 And if we go over to the next page in English, though it's still
3 the same page in your language, you say:
4 "Based on the statement by the chief of the station, arrangements
5 were being made with officials from the 1st Krajina Corps and the
6 Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality regarding the takeover of the camps
7 security by the Army of the Serbian Republic. However, a solution to
8 this issue has not yet been found."
9 Now, what did you understand and what did you mean by writing in
10 your report that 300 police employees were securing these three camps?
11 A. Well, in view of the fact that, in principle, I know why -- what
12 the police was intended for, this is an absurdity that happened, that
13 such a large number of employees were to be set aside from the service in
14 order to secure the camp.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes, but --
16 A. Because the police is mostly there to keep law and order, to
17 protect property, and all the other tasks it has, not having to enumerate
19 So these people were freed of those responsibilities, freed of
20 that load.
21 Q. All right. As you've just pointed out -- we'll go back to my
22 original question. You just pointed out that the police were there to
23 keep law and order, to protect property, et cetera. Did you consider
24 that the information you were being given, that instead of dealing with
25 law and order, the police were - and I'll use your word - "securing the
1 camps," to be an important piece of information?
2 A. Well, certainly the information that I got from the chief of the
3 public security station I thought to be important, and that's why I
4 included it in my report. And for the police to justify its role and
5 carry out its duties, it needed to be freed of the obligations that were
6 to be taken on by someone else.
7 Q. All right. When you were being told this, you said in the second
8 paragraph we looked at that present at the meetings were the chief of the
9 CSB Banja Luka and his close associates, in other words, the chiefs of
10 the SJBs, was Stojan Zupljanin there when you were being given this
11 information by Drljaca or his sidekick?
12 A. No. Drljaca gave me the information in Prijedor, not in
13 Banja Luka.
14 Q. All right. The paragraph that I've just read to you about
15 arrangements being made with officials from the 1st Krajina Corps and the
16 Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality, who told you that arrangements
17 were being made about the takeover of the camps' security by the army?
18 A. Mr. Drljaca.
19 Q. All right. Did you -- later we'll see you were at meetings which
20 were attended by the army. Did you have any discussions with the army
21 about whether this was true or not, or whether any arrangements had been
23 A. No talks with the army linked to taking over the security of
24 these camps. I didn't attend any talks, nor were they conducted in my
25 presence. Now, who attended those meetings, I really don't know. But in
1 my presence -- or, rather, I did not attend meetings of that kind.
2 Q. Right. Well, let's go on to the -- apparently the purpose of
3 your visit, and that is the special police. In the third paragraph,
4 they -- there was a discussion about the order from Mico Stanisic that
5 those who committed crimes should be removed and put at the disposal of
6 the army.
7 And then:
8 "With regards to realisation mentioned under point 2" -- sorry,
9 it's the next page in B/C/S for you. It's the same page in English for
10 us. If you turn to the next page. It's the second paragraph, and it
12 "With regards to realisation mentioned under point 2 of the order
13 issued by the ministry, the chief of the CSB Banja Luka Stojan Zupljanin
14 requests further explanation of the word "removed," in case it refers to
15 the termination of employment which is the way I understood it. I would
16 like this to be confirmed in a dispatch."
17 Now, is what you're saying there that Stojan Zupljanin said to
18 you, I don't understand what you mean by "removed," or what the
19 minister's order means?
20 A. Would you tell me which paragraph it is in Serbian, please?
21 Q. The part I'm reading from ... sorry. In Serbian, I have just
22 read the part of the paragraph that is at the -- towards the end of the
23 paragraph that's the first one on the second page.
24 A. Yes, the one you've just read out. Where can I find that?
25 Q. You can find that in page 2 in the document. 0360-5786 is
1 stamped at the top, and the very last bit of that paragraph is what I
2 have just read out to you.
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. And my question, I'll repeat it: Is the minister's original
5 order, which we looked at with you, says: "I hereby order immediately to
6 remove ..."
7 What I'm asking you is: Are you saying in this paragraph of the
8 report that Stojan Zupljanin said to you, I do not understand what is
9 meant by the word remove?
10 A. Well, from the report -- first of all, I apologise, but the
11 interpretation is coming in with interruptions. There's interference.
12 So please understand me if I don't understand -- always understand your
13 question and I ask you to repeat, because there's interference.
14 And now I'll explain what you just asked me. From the report,
15 and in the report it says that Stojan, up to a point, was not clear on
16 what the word "removed" meant. That's how I understand -- I understand
17 it as termination of employment, which meant that there would be
18 termination of employment but placed at the disposal of the army.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm -- I'm terribly sorry, Ms. Korner, but line --
20 page 9 [sic], line 4, I don't think that the -- the witness said "I
21 understand it." Maybe you can clarify that with him.
22 I think he used -- I'm sure he used the other word.
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. Did you say, sir, a moment ago, as you said in your report, that
25 you understood the word "removed" to mean termination of employment?
1 A. I think I said that from this it follows that Stojan didn't
2 understand properly and asked what the word removed meant, and I, then,
3 explained to him and said that, in actual fact, it meant termination of
5 Q. Well, that's what my question was. He said to you, I don't
6 understand what the word "removed" means. That's what he actually said
7 to you?
8 A. I don't know whether he said it that way. I can't remember
9 his -- Stojan's exact words, Madam Prosecutor. But from this report it
10 follows that it wasn't clear what the word "odstraniti," "removed,"
11 meant. So I said that it was termination of employment.
12 Q. Yes. Can you, in this context, Mr. Gajic --
13 A. As it says in the report.
14 Q. Can you, Mr. Gajic, in this context, as an experienced police
15 officer, and given the order, think of anything else that "removed" could
16 have meant?
17 A. Well, I don't really know what else it could mean. It's not an
18 object, you understand, of some material nature, and then say, Throw it
19 away or remove it. It's a living being, and you know what is done with
20 such a person.
21 Q. Right. All right. Let's go on with this report.
22 You then, in the next paragraph, give an explanation about since
23 the beginning of the war, the -- self-styled units and various groups had
24 been operating. The Krajina government reached a decision on forming the
25 special police detachment within CSB Banja Luka, consisting of
1 162 members, and so on and so forth.
2 Was that information you already had, or was that given to you by
3 Mr. Zupljanin or his associates?
4 A. I received that information at the meeting.
5 Q. All right. And it goes on to say this:
6 "The centre chief and his associates, as well as the inner
7 command of this unit, have, at a meeting held on 2nd and
8 4th of August ... emphasised all positive results as well as negativities
9 the unit faced starting with its involvement in combat currently in the
10 area of the Kotor Vares municipality and leading to suspension of a
11 number of employees and initiation of criminal proceedings ..."
12 What were the positive results he was emphasising?
13 A. This mostly referred to their combat engagement, since I know
14 that members of the police or the militia at the time participated in
15 combat actions, so mainly and exclusively on their combat engagement,
16 maintaining the lines, movement of the enemy, and so on and so forth.
17 Q. And what were the negative ones?
18 A. In any case, I think that you probably have at your disposal
19 information about activities of the special unit. The negativities due
20 to which disciplinary proceedings were initiated had to do with what I
21 said was mentioned at this meeting: thefts, robberies. It was mostly in
22 relation to these kind of acts. It was nothing specific. I didn't ask
23 individually by name against whom a criminal report was submitted, the
24 reasons for submitting such a criminal report. I didn't go into that.
25 And it wasn't my assignment or my job either to go into individual case
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm terribly sorry again. 11, 7, I think the
3 witness said something different. Concerning the proceedings.
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. Sir, you said a moment ago that I think you probably have at your
6 disposal information about the activities of the special unit the
7 negativities due to which disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
8 Did you say that, or did you say something different?
9 A. I said that you probably have as an attachment, and I don't, but
10 I remember the information about the work of the special unit, because,
11 as an attachment to this report, I provided a report on the work of the
12 CSB Banja Luka and information about the activities of the CSB Banja Luka
13 Special Unit for you to be able to have that information, at least I
14 assume so.
15 Q. Yes. I'm, at the moment, just concerned with what he actually
16 said to you about the negative ones, and you say it was to do with
17 looting, thefts, and robberies.
18 Did he ever mention the fact that his special police had been
19 involved in killings outside combat?
20 A. Looting, robberies, yes, yes. In that sense.
21 Q. Yes. I'm asking you: Did he ever mention that his police,
22 allegedly, were involved in killings?
23 A. No. No, that was never told to me, no.
24 Q. All right. And then he -- he wanted the CSB Banja Luka to have a
25 special police unit --
1 A. Once again, I state with full responsibility before this
2 Trial Chamber that this was never told to me.
3 Q. I'm -- I'm not disputing that, sir.
4 Anyhow, he then made proposals or conclusions, as chief of the
5 CSB, which we can see you set out as 1, 2, and 3. And then if you go,
6 please -- you need to go to the next page in B/C/S; page 3, also for us,
7 in English, and B/C/S.
8 You say, During the stay at SJB Banja Luka, the conclusion
9 reached by station officials regarding the issue of the special police
10 unit is that the same needs to be immediately disbanded. And one of the
11 reasons, according to them, is that until the beginning of the war, in
12 the area of Banja Luka, there was seven crimes committed. And since the
13 formation of the SOS, the name of this unit, 65 crimes were committed.
14 Now, the first question is: Is this what you were being told by
15 the SJB officials in the absence of the CSB officials?
16 A. Just give me a moment, please.
17 This is something that was said at the chiefs of the public
18 security station [as interpreted].
19 Q. Yes. What -- what I'm trying to understand, what the Court may
20 need to understand is: Are you saying that the SJB Banja Luka was --
21 contrary to - just listen, please. Don't answer - was saying, contrary
22 to what Mr. Zupljanin wanted, namely, that they should be kept on, or a
23 special unit should be kept on, they should be disbanded?
24 A. I am receiving a very bad sound of the interpretation. It's
25 constantly interrupted.
1 Can you please repeat your question?
2 Q. In this paragraph which I hope you've now read and which I read
3 out to you, was the SJB saying to you, you should disband these -- or
4 this unit should be disbanded because it's responsible for the increase
5 in crimes, which was contrary to what Mr. Zupljanin wanted?
6 A. I understood the question very well now because the connection
7 was good.
8 In any event, the chief of the public security station in
9 Banja Luka was categorical that the unit should be disbanded.
10 Q. All right.
11 A. As to whether he had all the indicators, including the positive
12 ones of the unit, I don't know. As opposed to Stojan Zupljanin who
13 agreed that it should be disbanded, but he wasn't as categorical
14 immediately in his initial statements. However, he did agree that this
15 unit should be disbanded.
16 Q. All right. Then -- but, can I ask you next: The SOS, the name
17 of the unit, who told you that the unit supposedly of special police was
18 actually called the SOS?
19 A. I cannot remember now who mentioned the name, but it was stated
20 at the meeting then what the name of the unit was that was formed by a
21 decision of the Krajina government.
22 Q. Yes. I'm sorry, I want to make this clear. Is what -- is the
23 information that you got, because this begins about the special police
24 unit, that this special police unit was also known as the SOS?
