1 Wednesday, 18 August 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T,
7 the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin. Thank you,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Good afternoon to
10 everyone. May we have the appearances for today, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
12 Matthew Olmsted, and Crispian Smith case manager, for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
17 Igor Pantelic appealing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Korner.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I deal before we move to
20 cross-examination of the witness with some of the matters both arising
21 out of yesterday and the meeting that we had this morning. Your Honours
22 invited us, the Defence and the Prosecution, to meet to discuss the
23 question in particular of the 92 bis witnesses, and we had the meeting
24 this morning, and, Your Honours, effectively, can I say this: The two
25 sides are, in fact, at idem on this as aspect, to the extent. The
1 Defence are entitled under the Rule to have the Prosecution submit its
2 passages, that is to say such statements or transcripts as it relies on
3 and such documents. In which event -- and then to either indicate that
4 they agree them or do not agree them. And can I emphasise this: It is
5 still within the Chamber's discretion as to whether to have the witnesses
6 called for cross-examination.
7 So, Your Honours, in fact, yesterday's discussion really is moot.
8 We have to complete disclosure for all the witnesses because of the
9 six-week rule that Your Honours imposed -- or time gap, I should say,
10 between the -- yes. I don't think we're going to need the witness for
11 the next 15 minutes. Thank you. Because of the time gap between the
12 disclosure being completed and the witness being called. We are going to
13 complete disclosure. Then we are going to file the packages and then we
14 will see where we are.
15 Your Honours, can I say this, however: The Defence have made the
16 concession that for the -- the 92 -- the proposed 92 bis witnesses they
17 will not ask for the full six weeks but will content with a four weeks'
18 gap before the witnesses are called, if they are called.
19 Can I just urge Your Honours to -- if I can put it this way,
20 reconsider the decision that 92 ter is not to be used for this reason:
21 If the Defence require the witnesses to be called for cross-examination
22 and if Your Honours accede to that and on Your Honours' present ruling
23 the witness will be completely viva voce, then, for example, can I give
24 you one example for one witness for one adjudicated fact, and I'm giving
25 that example simply because I happened to be looking at the witness
1 yesterday for timing. The adjudicated fact is fact 193, and 193 deals
2 with the circumstances of life in Banja Luka. That was in whole rejected
3 under the head of "Unclear or misleading" in the context. The two
4 witnesses, Your Honours, selected for that, if called viva voce, will be
5 going through in each case not less than three hours' testimony, because
6 it covers just about everything they say. It's not just a small
7 adjudicated fact. Can I return to Manjaca, was it a detention camp. It
8 is a huge adjudicated fact which deals with conditions of life in
9 Banja Luka. That witness will then have to be called if the Defence said
10 we want to cross-examine and Your Honours acceded to it, be called viva
11 voce. It's not a simple fact. It would take no less than three hours to
12 cover everything. In addition, Your Honours, the witnesses will have the
13 added problem of dealing with events now some 19 -- not quite -- 18 years
14 ago. So, Your Honours, I simply flag that out but for the simple problem
15 or the simple answer to that is we will complete disclosure and then
16 we'll file the 92 bis packages in the normal way. But, Your Honours, I
17 would urge Your Honours to have a look at 92 bis (C).
18 Your Honours, that's the first matter. The second matter is
19 this: The law library, can I tell Your Honours, is effectively agreed.
20 We're just waiting for one more document but we'll file this week, we've
21 finally reached agreement on what goes into it.
22 Third matter is exhumations. Your Honours, we have not been able
23 to reach agree on this at all. In particular, the issue is whether we
24 should be allowed to put into evidence, however it's done, by database or
25 by a witness, evidence which relates to victims of the activities that
1 are covered by this indictment who are not named in the schedules, and
2 can I put it this way: Since the schedules were originally drafted as
3 Your Honours may not be aware, more and more evidence comes in, and
4 indeed the schedules specifically say this is not all of the victims in
5 the particular area.
6 We need to argue that before Your Honours before we really go any
7 further, because a number of the matters hinge on what we are allowed to
8 put into evidence. So, Your Honours, can we just for these purposes
9 indicate Your Honours need to set aside a period of time when we can have
10 full oral argument on this matter.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mrs. Korner. Could I just ask for
12 clarification, whether your intervention is to be understood so as to
13 mean that the -- that no agreement is or can be reached to hear any of
14 the 19 witnesses or to have the evidence of any of the 19 witness -- or
15 29 witnesses I think it is, 29 witnesses as under 92 bis.
16 MS. KORNER: No. No, Your Honours. What the Defence are saying,
17 as Mr. Zecevic said yesterday, is they will not given us an indication as
18 Your Honours invited us to do now. They will wait for us to file in the
19 normal way the packages for those 29 witnesses, and then they will
20 respond as to whether they accept it or they invite Your Honours, in
21 Your Honours' discretion, I underline and emphasise that, to have the
22 witness called.
23 Now, that's where the -- the timing problem, if you like, arises,
24 that Your Honours' present view is that no 92 ter, whereas 92 bis (C)
25 effectively says the witness will be called, the package will be go in
1 but the Defence will cross-examine. That's it. So there is no
2 examination-in-chief because what they said before goes in or such parts
3 that are obviously indicated as relevant. But Your Honours are saying we
4 have to call them viva voce. Now, that as I say, and I merely picked a
5 particular witness, to show that will undoubtedly, if Your Honours do
6 not -- if Your Honours accede to the Defence request to have the
7 witnesses called for -- called, then we are really stretching this case
8 out quite a long way if we have to call these witnesses viva voce, many
9 of them.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: As I understand the problem, Mrs. Korner, it is
11 the following: If we accept a 92 ter package --
12 MS. KORNER: Bis.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Bis. No if we accept a package that -- as you
14 want to do it under 92 ter --
15 MS. KORNER: Yes.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- then there would be no way for the Chamber to
17 disallow the Defence to put questions to every single bit of that total
18 package. So the idea of giving preference to viva voce was simply to
19 allow the Chamber to control more efficiently the scope of the testimony
20 of these witnesses.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, no, because what -- we've partly
22 discussed this yesterday. We are obliged to highlight the particular
23 part of the statement or transcript that goes to the 92 ter and also the
24 context. We said we've got to have some sort of context. So I say this,
25 I hope nobody's going to be sending e-mails saying you shouldn't be
1 saying this, what our proposal is that we will highlight the part that
2 relates to the adjudicated fact in one colour and then the part of the
3 statement or transcript which we say is vital. So the context of the
4 adjudicated fact in another.
5 Now, the cross-examination is a different matter. We've slightly
6 touched on this, Your Honours. How -- how you propose to limit
7 cross-examination is another matter. Your Honours can limit it, I
8 suppose, to this extent, that it can be factually limited to the
9 adjudicated fact, but of course where credibility is concerned, that's
10 another matter. The Defence have a right to cross-examine in relation to
11 credibility, but that's the same either way, Your Honours. I mean,
12 whether -- whether it's 92 ter or viva voce. That's why I'm slightly
13 concerned about Your Honours -- so, 21, Your Honours. I'm reminded.
14 Thank you for interrupting my train of thought, Mr. Olmsted. It's 21
15 witnesses, it's not 29.
16 Either way, whether they're call viva or whether they are 92 ter,
17 the cross-examination problem is the same, is it not?
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Not -- not entirely. Not unless -- not unless we
19 can force the Defence, and there is no way we can force the Defence under
20 the rules, to limit its cross-examination to the adjudicated fact. The
21 Defence is fully entitled to put questions to every bit and piece of the
22 documents that -- that are presented under the 92 ter package and there
23 is no way in the world that we can prevent the Defence from doing that.
24 MS. KORNER: But --
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: They're fully entitled to it and that's it.
1 MS. KORNER: But, Your Honour -- viva voce is the same. But
2 that's it, Your Honours. I mean, viva voce or whatever, it's the same,
3 because they'll have the statements and if they want to explore --
4 Your Honours, if we say the 92 ter package, the only part that is
5 admitted is the adjudicated fact plus that part of the context that we
6 say is so Your Honours can understand it, well, then the Defence -- if
7 Your Honours take that view and I'm not sure that's right, I think
8 Your Honours do have a certain part, a limit cross-examination to that
9 part which is admitted and matters that relate to credibility, but we're
10 slightly drifting off -- Your Honours, that may be another matter. As I
11 say, the instant matter is what's going to happen now and that's what is
12 going to happen now as I just explained. We'll file the packages and
13 then it's a matter for the Defence and Your Honours to decide whether
14 these witnesses can be 92 bis. And as I say, Your Honours will have to
15 consider even if the Defence do object whether that's right.