25 A. I was informed at the meeting that the name of it was SOS.
1 Q. Right. Now, very quickly, because I want to deal with the other
2 report that you wrote, you then say that -- in the next paragraph, that
3 there was a complaint there was insufficient communication from -- from
4 the ministry, no requests, and no clear views on certain issues. For
5 example -- or brackets, what to do with employees of Muslim nationality.
6 SJB Banja Luka has made the decision on annual leave to be used by these
8 Just very briefly, please, explain what you mean by that
10 A. Where is that?
11 Q. You will find that in the -- below the paragraph we've just been
12 looking at on page 3.
13 A. Could you please tell me which paragraph that is that you're
14 reading, which paragraph?
15 Q. Page 3, third paragraph.
16 A. Okay. Very well.
17 Q. Last sentence.
18 A. Should I comment?
19 Q. Yes. What do you mean by:
20 "SJB Banja Luka has made the decision on annual leave to be used
21 by those employees."?
22 Namely, those of Muslim -- Muslim nationality.
23 A. Simply, the employee would be given a decision to use his
24 holidays for the period as provided under the law.
25 Q. I'm sorry, you mean he was told to take his annual leave? How
1 long was the period?
2 A. I didn't have the decisions of -- for those workers who were told
3 that, but I was informed about it at the meeting, that those workers had
4 been given decisions to use their annual leave. According to their
5 qualifications or years of service, each employee was given a certain
6 number of annual leave days to use. I think that is how I was informed.
7 It was not for some indefinite period of time. From what I could
8 understood [as interpreted], these were annual leave days that are
9 provided for under the law. That's how I understood it at least.
10 Q. Yes, quite. Why was this something which was being raised with
11 you, and what -- why should the -- the question, What is to be done with
12 employees of Muslim nationality, be raised?
13 A. I think that you could see from the entire order that an overall
14 situation was being viewed from the organisation of the centre, the
15 status, replenishment, staffing, criminal acts, and so on. So probably
16 our reasons were also to inform me, among other things, about that matter
17 as well, which is something that I noted in my report and delivered to
18 the minister's office, including the things that I had undertaken in
19 regard to that matter. My task was to review these things and to submit
20 a report and not to indicate or do anything that I was not specifically
21 authorised to do.
22 Q. All right. I'll try one last time. Why was there any problem
23 that you were told about that with police officers working at the
24 SJB Banja Luka who were Muslims? What was the problem?
25 A. I really don't know. Please believe me, I'm not acquainted with
1 that. I mean, perhaps I can state a private opinion, a private opinion.
2 I don't know if you're interested in that. But as for what the problem
3 was there, that I don't know.
4 Q. All right. We haven't got time to continue on this.
5 Then you go on in the next paragraph:
6 "CSB Banja Luka has compiled a six-month report on its work, and
7 the same is enclosed with the information."
8 We'll look at that very quickly in a second.
9 And then you make your recommendations:
10 "I propose the following:"
11 And we can see those recommendation [sic], that the remainder of
12 the 24 SJBs should be inspected.
13 Number 3 - if we go to the next page in English, please, and if
14 you turn over in the Serbian language. 3 is proposing a CSB to be
15 established in Prijedor. Then, 5 is to do with the CSB Banja Luka. 6,
16 you put forward Mr. Zupljanin's proposal that there's a special unit and
17 initiate adequate proceeding against those members who have ruined the
18 reputation of the unit. And then 7:
19 "Urgently make contact with the Army of the SR BiH command and
20 consider the issue of jurisdiction over camps security on the territory
21 of Prijedor municipality."
22 Now, you said this was -- report was for the office of the
23 minister. To whom did you actually deliver this report?
24 A. I don't remember, but I think that the report was sent to the
25 cabinet, the office of the minister.
1 Q. All right. Now, can we look very quickly, please, at the
2 document which you should have had inserted behind that. It's 8A, and
3 it's Exhibit P595.
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MS. KORNER: It was sent down to Sarajevo by e-mail, and we got
6 confirmation that it had been given to the Court Officer. Yes.
7 Q. Is that the -- all I want you to do is confirm, sir, that that's
8 the report that you sent up with your report.
9 A. Let me just look at my report to see if it is the correct title.
10 Yes, it's my report that is being cited. Let me just check
11 whether that title is correct. It's my report that I submitted to the
12 minister, the one that we were looking at earlier on the screen.
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's note that there is a lot of
14 background noise making it a bit difficult to hear.
15 MS. KORNER:
16 Q. All right. Did you attach, sir -- I know it's your report; we've
17 all agreed that. What I'm asking you is whether, when you say you were
18 sending your report on the work of the CSB Banja Luka, is it the report
19 you've now -- looking at -- no, no -- in your hand?
20 A. Just one moment. Just one moment, please.
21 Yes, that is the report. I assume -- yes, that is the report.
22 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Right. Now, can you look now,
23 please --
24 A. I didn't read it. I just attached that to my report and left it
25 at the office. I didn't read this report.
1 Q. Yes, thank you, sir. I'm not concerned about that. But I want
2 you to look, please, next at a document which is your tab 6.
3 MS. KORNER: And it is P1010.
4 Q. Now, this is a document, is it, that -- dated the 3rd of August,
5 and addressed to the minister. And you say:
6 "Pursuant to the discussions that you held on the
7 3rd of August, 1992, with Stojan Zupljanin, chief of the Banja Luka CSB,
8 and regarding the implementation of your order ... we hereby suggest that
9 Tomo Mirosavic and I continue working in the [sic] centre until the
10 5th of August ..."
11 What discussions did Mico Stanisic have with Stojan Zupljanin?
12 Are we talking about a personal discussion, or something that you've been
13 told about?
14 A. Since I couldn't do all of the tasks planned for that one day in
15 the order of the minister, and I spoke with Mr. Zupljanin about that, and
16 then he got in touch with the minister, and I had to ask by dispatch for
17 permission to continue for a day or two more to be able to complete the
18 tasks given to me by the minister.
19 So, in that -- that is what this dispatch is about.
20 Q. All right. Were you present when Zupljanin spoke to
21 Mico Stanisic, or did he just tell you that he had spoken to him?
22 A. I wasn't present. I was told -- I mean, he probably told me that
23 he spoke with him, but I didn't actually -- I wasn't present during that
24 conversation, because I couldn't say something else in the dispatch, had
25 somebody else conducted that conversation. In the dispatch it says that
1 Stojan Zupljanin spoke with the minister.
2 Do you understand?
3 Q. Yes, all right. Yes. Thank you, sir. That's all I ask about
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, in fact, for some reason it was MFI'd,
6 so can I ask that it now be fully exhibited.
7 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit is de-MFI'd, Your Honours.
9 MS. KORNER: I'm not sure there's such a word, but we get the
10 general idea.
11 Q. Can we now look, please, at the second part of your report, which
12 you will find at -- behind tab number 11. Sorry. Do I mean number 11?
13 Just a moment. No, I mean number 9. I'm so sorry. 9.
14 Oh, and, sorry, it's 10394, 65 ter.
15 A. That's not it.
16 Q. Behind tab 9. It should be dated Sarajevo, the 10th of August.
17 And it's actually, I think, signed by you, if you look at the last page.
18 MS. KORNER: Can we look at the last page in English, and -- it's
19 page 4 in English; page 3 in B/C/S.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 MS. KORNER: All right.
22 Q. You then -- if we go back to the first page, you talk about
23 meetings that were held at Banja Luka and Prijedor on the
24 7th and 9th of August. And the first meeting on the 7th and 8th,
25 Stojan Zupljanin was there; Djuro Bulic, chief of the SJB, the public
1 security sector in the centre; and Mr. Samardzija, the special police
2 detachment assistant commander; then Mr. Samara, a inspector. And on
3 9th of August, the following joined: Colonel Bogojevic, chief of the
4 1st Krajina Corps, military security, and command of the special police
6 Now, after introducing a decision made by the minister of the
7 interior at a meeting held on the 6th of August, a large number of
8 participants, and in particular members of the special police detachment
9 command and platoon commanders, rejected all suggestions and in -- and
10 insisted on preserving the status of the unit as it was.
11 Who do you mean by that?
12 A. Exclusively the command, not the commander. The command of the
13 special unit.
14 Q. Yeah. But you say here:
15 "... a large" --
16 A. And I think that the commander was very pig-headed, as we like to
18 Q. Well, you mention Mr. Samardzija as being present. Who else was
19 present from the special police?
20 A. I think his name was Lukic. He was an officer, if I remember
21 correctly. But don't hold me to that. I think his name was Lukic and he
22 was a captain by rank. Now, who else was there, I don't know.
23 Q. All right. So you then go on to say:
24 "Following a lengthy discussion and presentation of a number of
25 facts which contributed to the disbanding of special and other units" --
1 MS. KORNER: Sorry, that's the second page in English and still
2 on the first page in B/C/S.
3 Q. "The following conclusion was reached by Banja Luka CSB chief and
4 Colonel Bogojevic who had previously appraised General Talic,
5 1st Krajina Corps commander of the entire situation, and apparently it is
6 agreed that the special police detachment will be put at the disposal of
7 the 1st Krajina Corps."
8 And there was -- then it goes on to say, after item 5 -- you need
9 to go to the second page for you, Mr. Gajic.
10 "Based on their continuous visits to police and crime prevention
11 operatives, the chief of the Security Services Centre and his associates
12 stated that in public security stations in the area of the centre's
13 activities there are no special or other units."
14 What did you understand him to mean by "no special or other
15 units"? By the word "other"?
16 A. Well, that there are no units of that type or any other units
17 which acted on the territory of the public security stations. So none of
18 the stations, none of the public security stations, according to what
19 they said, disposed of those types of unit.
20 Q. A type of special police unit, even if under another name?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. All right. Well, then, if we carry on, there's then -- your
23 report deals with the activities or the complaints about the activities
24 of the light brigades. And then you go on to deal with the question of
25 the camps.
1 MS. KORNER: Can we go to the third page in English. And it's
2 still the second page in your report.
3 Q. Now, this meeting, apparently, with the Krajina Corps
4 representative and the rest, was on the 7th and 8th of August. By that
5 stage, were you aware that television newsreel film had been made showing
6 Omarska and Trnopolje? Television film by foreign journalists.
7 A. And what's the question?
8 Q. When you held this meeting, were you and the other participants
9 aware of the fact that there had been newsreel footage on television from
10 international journalists - British ones, in particular - of the camp at
11 Omarska and the camp at Trnopolje?
12 A. I didn't know. Now whether others knew, I can't say.
13 Q. All right. There's then a description of what Omarska is, and it
15 "About 175 persons are in the centre which are being secured by
16 about 40 police officers from Prijedor SJB. Following the completion of
17 the investigation process ... the persons will be transferred to
19 Now, was this being said at the meeting in the CSB, or at a
20 meeting in Prijedor?
21 A. I think it was said at the CSB, but I'm not sure.
22 Q. All right. You had, however, visited Prijedor. Did you go and
23 visit these camps?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Why was that? Why didn't you go?