16 Your Honours, the -- I've dealt with the exhumation aspect.
17 Your Honour, just -- I'm just checking that -- if there was --
18 no, apart from that, but, Your Honours, can I quickly go back over
19 yesterday's 92 ter objection by Mr. O'Sullivan, because Your Honours have
20 said you haven't ruled yet entirely on it.
21 Your Honours, I'm sorry to see this was happening yet again
22 exactly virtually the same thing that happened in respect of Mr. Treanor
23 by --
24 JUDGE HALL: If I may interrupt you here, Ms. Korner. We
25 appreciate that yesterday's ruling on the -- I was going to say formal,
1 but that's not correct, on the application, and having regard to what
2 Mr. O'Sullivan said has created it's own set of problems, and as we
3 indicated when we came back into court following the first break
4 yesterday, it's a matter we have under active consideration. So I think
5 I appreciate everything you're about to say, and we are alive to those
7 MS. KORNER: Yes.
8 JUDGE HALL: And it's something with which we have to deal.
9 MS. KORNER: Right. Your Honours, I know that something was said
10 about this yesterday by Mr. Hannis about this, but -- but really, it is
11 not right for Mr. O'Sullivan at the end to stand up and object without
12 having made his objection clear in advance and he cannot say he wasn't
13 aware of this, because I said this in terms the last time he did it, that
14 he has an obligation to inform us and the Trial Chamber in advance when
15 there is an objection. His argument at the end that we should have
16 guessed that this was going to happen is simply --
17 JUDGE HALL: You need not argue this point, Ms. Korner.
18 MS. KORNER: All right. All right. Then, Your Honours, I'm --
19 because I was going to invite Your Honours to look at one of the
20 articles, in particular to show why no doubt Your Honours admitted it and
21 how important it is, but I'll deal with that if I'm allowed on later
23 Your Honours, finally though, however, can I ask we need a
24 decision on Witness ST-23, whether he's 92 ter or not. Can I go into
25 private -- could we go into private session for a moment.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We go into private session.
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 13356-13358 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry to interrupt the discussion
11 which I regret to say I can hear parts of, but can I just say I have been
12 sent an e-mail by Ms. Pidwell that there may be time next Friday, the
13 27th of August, to argue the exhumations matter because we may have
14 witness problems then.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 WITNESS: BILJANA SIMEUNOVIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE HALL: Good afternoon to you, madam. Before I invite
19 counsel to begin his cross-examination, I would remind you you're still
20 on your oath.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I begin, Your Honours?
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please, Mr. Cvijetic.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Simeunovic.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. I will try to proceed in the same manner that the Prosecutor used
3 during his examination-in-chief and follow the same order, and I will
4 just try to fill the blanks that, according to the Defence, appeared in
5 your evidence during examination-in-chief.
6 Could you just briefly confirm, please, that for a while you were
7 employed as a secretary in the government of the -- of Republika Srpska;
8 is that correct?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. So you were employed in the -- at the highest level of the state
11 administration or government, and could you now please just confirm for
12 us that the Ministry of the Interior, and in future we shall refer to it
13 as the police, was part of government or the state administration;
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The work and structure of this agency and the proceedings that
17 were carried out were subject to the legal -- to the laws on state
18 administration, the law on administration, the law on proceedings and
19 procedure, et cetera, and many other laws.
20 A. Yes. They were applicable both in the work of the Ministry of
21 the Interior and in the actions that they took.
22 Q. However, the Ministry of the Interior, or the police, was a
23 specific government body, because, among other matters, it was authorised
24 to deal with detection of crimes, identifying as perpetrators, detention
25 of those perpetrators, and their hand-over to the competent judicial
1 authorities for further legal processing; correct?
2 A. Yes. And I stressed this yesterday. At the time in question,
3 they were referred to as organs of the interior. Today we call them the
4 police. The work and the procedure applied within the organ of the
5 interior at the time was regulated or followed the administrative
6 procedure up until the moment when a criminal complaint was issued. The
7 criminal complaint was subject to the law on criminal procedure, and it
8 followed the rules thereof.
9 Q. Therefore, before they submit a criminal complaint or a criminal
10 report, the police was duty-bound, among other matters, to secure and
11 preserve material trace evidence of a crime, and it could attach to the
12 criminal report also a preliminary interview with the suspects and
13 witnesses, and all of this material would then be attached to the
14 criminal report as submitted to the Prosecutor; correct?
15 A. Yes. The preliminary interviews, both of suspects and witnesses,
16 followed -- they conducted according to the procedure that was regulated
17 within the police. However, the searches and investigations were
18 something that fell under the jurisdiction of the law on criminal
19 procedure and the rules thereof had to be followed.
20 Q. If a prosecutor who has received a criminal complaint and
21 accompanying documents concludes this, that there is no sufficient --
22 that there are not enough documents that would justify a criminal --
23 further criminal procedure, then they could return it to the police and
24 instruct the police that they should take certain actions and complete
25 the materials within those bounds.
1 A. Yes, that's correct. At that phase the prosecutor would issue
2 instructions to the police.
3 Q. Now, let us deal with this issue in -- in more detail. This
4 procedure, up until the prosecutor receives the complaint, was not
5 considered a criminal proceeding. In the law there was a term used which
6 was "preliminary procedures."
7 A. Yes, that's correct. That's the term that I used yesterday as
9 Q. In other words, all of the materials that were collected in
10 that -- at that stage were not considered evidence which was sufficient
11 to issue an indictment, nor could an indictment be based on those actions
12 that the police had taken so far and the information that was collected
13 so far by the police.
14 A. Not for all.
15 Q. I apologise. Could you please just -- there should be an
16 intervention in the transcript. It's not -- I did not say an indictment,
17 I said "judgement."
18 What would I like to explore with you is the preliminary
19 interview that we also mentioned yesterday. You will agree with me that
20 the Trial Chamber, which was to judge and lead the proceedings, were not
21 allowed to see those preliminary interviews, nor could they -- nor could
22 they found their decision on that basis; correct?
23 A. Yes. When the investigating judge conducts an investigation and
24 after it has done so, it is his responsibility to put the statements that
25 he has received together with a criminal complaint and seal them so that
1 the Trial Chamber will never be in a position to see them. The same
2 applies to the preliminary interviews conducted both by the police or the
3 investigating judge in case that the -- the witnesses, the privileged
4 witnesses, had decided to change their mind.
5 Q. Let's -- let us just clarify a term here, and I ask Mr. Zecevic
6 to intervene in case we need to intervene in the transcript. In our
7 language it is a similar term, but it is significant. There is a
8 significant difference, so I would like to ask you to clarify that.
9 Yesterday you mentioned the -- that the suspicion that a certain
10 individual has committed a criminal offence. Under our law, the
11 suspicion is graded, so there are different levels of suspicion; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The first and mildest degree of suspicion under the law was
14 referred to as "indications." Indications that a crime has been
16 A. At the time in question and under the law on criminal procedure,
17 that was a term that was applied, "indications," and on the basis of that
18 both the police and the prosecutor would take action. Once the
19 prosecutor has established that there is a higher degree of suspicion, in
20 other words, that there are grounds to suspect that a crime has been
21 committed, then he would take steps to conduct an investigation which
22 would then be assessed by the investigating judge, and if the
23 investigating judge established that there are grounds to suspect, then
24 they would issue a decision to conduct an investigation.
25 Q. You have answered three questions that I had in mind but didn't
1 put, so let me just wrap up. The criminal proceedings begin with actions
2 taken by the prosecutor, and then the proceedings can follow one of the
3 two ways. They could issue an indictment directly without an
4 investigation if the conclusion is there is sufficient grounds to
5 suspect, or they would submit a request to the investigating judge to
6 conduct an investigation, and the proceedings will begin at the moment
7 when the investigating judge issues a decision to conduct an
8 investigation; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. From that point on, the suspect is now an accused, and he will be
11 in --
12 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, I wonder to what extent it is
13 necessary to do this, because it seems to me that this is universal,
14 although the precise methods may change from system to system, that in
15 all criminal matters it begins with a complaint made to the police or
16 investigating authorities, and there's a process through which that
17 complaint is examined, investigated and what not, there is an indictment,
18 there's a trial, and if those who have the duty of proving the guilt of
19 the person satisfy the competent court, there's a conviction. And I
20 don't know that we need evidence to be led that there's a difference
21 between the beginning the process and the -- and the end, because it's
22 only at the end when a competent court convicts anyone that a crime has
23 been established. Do we need evidence of that?
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Prosecutor dealt
25 with this issue, procedure, and for us it is relevant to just clarify,
1 and that was where my next question was leading when I was interrupted.