1 A. Well, that wasn't my duty, my task. And I thought I didn't need
2 to, that it was sufficient for me to write a report. And then if there
3 was some intervention to be made, or conclusions to be made, or order,
4 then, on the basis of that report of mine, that's what would happen. I
5 didn't feel it necessary for me to tour the camps.
6 Q. All right. Now, you told us that the first report went to the
7 office of the minister. What about the second report? Did that go to
8 the office of the minister?
9 A. Well, yes, others had to go to the minister's office. The
10 cabinet, not the office, the minister's cabinet.
11 Q. Mm-hm. And you told us earlier there was a second meeting with
12 Mico Stanisic. Well, there was a second meeting at which -- just --
13 A. Directly into the hands of the minister. But when you say
14 "office or cabinet," then that's something else.
15 Q. Sorry. Did you -- are you saying you handed this report directly
16 into the hands of the minister?
17 A. Yes. There was a second meeting.
18 Q. All right. Let's -- I'm afraid it's my fault because I had -- I
19 hadn't seen that you were carrying on talking.
20 A. You misunderstood me. Not the minister's office, but to his
21 cabinet. Cabinet.
22 Q. Okay. Let's roll this back. To whom did you actually hand your
23 first report, the one of the 3rd [sic] of August?
24 A. Well, Madam Prosecutor, I can't remember. It was in the
25 minister's cabinet. Now, who received the report, who took possession of
1 it, I really don't know.
2 Q. I said the 3rd; it's -- sorry, I should have said the 5th. All
4 This report dated the 10th of August, to whom did you give that
6 A. Also to the minister's cabinet.
7 Q. All right. Can we go back to the first page of the report.
8 You say in the third paragraph there:
9 "After introducing the decision made by the Ministry of the
10 Interior at a meeting held on the 6th of August, 1992 ..."
11 So between your report of the 5th of August and this one of the
12 10th of August, there had apparently, according to you, been a meeting on
13 the 6th. Were you at that meeting?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm -- I'm terribly sorry, Ms. Korner. Could you
15 please advise us from where do you reading this? Because it doesn't
16 appear in the Serbian original. If we're talking about the 65 ter 10394?
17 MS. KORNER: Yep. On the third paragraph of the English.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, yes. Yes, thank you very much. Sorry.
19 MS. KORNER: All right.
20 Q. Now, did you attend this meeting on the 6th of August?
21 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, is this a short question? Because it's
22 time for the break.
23 MS. KORNER: No. I mean, this will be more or less the last
24 topic, Your Honours, so we could deal with it after the break.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's the other one.
1 Q. Yes what?
2 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I mean, I'm happy to take the
4 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] And you will wind up
5 shortly after that because your two hours has been exhausted.
6 MS. KORNER: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the other meeting.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 -- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour --
13 JUDGE HALL: We will allow Ms. Korner ten minutes to wrap up.
14 But before she resumes: We're looking at the rest of the day,
15 and I believe that counsel would have all been alerted to the effects of
16 the technical problems that we have. And bearing in mind those
17 realities, in the context of the reasons why the present witness's
18 testimony is being taken by videolink and also the disabilities, for want
19 of a better word, that the accused have from extended sittings, are
20 Defence counsel in the position to indicate how the rest of today could
21 go, in terms of the time they have left and whether this witness could be
22 finished within the compass of today?
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I'm not sure when Ms. Korner
25 will finish. It is -- it is my assumption that -- that based on how it
1 works -- the communications system works now, that I would need somewhere
2 in -- around two hours for cross-examination of this witness. It is,
3 however -- we are told by the Registrar that the witness is very
4 concerned that he would like to finish before the -- before the weekend.
5 So today and tomorrow. We share that. So in -- in light of the
6 situation that we -- that we had this morning with the communication
7 problem, I'm wondering maybe it would be wise that we -- that we add
8 another session this afternoon, one session this afternoon, and then --
9 and then -- and then continue -- yes, then continue tomorrow. In that
10 case, we will hundred per cent be sure that we can finish. Because I'm
11 thinking about the telecommunications problems that might develop
12 overnight, you know.
13 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] That was the first --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone Your Honour, please.
15 JUDGE HALL: We were alerted to that by the Registry, and I
16 assume that counsel, too, had been alerted.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I fully understand. And, Your Honours, we can --
18 depends on the witness, because it is our understanding that he has a
19 health condition.
20 JUDGE HALL: That was the second thing to which I alluded.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Which we will -- we are perfectly fine in
22 working the rest of the afternoon and finishing probably even today. I
23 mean, if that is okay with the witness and everybody else, that is, of
24 course, because we have the interpreters, the staff and -- thank you very
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I just want to -- I certainly have no
2 objection, subject to the witness's consent to sitting an extra session.
3 Your Honours, I do want to raise this morning, for various
4 administrative reasons, Your Honours' decision of yesterday, written
6 JUDGE HALL: Oh, I haven't forgot that.
7 MS. KORNER: As a matter of fact, it's whether I would -- whether
8 it would assist -- whether we are going to have to sit the whole day. Or
9 at least I would like to deal with that before the next adjournment so
10 that we can make -- I can make the relevant arrangements. And if we have
11 to sit the rest of the day with this witness, then I need to make
12 arrangements fairly quickly.
13 JUDGE HALL: Okay, so you've answered the last question I was
14 about to raise. In other words, even if we are doing an extended session
15 this afternoon, your issue we would still deal with at the end of this
16 session, rather than waiting until the end of today?
17 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much. That's all my only concern is,
18 as to whether we sit the whole time. Your Honours, as far as I'm aware,
19 the weather conditions are supposed to be improving again. And if it's
20 one session this afternoon, that's fine. And then continue tomorrow
21 morning to finish.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
23 That works for you?
24 MR. KRGOVIC: I share the views of my colleague Zecevic and my
25 learned friend from the Prosecution. So that's no objection. I have
1 only one session for this witness, so that's all.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
3 Yes, Ms. Korner, you may continue.
4 MS. KORNER: I just wondered whether Your Honours wanted to check
5 with the witness if he was happy that we continued this afternoon, before
6 I went on.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, I'll inquire now.
8 I don't know how much of the exchange that has just passed
9 between counsel and the Bench you would have heard, sir, but the -- you
10 remember this morning that there was a delay because of the technical
11 difficulties caused by weather, and we are mindful of your health
12 concerns. And what it now looks like is that when we break for the -- at
13 the end of this session at - well, it wouldn't be 1.45 it would be
14 1.30 - what we are new thinking about is resuming at 2.45 and sitting for
15 a further hour today, with a view to resuming tomorrow morning. And we
16 are wondering whether that would cause personal difficulties for you,
17 that extra hour this afternoon from 2.45 to 3.45.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I will be able to do that,
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir.
21 MS. KORNER:
22 Q. Sir, when we adjourned, I was just about to ask you about the
23 second meeting which you agree Mico Stanisic did attend. And was that
24 meeting between the -- the two reports, or after the report -- both
25 reports had been delivered to the minister?
1 A. I think it was the meeting between these two reports because we
2 can see that from what it says here. And I remember that he attended the
3 meeting now, in view of the criticisms that were sent to the individual
4 members of that inspection.
5 Q. Right. Where did that meeting take place? In Sarajevo or in
6 Banja Luka? Or Pale, I should say, probably - Jahorina.
7 A. No, that was on Jahorina.
8 Q. Right. So does that mean that you -- between those -- that you
9 interrupted your inspection of Banja Luka and went back to Pale, had the
10 meeting, and then returned to do the second report?
11 A. A part of those affairs were -- was completed. The report sent
12 in. I assume the minister looked at it, looked at all the reports had
13 that were compiled, and then we returned into the field to continue the
14 job of disbanding the special police units.
15 Q. Right. Now, in that first report you had mentioned the fact that
16 there were these camps that were being run in Prijedor, according to the
17 information that you had had from Drljaca, of Keraterm, Omarska, and
19 Did the minister raise the question of those camps with you?
20 A. No, there was no mention of that at the meeting. No mention of
21 the camps.
22 Q. All right. So what did the minister say about your report then?
23 A. As far as I remember, that is.
24 No instructions about the camps.
25 Q. All right. So what were the further instructions that you were
1 being given?
2 A. Nothing specific.
3 Q. Well, what was the purpose of the meeting, then, with the
5 A. Quite simply, to go to the centre to look at the quality of the
6 reports. Who had done what, pursuant to the minister's orders. And to
7 move towards disbanding the special police, the special police units.
8 Q. So nothing's said about your report on the -- the camps and the
9 use of the police for security -- for securing the camps.
10 Did he say anything about Mr. Stojan Zupljanin's request for a
11 further explanation of the word "removed"?
12 A. As far as I remember, no, there was no mention of that.
13 Q. All right. All right. That's all I want to ask you, then, about
14 that --
15 A. Because I was sufficiently clear at the meeting when I said what
16 "removed" meant.
17 Q. All right. Well, you actually asked in your report for a
18 dispatch confirming that you were right in your understanding. Did you
19 ever get a dispatch, or was there any verbal confirmation from
20 Mico Stanisic that "removed" did mean "sack"?
21 A. I don't know whether there was any communication between the
22 centre and the ministry on that issue. I don't know.
23 Q. All right.
24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that's all I ask in that report.
25 Your Honours have admitted -- allowed it to be added to the 65 ter; could
1 it now be admitted and marked.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: No objection.
3 JUDGE HALL: So admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1502, Your Honours.
5 MS. KORNER:
6 Q. Now, at this meeting with the minister, were people present who
7 had carried out inspections or -- inspections for the purposes of
8 implementation of the order in other areas?
9 A. Yes. I think all of them were present. I don't remember whether
10 some individual might have been absent, but mostly everybody who was
11 engaged in that inspection was there at the meeting.
12 Q. Right. Now I would like you to have a look, please, at document
13 which is at tab 11, 10395.
14 MS. KORNER: Now, Your Honours will see it's not on our
15 65 ter list. It was the subject of an application in April of this year
16 with a large number of other documents. And it's right to say that
17 Your Honours' ruling on this document was that the 23 documents --
18 "The Prosecution does not indicate the reasons for their late
19 addition beyond asserting they are relevant to the case."
20 Your Honours, I'm going to ask him about it in the hopes of
21 showing Your Honours why it is relevant, if he can assist.
22 Q. Do you see that document there, sir?
23 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
24 MS. KORNER:
25 Q. Do you know Mr. Cedo Tosic?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. And do you know Mr. Vojin Vukovic?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Were they, those two inspectors, present at this meeting that you
5 had with Mico Stanisic?
6 A. I can't remember them. But probably, according to this report,
7 they should have been present.
8 Q. Right.
9 A. But I can't remember seeing them there.
10 Q. And were all the reports that had been submitted - clearly all
11 these inspections had been done in the beginning of August - discussed at
12 this meeting with Mico Stanisic?
13 A. No, it wasn't the reports that were discussed. It's just if the
14 minister had some comments to make with respect to some specific report.
15 And unless I'm mistaken, it was a report that referred to the
16 Doboj Centre. He had some observations to make, that something was not
17 done properly, that the inspection wasn't done properly. But as to some
18 specific reports and their contents, no, that was not discussed.
19 Q. Did you ever have sight of the report that was done on the
20 Trebinje area, which covered, amongst other places, Bileca and Gacko,
21 that was prepared by Mr. Cedo Tosic and Mr. Vojin Vukovic?
22 A. No, I didn't have it. I didn't have an insight into that.
23 Q. All right. Yes, well, I can't take this matter any further then.
24 Thank you.
25 All right. Then the -- the final document --
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, could I just check my note for a
2 moment. No, I don't think I need that.
3 Q. Did you, Mr. Gajic, have any further input into what happened as
4 a result of the report that you produced on Banja Luka?
5 A. No, I had no further information.
6 Q. All right. And was that the last inspection that you did?
7 A. Yes, it was the last one.
8 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gajic. I have no further questions.
9 JUDGE HALL: Cross-examination.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Gajic. My name is
12 Slobodan Zecevic, and I am Defence counsel for Mr. Mico Stanisic.
13 A. Good afternoon, Your Honours.
14 Q. Now, sir, you said at the beginning of your testimony today that
15 in the SUP -- or, rather, the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, before the war, that you dealt with defence
17 preparations; is that right?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Tell me, please, the legal ground -- foundations for these
20 defence preparations and affairs related to that. Did that stem from the
21 federal Law on Total National Defence and Social Self-Protection which
22 was in force on the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. It's also a fact, is it not, that the law, that law, governing
1 total national defence or All People's Defence and social
2 self-protection -- yes, go ahead. What were you saying?
3 A. Some provisions ... some provisions stemmed from the law
4 governing internal affairs and governmental decisions as well.
5 Q. Yes, I agree. But the basic groundwork for defence preparations
6 was the Law on All People's Defence and Social Self-Protection, as it was
7 called; right?
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. It is true, is it not, that that Law on All People's Defence and
10 Social Self-Protection provided for the fact that all subjects, all
11 institutions, all economic organisations should conduct defence
12 preparations; isn't that right?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Very well. Thank you.
15 Now, sir, it is a fact, is it not, that in October -- or, rather,
16 September 1991, an order from minister of the interior of the
17 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Alija Delimustafic, based
18 on the decision taken by the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, stated
19 that the reserve police force was mobilised in the Socialist Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina; right?
21 A. Yes, as far as I remember. And it depended on the district
22 stations, how many people were mobilised. It differed from one area to
23 another, how much of the reserve force was to be mobilised.
24 Q. I'm sure you will remember that there were comments and
25 objections made to the fact that according to the provisions in force at
1 the time, the government stipulated the provisions of the total number of
2 reserve policemen; whereas, in this case, the Presidency decision was a
3 sweeping, blanket decision and given in September of 1991 and opened up
4 the possibility for taking in persons into the regular reserve force who,
5 according to their qualities, didn't really deserve to be there.
6 Do you remember that?
7 A. The government decision of the former Republic of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina was taken, and it determined -- it spoke about 64.000
9 members of active -- the active force and reserve force, and special
10 criteria were set which had to be compiled with by those individuals.
11 However, there was a total devaluation of criteria, if I can put it that
12 way, so that nobody knew who became part of the reserve force anymore and
13 who engaged whom on what basis and things like that.
14 So there was no -- there were no criteria anymore.
15 Q. Thank you. So we agree on that score.
16 Now I'd like to show you a document. It is 1D130, which is
17 tab 12. It's a document dated the 26th of September, 1991. And would
18 you please take a look at page 2 of the document because I'd like us to
19 comment on the number of reserve policemen, the total number of reserve
20 policemen in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in actual fact.
21 Can you see the document, sir?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There's mention there of the decision taken by the
24 Executive Council, or, rather, the government of the Socialist Republic
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina of the 23rd of December, 1998 [as interpreted], and
1 it says that it is stipulated that in the republic that there are 33.000
2 policemen; 6.000 active ones and 27.000 reserve force.
3 Now, I'm just showing you this because in your previous answer
4 you said 63.000, so I'd like to take this opportunity to refresh your
5 memory and to ask you whether you agree that the number was actually
6 60 -- is 33.000, and not 63.000?
7 A. Yes, that's right. I misspoke. A slip of the tongue. I know
8 that there were 6.000 active-duty ones and the 27.000 others. So I
9 apologise to Their Honours for my interpretation of that. But, yes,
10 33.000 is the correct figure.
11 Q. That's fine, Witness.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] On page 35, line 17, of the
13 transcript I said the 23rd of December, "1988," whereas it was recorded
14 "1998," which is an error.
15 Q. Now, sir, thank you for that answer in clearing that point up.
16 And I'd like to show you document 1D1257 next, please, which is tab 20.
17 And I'm showing you this document because it was MFI'd.
18 So take a look at the document. I don't know whether you've
19 familiar with it. It's dated 8th of April, 1992, and it refers to a
20 Ministry of Defence dispatch signed by Mr. Osman Jasarevic, on behalf the
21 MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] 1D257 is the number, and it's
24 Q. Now, sir --
25 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm just reading the document, the
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It's tab 20, by the way, in the
4 Defence bundle.
5 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I haven't got ...
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Now, sir, do you know Mr. Osman Jasarevic? And if you can tell
8 us who he was.
9 A. I do know who he was, but he came to the fore in that pre -- in
10 those pre-war days. I don't know what post he was appointed to. But I
11 do remember the name; I do remember Jasarevic. I think he came from one
12 of the police stations.
13 Q. But, anyway, he worked in the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina at its headquarters; right?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. Did you have an opportunity of seeing this document before? Have
17 you already seen it?
18 A. No, I have never seen it before.
19 Q. Never mind. Thank you.
20 Now, sir, --
21 A. When data comes -- look -- when looking at data for defence
22 preparations, I never saw this document.
23 Q. The fact is that the document bears the date 8th of April; is
24 that correct? At the time, did you go to work at the Socialist Republic
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP?
1 A. Yes, that is correct. Actually, I wasn't in the MUP then, no.
2 Q. Do you remember that Mr. Slobodan [as interpreted] Jasarevic was
3 the chief of a department in the B&H MUP?
4 A. He did have a management function, a post, but I cannot recall
5 what it was.
6 Q. Very well. In response to the Prosecutor's question today at the
7 beginning of your testimony, you said that sometime in early May you
8 moved to the MUP of Republika Srpska; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you explained that when you arrived you spoke with the chief
11 of the public security service, the under-secretary for public security,
12 Mr. Cedo Kljajic, and that he appointed you as head or chief of defence
13 preparations, so more or less to a similar post where you worked in the
14 MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Responding to a question by my learned friend Ms. Korner earlier
17 today, I think you gave an answer that was not recorded in the
18 transcript; I believe probably because the connection is bad. I think,
19 if I remember, Ms. Korner asked you if, besides defence preparations, you
20 were also dealing with other matters; and you said, At the time, in the
21 Republika Srpska MUP, defence preparation jobs did not come to the
22 forefront, so I was also writing dispatches and similar things.
23 Do you recall saying that?
24 A. Yes, I remember that. And that's how it was.
25 Q. When you said "they did not come to the forefront," these defence
1 preparation jobs, can you very briefly explain what you meant when you
2 said that?
3 A. These were tasks transferred from that period and that
4 Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. So
5 the organisation of the police or the militia or their expert
6 professional training or the principle of procurement with materiel and
7 equipment were not being dealt with. These are some basic principles
8 that should have been applied in carrying out these assignments.
9 Q. So if I understood you correctly, these defence preparations
10 assignments were just transferred and you were duty-bound to implement
11 them, but due to the conditions that were in the MUP of Republika Srpska
12 at the time, nothing particular was done regarding those matters? I
13 assume that that would be a simplified version of your answer. Is that
15 A. No, you couldn't really work on those jobs. Yes, that is
17 Q. Sir, I'm going to show you a document from the 15th of May, 1992.
18 This is 1D46, tab 1.
19 This decision, as we can see from the text, is adopted pursuant
20 to the declaration of the imminent threat of war in the territory of the
21 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and all the appropriate
22 organisations of the police in that sense.
23 Do you remember this order?
24 A. I cannot really remember because I came in early May, so I don't
25 remember. This was at the time when I arrived, so perhaps this order was
1 sent out before I was actually assigned to that post.
2 Q. All right. Then if you're not familiar with it, I'm not going to
3 ask you about it.
4 I would only ask you this generally, if you know, and you did
5 talk about this a little bit with Ms. Korner. It's a question of
6 resubordination of the police in the execution of military tasks to the
8 Do you remember speaking about this question?
9 A. Yes. Yes, I remember.
10 Q. Sir, in this order, there is a sentence that was a little bit
11 controversial, so perhaps you can help us about that.
12 Paragraph marked with the number 7 in this order speaks about
13 members of the MUP being resubordinated to the armed forces. And it
14 also -- it says that the ministry of -- units are under the command of
15 ministry officials.
16 So I'm going to ask you this: In a situation when the corps
17 commander requests a certain number of MUP personnel to be resubordinated
18 to a certain military unit, those MUP members go to that assignment in an
19 organised manner. Is that right?
20 A. Definitely.
21 Q. Namely, when a group of policemen go with the assignment to be
22 resubordinated to a specific military unit, that group of policemen is
23 led by a senior officer who is their commander as well?
24 A. That group of policemen is organised within a certain formation,
25 a squad, a company, a battalion, a platoon, and it is under the command
1 of the senior officer from that station or centre; but the entire unit,
2 then, is resubordinated to that particular military unit.
3 Q. I absolutely agree. So let's clarify: This leader, senior
4 officer from the public security station or the centre who is leading
5 this police unit, at the time when they reached the military unit to
6 which they are being resubordinated, he reports to the commander of that
7 military unit, and then he and all of the members of the MUP unit are
8 resubordinated to the military command and they become part of the
9 military command structure. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. Thank you. While they are executing this assignment, those
12 MUP members, together with their senior officer, are exempted from the
13 MUP command structure and find themselves within the military command
14 structure and are treated as members of military units. Is that right?
15 A. That is how it is regulated under the law, and that is how it
16 should be.
17 MS. KORNER: Sorry, can we --
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, a typical question at this point
19 would be to ask the witness how it then worked in practice, because it is
20 well enough to be told how things should work according to the rules;
21 often quite another thing is how it worked in practice.
22 But if you bring this issue back to the witness, could you then
23 also inquire to whom the MUP commander who was commanding this unit that
24 would have been resubordinated, to whom did the commander, the MUP
25 commander, report back, if anything happened during the assignments and
1 the resubordination to the army?
2 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honour, there's a -- I mean, I was
3 actually on my feet as Your Honour interrupted on the same -- or more or
4 less the same point.
5 Question as put is.
6 "... those MUP members, together with their senior officer, are
7 exempted from the MUP command structure ..."
8 What does that mean? I mean, the witness has said this is how
9 it's regulated under the law. Well, at the moment, I have no idea what
10 the question means nor what law the witness is -- is referring to.
11 I can deal with it in re-examination, but as Your Honours
12 interrupted, I think this ought to be clarified.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
14 Back to you, Mr. Zecevic.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, as can you see, it is still controversial,
17 this matter. The question -- we can -- let's try to explain.
18 At the point when the senior officer, with his unit, is
19 resubordinated to the military unit, those police members, at that point
20 in time, become members of the military; is that right?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And they and their superior officer report and are responsible
23 for their actions to their superior military officers during the time of
24 their resubordination; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. And can you please tell me, When you said that this was so
2 according to the law, are you stating or do you have information to the
3 effect that, in practice, things happened somewhat differently from what
4 you have just confirmed was in accordance with the law and what I said
5 was in accordance with the law?
6 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours, this is the problem: Which
7 law? Mr. Zecevic isn't specifying.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't have the information as
9 much as -- of it as it reached me.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Well, continue answering, and then I will put another question.
12 A. I didn't have information that there was some kind of dual or
13 parallel command that the superior officer of the police unit would
14 report back along the command line to his commander. He was exclusively
15 responsible to the commander of that unit, that military unit,
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: And, Mr. Witness, suppose a crime was committed
18 by some of the MUP members during the resubordination to the army, then
19 to who would the commanding officer report? Would that be to the
20 military police or to -- back to his own police station from where they
21 were subordinated?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Any violation - and this is
23 something that I assume; I'm not sure, I'm not the most competent person
24 to make these kind of interpretations - but I think any kind of violation
25 of work duties and any commission of a crime would mean that they would
1 be held responsible within their regular composition. So, in that case,
2 the centre or the public security station would be responsible in that
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Meaning responsible for taking steps to prosecute
5 the perpetrator; is that what you mean?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That perpetrators -- measures
7 would need to be immediately -- to be taken against such a perpetrator.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Sir, according to the Law on All People's Defence, units of the
10 police are resubordinated during execution of military assignments to
11 military units; is that correct?
12 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... that's a --
13 that's a -- that's an inaccurate summary. It says combat activity, not
14 military duties.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Sir, when a unit is resubordinated to a military structure, to a
18 military unit thus, you agreed a little bit earlier that they are then
19 assuming the status of members of the military. They're, at that point
20 in time, no longer officials of the Ministry of the Interior but they
21 have the status of soldiers. Would you agree with me?
22 A. They are executing all orders, executing all orders that are
23 issued by the commander of that military unit.
24 Q. If they are executing all the orders coming from the commander of
25 that military unit, then they are, of course, responsible to the
1 commander of that military unit for their actions; is that correct?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. And if they commit a crime as members of the military, they would
4 be subject to arrest by the military police, and they would be then
5 processed before the military judicial organs, just like any other
6 soldier; is that correct?
7 A. I am not a lawyer, and I really cannot recall all the laws and
8 regulations. It's been a long time since I did that. But it's logical
9 that it would be like that. I cannot recall all the regulations relating
10 to this particular subject. There are many such regulations, and I
11 cannot say that I can recall all of them right now.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, is seems that this is a convenient
14 point to --
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, okay. I understand, yes.
16 JUDGE HALL: -- interrupt the testimony of the witness. Yes.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, sir. We are going to continue
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. -- no. Mr. Gajic, as you will recall as we
21 discussed earlier today, we are going to take a -- the Court isn't going
22 to adjourn right at this moment because we have a number of procedural
23 matters with which to deal. But you will be stood down as a witness now,
24 and we will resume your testimony in an hour and ten minutes. Thank you
25 very much.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. I completely forgot. It
2 was actually me who proposed that. I'm truly sorry.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
4 So you are excused now, to return in an hour and ten minutes,
5 sir. Thank you.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner.
8 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honours, this refers
9 to --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Ms. Korner.
11 MS. KORNER: This refers back to the decision that
12 Your Honours -- a written decision of the 14th of July, in which
13 Your Honours say that of the 53 witnesses that we applied to call to
14 cover the adjudicated facts - and I'm looking at paragraph 19 - the
15 Trial Chamber finds it appropriate to permit the Prosecution to call no
16 more than 44.
17 Now, Your Honours, can I just spend a couple of minutes setting
18 out a few matters. First is this: It took the OTP from the
19 1st of April to the 27th of May when it filed its application to assess
20 which of the rejected or reversed adjudicated facts we needed to call
21 evidence about, and we made a careful selection and we did not call or
22 apply to call evidence about all of them. We went, in the period of that
23 six or seven weeks, further and assessed which witnesses we actually
24 needed to cover the adjudicated facts, which, in our opinion, were vital
25 to the proper presentation of the Prosecution case.
1 Your Honours took from the 27th of May, when we filed, to
2 yesterday to issue the decision, and in the paragraph I've referred to,
3 paragraph 19, say that:
4 "The Trial Chamber has also reviewed whether the anticipated
5 testimony of each proposed witness pertains to the corresponding denied
6 adjudicated facts as indicated by the Prosecution.
7 "On the basis of its analysis," and I highlight the word
8 analysis, "and bearing in mind the balance to be reached between the
9 Prosecution's duty to prove its case and the rights of the accused to a
10 fair and expeditious trial," which matter you dealt with in the
11 simultaneous decision rejecting our leave for our appeal, "and of
12 adequate time for the preparation of the Defence, the Trial Chamber finds
13 it appropriate to permit the Prosecution to call no more than 44 of the
15 Now, Your Honours, from that we take it that Your Honours'
16 analysis has indicated that, contrary to what our analysis, we made a
17 mistake, and that we have actually listed nine witnesses who it's
18 unnecessary to call, by Your Honours' only analysis, because they're
19 covered by other witnesses or other evidence.
20 Your Honours actually don't tell us, however, which those
21 witnesses are, because you go on to say that we are ordered to identify
22 the proposed witness it will seek to add to its witness list and the mode
23 of testimony and then say that we have until Monday to do that.
24 Now, Your Honours, we have to -- if we're right and we -- if --
25 Your Honours, sorry, if you're right and we've made this mistake, you
1 haven't told us where we've made the mistake or what the names of the
2 witnesses are. So we have to do a complete re-analysis of what we --
3 took us seven weeks to do on the last occasion to sort out where
4 Your Honours' analysis and ours differs.
5 Your Honours give us three days, five including today and the
6 weekend. Now, Your Honours, in fairness to us. And this has, we submit,
7 been a fair -- a question of fairness to the Prosecution throughout, over
8 this whole vexed matter of adjudicated facts, we're asking Your Honours,
9 please, to indicate to us which are the nine witnesses that we need not
10 call so that we can, if necessary, perhaps seek to persuade --
11 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. Would not that be trespassing -- would not
12 the Trial Chamber then be trespassing on your prerogative if we were to
13 do that? I understand the logic of what you're saying, but wouldn't it
14 be a step too far for the Trial Chamber to presume to tell you which of
15 the 53, on our analysis, which, as you would appreciate, is something
16 that we would have been obliged to conduct notwithstanding the analysis
17 that we appreciate the OTP would have done.
18 Wouldn't it be inappropriate for us to do that?
19 MS. KORNER: I don't think so, Your Honour. Because we've listed
20 in our annex the witnesses and the adjudicated fact to which that witness
21 goes. Your Honours say we're wrong in nine specific cases.
22 And we're saying, at the moment, we need each of those witnesses
23 for each of these selected facts because they are -- they go to the
24 heart, the core, of our case. And you say we're wrong. So we would like
25 to be told where we're wrong, which of the witnesses we don't need, so
1 that we can possibly apply to Your Honours for reconsideration. Because
2 clearly we haven't made the position clear enough.
3 And, Your Honours, at the moment we are in an impossible
4 position, certainly an impossible position, to do this exercise within
5 five days, which took us seven weeks to do last time and which has taken
6 Your Honours much the same time.
7 Therefore, Your Honours, we're asking, if we've made the mistake,
8 then Your Honours should indicate to us which of the witnesses we've made
9 the mistake about so that we can either accept it and do the analysis on
10 a limited basis, or apply to Your Honours for reconsideration. We
11 certainly cannot complete such an exercise in five days.
12 JUDGE HALL: If given a longer period, would -- would that
14 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, obviously it will assist, but,
15 Your Honour, we're still saying, but what is the problem - if I may put
16 this in a rhetorical question - about telling us which of the nine
17 witnesses we don't actually need according to Your Honours' analysis?
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, the Chamber thinks that it would be
21 inappropriate to disclose the analysis that we have made. But what we
22 did, in general terms, was to a apply what we would call a bear-minimum
23 approach; namely, to see which of the witnesses that you had proposed
24 would be necessary to cover the 293 facts or whatever the number is. Or
25 the ones that you had sought to cover only. And that brought us, after
1 having carefully reviewed the matter, to the number of 44 witnesses.
2 This was not an arbitrary number. This was what we -- that was the
3 conclusion that we arrived at after having reviewed the matter.
4 And -- and apart from the reason that has already been offered by
5 the Presiding Judge, namely, that it would be inappropriate for the
6 Chamber to direct the calling of the evidence on behalf of the
7 Prosecution, on top of that, we thought, actually, that we were doing you
8 a favour in allowing you to pick yourself the number -- or the -- the --
9 individual witnesses among those 53.
10 And, lastly, we understand that it would be maybe difficult for
11 you to -- to do this by Monday. We didn't believe that you would need
12 another seven weeks to -- to review this. But we would be willing to
13 provide you more time, if that would be necessary, and -- because also,
14 in our order, is implied an attempt to reach some sort of -- of an
15 understanding with the Defence teams about which witnesses could be
16 called under 92 bis.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I know that Mr. Zecevic wants to
18 address you on that part of it. But can I just return to what I
19 originally said.
20 Your Honours, I appreciate that Your Honours are saying you don't
21 think it's right to interfere with the presentation of our case, but,
22 Your Honours, in effect, every decision you make affects the presentation
23 of our case, and you have declined to let us call witnesses, declined on
24 other occasions to let us call documents, and other occasions have let us
25 add -- have let us put in documents. So everything, all your decisions,
1 affect how we present our case. So therefore I'm saying that the
2 simplest thing would be, really the simplest: You've done this analysis.
3 You've said, We don't need these nine witnesses; they are sufficiently
4 covered. The simply thing would be for you to, through your
5 Legal Officers, to notify us who you say those witnesses are. We will
6 then consider the matter. It makes life much quicker, much easier.
7 We'll stick to the deadline of Tuesday -- on Monday, sorry. And we'll
8 deal with it.
9 I mean, we are very anxious to move this case forward, as I know
10 Your Honours are. And, therefore, we don't want to have to spend a lot
11 of time re-analysing, because it has a real effect on our case. If we
12 pick the wrong person or drop or decide we can't cover a particular fact,
13 that has a knock-on effect on what we prove.
14 So, Your Honours, I leave is at that with Your Honours. As far
15 as -- if Your Honours still take the view that you shouldn't, in fairness
16 to the Prosecution, tell us -- tell us who -- where we're gone wrong,
17 then I would simply say we would like until the -- the final day before
18 sitting [sic] to -- to deal with this. We don't want to delay matters
19 any further because, as I say, we are exceedingly anxious, as I know the
20 Court is, to move this case on.
21 Your Honour, the second matter is this, because it affects the
22 second part of your order, which is that we should say how long -- we
23 can't do 92 ter, they have to be viva voce, and we need to give time
24 estimates. And you say the Chamber reiterates the testimony of each
25 selected proposed witness will be admissible solely for the limited
1 purpose of seeking to establish the substance of a specified denied fact.
2 However, we take it that simply doesn't mean, Let's take a fact.
3 Whereas, in fact, Your Honours changed, but we've decided we've covered.
4 For example, Your Honours crossed out the word "detention" from Manjaca,
5 which left us with Manjaca was a camp as an adjudicated fact. We have,
6 in fact, we decided, called sufficient evidence to deal with that.
7 But does this part of Your Honours mean simply that you --
8 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we are
9 well over -- we are several minutes past the time. Inasmuch as the
10 witness has agreed -- Mr. Gajic has agreed to return for an hour this
11 afternoon, could we pick this up when --
12 MS. KORNER: Yes, all right.
13 JUDGE HALL: -- he would have been released -- excused for the
14 rest of the day. Because you have indicated that Mr. Zecevic wants to be
15 heard on another part of our order, so we will continue this discussion
16 this afternoon.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Returning at when?
19 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] 2.45.
20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.52 p.m.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 --- On resuming at 2.53 p.m.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue, Your Honour?
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gajic --
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like the witness to be
3 shown 1D176, please.
4 Q. This is the order of the 27th of July, 1992, pursuant to which
5 you made an inspection of the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka.
6 Do you have the document in front of you?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 2, that's at tab 2.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. It's possible -- it actually might be the Prosecution number 2;
12 I'm sorry.
13 Mr. Gajic, do you see this order? Well, you looked at it this
14 morning with my learned friend Ms. Korner. Do you remember that?
15 A. Yes, and I'm looking at it.
16 Q. At page 2, under number 6, the implementation of this order and
17 provision of professional assistance was assigned to some persons so
18 that, for the Autonomous Region of Krajina, Mr. Milos Zuban was tasked
19 with this; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Mr. Milos Zuban, as the chief of the police affairs in the
22 Republika Srpska MUP, or, rather, in the MUP of the Serbian Republic of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, as it was styled at the time, was your immediate
24 superior; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. It would be logical to assume, then, that if he was in charge,
2 that he actually delegated the authority to you, the authority, the
3 powers to inspect, visit, and provide professional assistance in the
4 Security Services Centre in Banja Luka; is that correct?
5 A. Well, it was logical, but he did not delegate any authority to
6 me. He didn't give me any instructions on this issue.
7 Q. Yes. But, Mr. Gajic, you knew what your task was, based on this
8 order, and you knew why you were going to Banja Luka, to the Security
9 Services Centre in Banja Luka; right?
10 A. Yes. Yes, pursuant to this order, to the Security Services
11 Centre, but I assumed that this order, the provisions in this paragraph,
12 actually pertain to a continuous monitoring and provision of professional
13 help. Do you see what I mean? It was meant for a longer period of time,
14 as regards the deployment or assignment of these people.
15 Q. I agree, yes. I absolutely agree with you. Because the chief
16 for police affairs, Mr. Milos Zuban, was able to then dispatch his
17 subordinate personnel to visit and inspect those centres that he -- that
18 were in his purview. Is that correct?
19 A. Well, it's possible, yes.
20 Q. Mr. Gajic, tell me, when you left to carry out this task, on both
21 occasions, the first and the second time, because, as we heard from you,
22 you came back at one point, so both times you acted in accordance with
23 instructions you had received from your superiors. You did not do
24 anything on your own initiative, so to speak; is that correct?
25 A. It was absolutely impossible to do anything on one's own
2 Q. Very well. Now, tell me, on that occasion, one of the
3 instructions that you received was to familiarise yourself with the work
4 and any problems that the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka may be
5 experiencing at that time or up to at that time; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Sir, now I would like you to look at P631. It's your report, the
8 first report. It's at tab 8; the Prosecution tab 8. The date is the
9 5th of August.
10 You commented on this document when asked to do so by my
11 colleague. You dealt with some of the issues in this document.
12 You can see at page 1, where it says -- well, this is something
13 that you discussed with Ms. Korner. It -- there is mention of 300
14 personnel -- police personnel working on providing security of the camps,
15 and then in parentheses, (Keraterm, Omarska, Trnopolje). Can you see
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You said that you received this information from the chief of the
19 public security station, Mr. Simo Drljaca. That's the public security
20 station in Prijedor. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. As the sentence continues, you say that the 300 police personnel
23 are providing security to the camps where prisoners of war are kept.
24 Because this -- well, it's on the same page, page 1. It's the end of the
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Now, this information that there were prisoners of war in the
3 camp, did you also receive it from Simo Drljaca?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then you go on to say that based on what Mr. Drljaca had
6 said, that arrangements been made with officers of the 1st Krajina Corps
7 and the Crisis Staff about the takeover of the security of the camp -- in
8 the camps by the military, that they should take over.
9 And this was also, yet again, something that you heard from
10 Mr. Drljaca?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now tell me --
13 A. Yes, yes. Drljaca told me that.
14 Q. Now, in the course of this conversation in Prijedor, did
15 Mr. Drljaca tell you that various unlawful acts had been done, such as
16 murder, torture, and mistreatment of the persons detained there, and
17 things of that nature?
18 A. No, he didn't tell me anything as regards that issue.
19 Q. If you had had this kind of information, you would have included
20 it in your report, I assume?
21 A. Yes, definitely. Because I put in everything that was available
22 to me, everything that I learned, so I would definitely have put that in
23 my report.
24 Q. I assume that this fact that a large number of police personnel
25 provided security in those camps in Prijedor was a serious problem.
1 Because at page 4 of this document you put forward one of your
2 conclusions or proposals. It's in paragraph 7:
3 To urgently contact the army command and to discuss the issue of
4 who was authorised to provide security in the camps in the Prijedor area.
5 Do you agree with that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Sir, after you submitted this report, since it is dated the
8 5th of August, that, on the 6th of August, there was a meeting that you
9 claim was attended by Minister Stanisic, and this meeting was attended by
10 all the employees who had carried out the inspections in the public
11 security -- in the Security Services Centres all over Bosnia
12 and Herzegovina.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In the course of your examination, you said that the minister was
15 quite critical, and you recalled that he was specifically critical about
16 the shortcomings in the report as it pertained to the Doboj Security
17 Services Centre; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct. I think it pertained to the Doboj Security
19 Services Centre.
20 Q. It is a fact, is it not, that Minister Stanisic and other
21 high-ranking senior personnel in the Ministry of the Interior of the
22 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina insisted on being given full a
23 full and accurate information; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons why the inspectors,
1 including yourself, were dispatched again to the Security Services
2 Centres, in order to amend your reports. My colleague showed to you a
3 report from Trebinje, and it is quite clear and uncontroversial that you
4 went back to Jahorina after this and made another report. Is that
6 A. Yes. In order to supplement it and to complete all the items
7 that were to be dealt with, pursuant to the order of the minister.
8 Q. So this was done undoubtedly pursuant to the order and the
9 instructions of the minister?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I think that you mentioned this in your statement, but let me
12 deal with it now.
13 It is true that the position of the ministry, as a whole, headed
14 by the minister and all the other senior personnel was that all the
15 police officers who had committed crimes should be tried, should be
16 prosecuted, or should be sanctioned with disciplinary measures, and
17 should be dismissed from the ministry; and there were orders to that
18 effect. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, that was the position of the senior people in the ministry.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like the witness to
21 look at P1502. That's at tab 9. It was 65 ter 10394.
22 Q. Sir, this is your second report dated the 10th of August.
23 Can you see this document?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. At page 2, you report to the ministry - page 2, down below
1 paragraph 5 or item number 5 - you indicated that you had received
2 information that in the Security Services Centre area there were no
3 special or any other units.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And the chief of the centre informed you about the problem of the
6 operation of the light brigades that were active in the area covered by
7 the Security Services Centre, Banja Luka; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. On this same page, the last paragraph, you say that in the
10 investigations centre in Omarska there are about 175 persons who are
11 secured --
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Now we have to move on to the next
13 page in B/C/S.
14 Q. -- by 40 police officers from the public security station in
15 Prijedor. I assume that you received this information from the chief of
16 the public security station, Mr. Simo Drljaca. Is that correct?
17 A. Well, I'm not sure if Simo Drljaca told me that. I'm really not
19 Q. Yes. But in this document - this is the document dated the
20 10th of August - you provide the exact number of persons who are in the
21 investigation centre and the exact number of police personnel securing
23 So you must have received that information from somebody who knew
24 that; is that so?
25 A. Yes. This second report, when I drafted it, I did not go to
1 Prijedor. This visit was limited to Banja Luka. So it is possible that
2 one of the associates of Mr. Zupljanin provided this information, because
3 he attended the meeting. And the area of Prijedor, among other areas,
4 was within their purview.
5 Q. It is a fact, sir, isn't it, that there was a certain degree of
6 animosity on the part of Mr. Drljaca because he wanted the public
7 security station of Prijedor to actually become a Security Services
8 Centre. Isn't at that so?
9 A. There was a major clash between Mr. Drljaca and -- well, he was
10 probably the one who was the cause of the animosity, and he did not allow
11 the special unit to be deployed in that area and to be engaged in that
12 area. He wanted this to become a centre. And he just wanted to be the
13 boss in that whole area?
14 Q. He said -- you said that he showed disrespect for the centre and
15 for -- in Banja Luka and for its chief, Mr. Stojan Zupljanin; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Sir, further on --
18 A. And he insisted that the public security station --
19 Q. Please go on. You can finish your sentence.
20 A. He insisted that the public security station be transformed into
21 a Security Services Centre and that he also have a unit, a special unit,
22 in that area.
23 Q. Sir, further down in this text in your report of the
24 10th of August - in other words, your last report from the CSB in
25 Banja Luka which was forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior - you say
1 that after the investigation was completed, some four to five days later,
2 individuals from Omarska will be transferred to Manjaca, and this
3 investigation centre is to be shut down.
4 I assume that this is information that you received from someone,
5 seeing that you put it in your report?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Further on, you say that the reception centre in Trnopolje was
8 established, that it held individuals of Muslim ethnicity who found
9 refuge and safety there, and that these individual freely could move
10 around, and that this camp was secured by the army and the Red Cross.
11 This is information that you had no reason to doubt, and that is why you
12 put it in your report; correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And, finally, you say that the so-called Keraterm Camp was shut
15 down and military prisoners were transferred to Manjaca. That, too, is
16 information that you put in your report.
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And at the very end of this report, you say that the enforcement
19 of other measures contained in the order of the minister of the interior,
20 and, in particular, those measures that pertain to individuals who were
21 criminally -- who had been convicted or who had committed crimes during
22 the war is under way.
23 And then you go on to say that operatives are in the field and
24 they are working on the enforcement on the entire order. These measures
25 mentioned here relate to the prosecution -- or, rather, the
1 implementation and initiation of criminal and disciplinary proceedings
2 against members of police who had actually violated the oath of service
3 and their uniform and the rules of what they did.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Gajic, you have -- you were a police officer for many years;
7 A. Yes. Was.
8 Q. Well, I mean during your career you were a police servant. You
9 served in the police; now you're retired. Correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Sir, you went to conduct an inspection as an inspector of the MUP
12 of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. You toured and carried
13 out an inspection, and you were supposed to report on the situation in
14 the area of the CSB of Banja Luka.
15 You went for the first time in early August, and then your next
16 visit followed a week after. What you put down in the report, you stand
17 by those facts; correct?
18 A. Yes. With full responsibility, I stand by them.
19 Q. Tell me, please, your immediate superiors and the Public Security
20 Service had no reason to doubt the truthfulness or accuracy of the report
21 that you submitted; correct?
22 A. It was never suggested to me in any manner that there were some
23 shortcomings in my report. Not on one single occasion.
24 Q. Sir, in 1994, you were still a member of the MUP of
25 Republika Srpska; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I will now show you the annual report of the MUP of
3 Republika Srpska for 1994.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's under tab 14, the
5 Prosecution binder, and the document bears the number 1D03-4465.
6 Q. Can you see the report, sir?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Sir, when you began your evidence, you will recall that my
9 learned friend Ms. Korner asked you something about the drafting of
10 dispatches and the communication system that existed in the
11 Republika Srpska MUP, and you said that you received replies to your
12 dispatches. Sometimes they were tardy; sometimes not.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But that, according to you, the communication did exist; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You will agree with me, sir, wouldn't you, that the chief of
17 communications and communications assets were Mr. Dragan Kezunovic in
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You can also agree with me, I suppose, that, based on his
21 position and role and his duties, he would be the individuals -- the
22 individual who could provide information on the communications equipment
23 and assets that existed and were used in the Republika Srpska MUP at the
24 time. He would be the best-placed person for that. Correct?
25 A. I fully agree with you because I'm not really competent in terms
1 of the accuracy and the completeness of the system and how it functioned.
2 And I said that sometimes the communications were tardy. But
3 Mr. Kezunovic is the competent individual who can give you full
4 information on the communications system within the Ministry of the
5 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and all its equipment and assets
6 and the way they were.
7 Q. Sir, do you know that in the course of 1992 the total number of
8 dispatches sent and received at the MUP headquarters of the
9 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina --
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For reference, that's P625.
11 Q. -- came to 8.570. So both incoming and outgoing dispatches. Did
12 you know this fact?
13 A. No, I don't know that piece of information.
14 Q. Sir, please take a look at page 37 of the report, the annual
15 report, for 1994. That's the report that you have before you. And
16 that's under number 6, the communications and encryption work. And the
17 second paragraph from the top of the page reads -- so we're talking about
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] What's that in English?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's on page 55, I've just been
21 told, in English.
22 Q. I apologise. Now, can you see here where it says that the total
23 number of incoming and outgoing of open and encrypted dispatches was
24 353.215, which means around 1.000 dispatches per day. Did you know that
25 fact? And this pertains to 1994.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Page 37.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I couldn't find that
3 part, I'm sorry. Please go on.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Page 37, second paragraph from the top.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, it seems to be on page 34
7 in the B/C/S version.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't want to object, particularly.
9 But, I mean, it's really comment. The witness says he doesn't know this
10 fact and he doesn't know that fact, and it's a matter that Mr. Zecevic --
11 MR. ZECEVIC: No, I'm just asking him whether -- does he know
12 this for the fact or not.
13 MS. KORNER: Well, he's already said he doesn't.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: No, he said he couldn't find the -- the particular
16 MS. KORNER: All right.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: That was my understanding.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, have you managed to find that portion?
19 That's on page 37, second paragraph from the top. It begins with the
20 word: "The work of the encryption and signals workers," et cetera,
21 et cetera. And then it goes on to discuss the traffic.
22 Have you found that portion?
23 A. Yes I have.
24 Q. And you can see that it says there that in the course of 1994 the
25 total number of dispatches was 353.215, or broken down per day that was
1 1.000 dispatches, approximately, per day. Can you see that?
2 A. I can.
3 Q. Tell me, please, were you aware of this fact in 1994?
4 A. I may have been, but I don't remember. I probably did have
5 occasion to receive and read this report because we also had to
6 contribute the portions that related to our own work. But I can't
7 remember this.
8 Q. Sir, can you confirm for us that this is a report from the
9 Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska for 1994? Please take a
10 look at the document, leaf through it, and tell us.
11 A. Looking at the various headings in this report, there is no
12 reason to doubt that this is, indeed, a ministry report.
13 Q. Thank you, sir.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
15 this witness. And I propose, for reference purposes in respect of my
16 questions and the witness's answers, to tender this document into
18 JUDGE HALL: Is there any objections?
19 MS. KORNER: Not really, Your Honour. I mean, I know it's well
20 out of the period. I see the point that Mr. Zecevic obviously wants to
21 make from that section. And it may well be that it becomes relevant at
22 other stages, so --
23 JUDGE HALL: So it's convenient to mark it -- enter it at this
25 MS. KORNER: Yeah, well, Your Honour can -- as far as I'm
1 concerned, it can be made an exhibit, rather than MFI'ing it.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yeah, that's what I meant.
3 MS. KORNER: Yes.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D338, Your Honours.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Gajic. I have no further
8 questions for you.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, we have about nine minutes left in
10 terms of what we would have indicated to this witness before we release
11 him for the day. Perhaps you would wish to wail until tomorrow morning
12 to resume so that we can pick up the matter that we had left -- yes,
13 thank you.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Microphone not activated] I'm sorry. Agree with
15 that, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
17 Mr. Gajic, we are about to adjourn for the day. We will resume
18 your testimony tomorrow morning. We trust that the technical problems
19 don't cause any serious delay.
20 So you are now excused, to return tomorrow morning. Thank you,
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Ms. Korner, you may pick up where you left off.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, where I left off was the second part of
25 Your Honours' order where you say that the 92 ter witnesses that we
1 proposed have to come viva voce and that they can be -- the testimony -
2 and I'm looking at paragraph 20 of the decision, and then it is repeated
3 in paragraph 3 following the disposition:
4 Will be admissible solely for the limited purpose of seeking to
5 establish the substance of the specified denied adjudicated fact.
6 And I was about to give an example that let us suppose that one
7 of the facts happened to be the Manjaca fact, where Your Honours had
8 deleted the word "detention," although, as I said, we -- we believe that
9 we've already covered that through evidence.
10 Can I take it that Your Honours' order does not mean it would
11 simply be a question, for example, of saying to the witness, Is your name
12 X? Did you go to Manjaca? How would you describe it? Full stop.
13 Without any background or context from the witness. That we are entitled
14 to set out, for example, if it were Manjaca, how the witness came to be
15 there in very simple summary form? I mean, Your Honours how are
16 Your Honours to make any kind of assessment at all of the witness if
17 it -- if it's limited to that?
18 JUDGE HALL: Well, the idea and what we sought to say as clearly
19 as we thought we could in terms of the language chosen is that the
20 allowance for these additional witnesses would -- should not be an
21 occasion to expand beyond the basis for which the witness, these further
22 witnesses are being called. Namely, to cover the -- those facts which we
23 appreciate you have a difficulty with as a consequence of the ruling on
24 the application to amend those adjudicated facts.
25 That being said, the -- such of the context as is necessary for
1 continuity and to make the witnesses' testimony intelligible, would
2 clearly be admissible. But, again, this is a -- we anticipate,
3 certainly, that there may be some to-ing and fro-ing, but we leave this
4 to the experience and good sense and competence of counsel leading the
6 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honours, that's fine. We understand
7 that. It was just that we were slightly troubled by the fact that it
8 could have been read - and we weren't sure, so we just wanted to make
9 sure - as simply saying, That's all you can adduce from the witness. But
10 I see that Your Honours -- we can at least set the context of how the
11 witness came to the situation where he can deal with a fact. That's all.
12 So, Your Honour, that's -- that -- those are the two matters I
13 wanted to raise in respect of Your Honours' ruling. I -- I don't know
14 whether Your Honours had a chance over the adjournment to consider our
15 application that Your Honours tell us who the nine irrelevant witnesses
17 JUDGE HALL: We don't propose to return to that issue. Our view
18 is that it's a matter for the Prosecution -- a decision for the
19 Prosecution to make.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HALL: But we would allow -- the -- we would vary the order
22 in terms of the date to make it Friday rather than Monday.
23 MS. KORNER: Yeah. Well, Your Honours, I've made my position
24 clear. I hope that - can I -- let me put it this way - that it does not
25 mean that we will be put at a disadvantage in attempting to prove our
1 case properly and in particular in relation to the scheduled incidents.
2 That's all I want to say further on that.
3 And, again, Your Honours, I'm sorry, but can I remind you about
4 Ewa Tabeau.
5 JUDGE HALL: We have that ruling ready, but I -- while we're
6 still on this point --
7 MS. KORNER: Yes, certainly.
8 JUDGE HALL: -- Mr. Zecevic, I understand, wanted to make a ...
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the ruling creates a bit of a problem
10 for -- as it stands for the Defence. Namely, it refers to -- to
11 deadlines which are imposed in the -- in the decision.
12 Your Honours, we assume that by end of sitting for -- for --
13 before the break, we will receive a number -- a disclosure from -- from
14 the -- from the Office of the Prosecutor, which disclosure, in our
15 estimate, for 44 witnesses, based on -- on our knowledge, a number of
16 them has testified already. It is our relatively conservative assumption
17 that it means roughly 5.000 pages of material that we need to be
18 accustomed with.
19 Now, Your Honours, the Defence has the manpower that it has and
20 has the resources that it has. We don't have any more people, nor more
21 resources available for our work. We have -- we limited within the
22 Defence team the break for vacation only seven days. After that, each
23 and every member has already his tasks very clearly set up until the end
24 of the -- of the -- of the vacation period. We cannot and -- we will --
25 if we -- if we are now to deal with -- with 5.000 pages in addition, then
1 we will not be prepared for the -- for the witnesses that are coming in
2 the fall. It's simply as that. So we need, definitely, more time.
3 We will not be able to discuss properly with our friends from the
4 Prosecution and agree on the 92 bis status of some of the witnesses
5 unless we are -- we analyse that. You wouldn't expect us to -- to -- to
6 go into -- into -- into negotiations with the -- with the Office of the
7 Prosecutor or talks with the Office of the Prosecutor when we don't know
8 what the witnesses are saying, what is the context, what is the
9 background, what did they say before, and so on and so on.
10 We would need at least two weeks to prepare for that. So my
11 suggestion, in order to expedite the trial at the end, would be that we,
12 instead of starting on the 16th of August, that we start on the
13 30th of August or 1st of September, which will give us two weeks to
14 review the documentation and then start -- start negotiating or talking
15 to the Prosecution about the status of the 92 bis witnesses. Otherwise,
16 I honestly don't see any other way we can properly deal with -- with the
17 requirement that -- that is imposed on us by your -- by your decision,
18 Your Honours.
19 Thank you very much.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry. Can I make it absolutely
21 clear: We've got fixed, fixed witnesses for the week immediately after
22 the -- the break, one of whom we have now altered his testimony three
23 times. I wasn't aware that Mr. Zecevic wanted to add an extra two weeks,
24 and he didn't mention that to me, so he didn't want to comply with the
25 deadline of 20th of August, which I understand. But I would strongly,
1 strongly object. And this trial has been so delayed to any further time
2 off and not calling witness which are already fixed. And I say: One
3 witness has been told now three times about this.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, the Chamber, of course, understands
6 your concerns relating to the time you have available to discuss with the
7 Prosecution the issue of 92 bis witnesses. The number of pages you have
8 mentioned, 5.000 pages, does that include the number of pages that relate
9 to those witnesses that have been proposed by the Prosecution as
10 92 bis witnesses, or does it reflect the number, the total number of
11 pages relating to all of the 53 witnesses?
12 Because -- 44 witnesses or whatever.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, it relates to all 44 witnesses. Our
14 estimation is that with each of the witnesses we have 100 or around 100
16 Now, on top of it, Your Honours, we have the situation that we --
17 we have a number of unidentified witnesses. We don't know who they are.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: It's just that I would imagine that if we're only
19 speaking about the witnesses which the Prosecution proposes to bring
20 under 92 bis, then it would be a much smaller number of pages. And I
21 wonder if -- if it would not be possible for you and the Prosecution to
22 get together in the course of next week and review these proposed 92 bis
23 witnesses, because that's -- that's all you have to do. You don't have
24 to -- to look into the witnesses which the Prosecution will bring viva
25 voce any way.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours, it was my understanding the true
2 extent would be at the disclosure deadline for Friday next week for
3 Ms. Korner, just a couple of minutes ago.
4 Therefore -- therefore, the next week we will not -- we will not
5 even get the disclosure. I mean, I don't -- I'm sorry, I --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, but -- no, no. I see --
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: But I thought -- I was under the impression, but
9 maybe wrongly, that you had already received most of the disclosure that
10 relates to these witnesses.
11 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: That you had already received statements and
13 transcripts. So ... so in terms of disclosure, I think that you're
14 already home, aren't you?
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we received a partial disclosure on
17 16th of June. On the 16th of June. And we -- we simply didn't have any
18 time to work with that. I'm sorry.
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Yes, I think what
20 Mr. Zecevic means is he's had disclosure - we went through this last
21 time. For each witness, he's had a statement or the transcript,
22 whichever we rely. What he hasn't had, and we haven't done, are the full
23 searches. In other words, to see whether they have made other statements
24 which haven't yet been disclose or the like. But the basis on which
25 we're applying to call them I would respectively suggest is contained in
1 the statement or the transcript. And, indeed, I'm assuming from
2 Your Honours' ruling that we would have to highlight the part in the
3 statement or transcript which we say goes to the adjudicated fact.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: That would be very helpful, yes.
5 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well, that's what I -- the parts of it -- so,
6 obviously, that's an exercise we will have to go through.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I would be lying if I would say that
10 I'm comfortable with -- with the proposal that -- that just the parts
11 which are highlighted by the Prosecution are the only parts that we, as
12 lawyers, have to read. I don't think -- I don't think that's proper.
13 And I think we -- if this is the witness, we might be -- we might be
14 willing to test his credibility, Your Honours. We have to read the whole
15 disclosure for that witness. If we want to do diligently our work, which
16 I don't see any -- any other alternative to that.
17 JUDGE HALL: We're not losing sight of the -- the question of
18 highlighting was merely a suggestion in terms of pointing you in the
19 right direction.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, but -- yes.
21 JUDGE HALL: As a way of assisting you.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, I fully understand, and I do appreciate that.
23 But it still does not relieve us of the problem that we need to read
24 the -- the documentation which will be disclosed to us. And that is my
25 concern, Your Honours.
1 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: We were hoping -- we're just now checking the
4 number of proposed 92 bis witnesses in the original motion by the
5 Prosecution. But we were hoping that it would be possible, in the course
6 of next week, to review the statements or the transcripts of those
7 witnesses who have been proposed as 92 bis witnesses, and only those, so
8 as to be able form an opinion as to whether you would accept the witness
9 coming under 92 bis, or whether you would want him for cross-examination.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I -- I under --
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm being reminded, Mr. Zecevic -- I'm being
13 reminded by Judge Delvoie that I have probably misunderstood our own
14 decision because I thought that we were seeking to have a joint response
15 by next Friday about the Prosecution's selection of the 44 witnesses, and
16 of those 44 witnesses, which of them they would propose as 92 bis and
17 which you would accept.
18 But I understand I have simply -- I got it wrong. And I
19 apologise for that.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: It appears that by Friday, next Friday, we will
22 have the indication from the Prosecution about which witnesses they --
23 which 44 witnesses they -- the Prosecution would wish to call. And also
24 an indication of which of them they propose as 92 bis. And from there on
25 you would then have a look at and we would expect your response by the
1 20th of August.
2 Wouldn't that be time enough for you?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: That is it precisely -- I wasn't mistaken. I was
4 talking about the 20th of August, that it's -- that it creates a problem
5 for us. I wasn't even -- in my wildest dreams I wasn't even thinking
6 about next Friday, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise for my misunderstanding.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: With all due respect.
9 JUDGE HALL: Anyway, we have heard counsel. And, if necessary,
10 we will return to this matter.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm informed by our Legal Officer that 23 out of
13 the 53 witnesses have been proposed so far by the Prosecution as 92 bis
15 MR. ZECEVIC: So it's 23 out of 44?
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Out of -- yeah, out of 53. I mean, out of the
17 total proposed, 23 of them were proposed as 92 bis witnesses. So you
18 only have to deal with 23 witnesses.
19 JUDGE HALL: A maximum of 23. And maybe less.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: And probably less.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, it -- it's probably me, but my -- my
22 approach to this matter was the following. Was -- that is how I
23 understood our role: Is that we analyse these 44 witnesses which the
24 Prosecutor will -- will, according to the decision of the Trial Chamber,
1 Now, we analyse that. We go and talk to -- to the Prosecutor,
2 deciding which of these would be 92 bis. If we say, for example,
3 Your Honours, We don't need this witness viva voce, then it can be -- it
4 can be more than 23 witnesses. And that -- that -- that is my point. It
5 can be more. It can be less. But, in order to achieve that goal and
6 shorten the proceedings in this matter, we would need -- we would need to
7 know to analyse this -- this material. And that is why we are asking
8 for -- for more time.
9 But, of course, we will accept the ruling of the Trial Chamber.
10 That's -- it goes without saying.
11 Thank you.
12 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: We will -- we will come back to you tomorrow
14 morning, because we need to discuss this in more detail.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: So by the hearing tomorrow morning, we will then
17 get back to this issue.
18 Ms. Korner.
19 MS. KORNER: Yes, can I just -- on two other matters which I
20 meant to say: Your Honour, the Trial Chamber's ruling on -- in
21 paragraph 21 says:
22 Accordingly, the Trial Chamber will order the Prosecution to
23 provide all outstanding disclosure under Rule 66 as of the date of this
25 Now, it could be read as meaning we should be doing it today, but
1 we're taking it as just -- should it ever come up in future, you mean
2 from today you expect us to do disclosure, or when we've slipped up,
4 And the second matter is this, Your Honours: There is still
5 outstanding and if at all possible we ought to resolve it before the
6 break, the -- the motion we filed just before this, asking to replace
7 witnesses, which was a separate motion. It had nothing to do with the
8 adjudicated facts.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: The five and eight --
11 MS. KORNER: Exactly.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- witnesses isn't processed and will be delivered
13 ver shortly.
14 MS. KORNER: Okay. Thank you.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Coming back to your reminder, Ms. Korner, on the
16 Ewa Tabeau question: The Chamber is ready to hand down an oral decision
17 on the matter, and then that will be followed up by a written decision,
18 eventually. But in order to speed up response from the Chamber, I will
19 now read out the order that we have agreed on.
20 And it reads as follows:
21 On 29 February 2008, the Prosecution filed a motion pursuant to
22 Rule 94 bis whereby it, inter alia, requested that Ewa Tabeau be
23 considered as a demographics expert and provided a report originally
24 prepared for the Krajisnik case.
25 On 17th August 2009, the Prosecution then filed a supplemental
1 motion, seeking, inter alia, to substitute the Krajisnik report by two
2 new reports. Namely, one, an updated version thereof, prepared for this
3 case; and, two, a report prepared for the Slobodan Milosevic case, which
4 sets out the methodology used and is referenced extensively in the
5 updated Krajisnik report.
6 On 10 March 2010, then, the Prosecution sought to supplement
7 Ewa Tabeau's evidence by a new report.
8 The Prosecution submits that its Demographic Unit undertook:
9 "A more general research exercise into war-related deaths in
10 Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 ... as part of the Completion Strategy and
11 the provision of a legacy of the Tribunal."
12 This exercise was completed in late October 2009.
13 On 12 November, 2009, the Prosecution asked Ewa Tabeau to prepare
14 yet a new report based on this general research exercise. The report was
15 finalised on 18 February 2010 and was then disclosed to Defence on
16 5th March 2010.
17 Both Defence teams object to the new report, arguing that the
18 Prosecution failed to give a viable explanation to justify why the report
19 was prepared in late 2009.
20 The Trial Chamber has considered the parties' arguments in the
21 relevant submissions and hold that Ewa Tabeau may be considered an expert
22 in demography. It further considers that the updated Krajisnik report
23 and the related report prepared for the Slobodan Milosevic case are
24 relevant to this case.
25 In respect of the last report provided on 10th March 2010, the
1 Trial Chamber holds that the Prosecution didn't act with due diligence in
2 requesting Ewa Tabeau in November 2010 to prepare the report. Moreover,
3 the reasons stated for requesting the new report - that is, the
4 Completion Strategy prompted by -- prompted the undertaking of a general
5 research exercise to provide a legacy of the Tribunal - do not amount to
6 good cause.
7 Nevertheless, the new report is relevant to the present case, and
8 it would be of assistance to the Trial Chamber. In view of this fact
9 that this 25-page report was disclosed on 5 March 2010, the Chamber is
10 satisfied that the Defence will not suffer undue prejudice. The Chamber
11 will, therefore, permit Ewa Tabeau to testify regarding these three
12 latest reports.
13 So, in conclusion, Ms. Ewa Tabeau can be called as an expert and
14 we will admit -- we will accept her three latest reports as expert
15 reports. And then we will, by the end of her testimony, take a position,
16 a final position, of which of the three reports or which parts of the
17 three reports will eventually be admitted into the evidence.
18 So that is the ruling.
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 So we take the adjournment until 9.00 tomorrow morning.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.08 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Friday, the 16th day
24 of July, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.