2 My next question would have been that from that moment on, and the
3 witness may now answer my question, from that moment on, the criminal
4 proceedings would begin and the police are no longer an active
5 participant in the criminal proceeding. That's what I would like to hear
6 and clarify and the witness to confirm for us.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've explained so far how criminal
8 proceedings were initiated. Perhaps I should stress it again, I believe
9 I mentioned this yesterday, that the police, before a criminal complaint
10 is submitted, would be busy collecting evidence -- collecting
11 information, and that was their main task. The investigation itself was
12 conducted by the investigating judge.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Very well. Let us just then also shed some light on the role of
15 the Prosecutor, and you will agree with me that this is a specific state
16 organ which had the exclusive authority and practically that was his only
17 work, to prosecute perpetrators of criminal offences by conducting
18 criminal proceeding -- proceedings.
19 A. Yes, and he would do that by -- either by issuing directly an
20 indictment or by issuing a request for initiating criminal proceedings.
21 Q. He had a special discretionary right where no one could
22 interfere, and that was to decide whether -- whether they would prosecute
23 a perpetrator and to decide also on how the crime would be qualified or
24 described. Is that correct? That was something that the prosecutor
25 decided on exclusively; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And as an investigating judge, you, too, were involved in
3 describing the criminal offence; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Neither you nor the police could affect the decision of the
6 prosecutor on how a criminal offence will be described; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in closing, just a few words about the prosecutor, at any
9 stage of criminal proceedings the prosecutor may suspend proceedings
10 either during the proceedings themselves or -- and even at the late stage
11 immediately preceding the closing, the final resolution of the criminal
12 proceedings; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I will now abide by what the Judge has said. We shouldn't deal
15 with legal theory here, and I will just try to go over some of the
16 practical matters that were explored yesterday with the Prosecutor.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] For now, Your Honours, could we
18 have before us P322, Exhibit P322. Can we just have the English version
19 as well. Here we have it.
20 Q. I believe you were shown this criminal complaint yesterday. This
21 is a criminal report against a group referred to as Zuti Ose, Yellow
22 Wasps; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we move on to page 3
25 immediately in B/C/S. Here we have it. Can we just zoom in on the first
1 paragraph. Can we also have the English version, please.
2 I'm just waiting for the English version to come up.
3 Q. Please look at the portion where we have the description of a
4 criminal act as provided by the police. In other words, the police
5 believe that in the actions of this group there were elements that
6 pointed to the -- them having committed the criminal offence of
7 aggravated theft; correct?
8 A. Yes, that's correct. They say that they have committed a
9 criminal offence from Article 151, which covers serious cases of
10 aggravated theft, robbery, and armed robbery.
11 Q. The reason I broached this subject is this: I have before me the
12 Criminal Code. I will not refer to it, or I will not open it, but you
13 will trust me when I read out a portion of it. For that particular
14 criminal offence, the sentence that was prescribed was at least five
15 years of prison. At that time the maximum penalty was 15 years. So for
16 this criminal offence the prescribed sentence was 5 to 15 years. Do you
17 recall that?
18 A. Yes, I do recall it, and I know that this criminal offence
19 actually consisted a -- a description of the offence which was the
20 aggravated version of the offence.
21 Q. Yes, but --
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I just owe it to the Trial Chamber
23 to say that I've referred to the Criminal Code, which is on 65 ter list
25 Q. In other words, the police described these actions in such a way
1 that in -- in case that were the case, the sentence of -- or the
2 judgement of arrest would be absolutely necessary.
3 A. No. I have to say in this case it would not be mandatory, but it
4 would be easier to extend it if necessary based on the information
6 Q. Yes. You're correct. One of the elements of this description
7 of -- and prescription of the judgement was that it can -- that this can
8 actually be punishable by a sentence of up to ten years in prison;
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. However, the prosecutor did not accept this description of the
12 criminal offence.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 65 ter 2487,
15 Q. We see here a request to conduct an investigation sent to you by
16 the prosecutor. We have to move to page 2 to see the description of the
17 crime chosen by the prosecutor.
18 The penultimate paragraph we can see the description or the
19 qualification of that crime as aggravated theft, Article 148, para 3 of
20 the Criminal Code; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The prescribed sentence for such a crime was up to ten years in
23 prison; correct?
24 A. I'm speaking off the top of my head, but I think so.
25 Q. And detention was not mandatory, i.e., the situation had to be
1 viewed within the broader context, and you as the investigating judge
2 were -- were entitled to release the suspects from detention as soon as
3 such reasons ceased to exist, for them to be kept any longer.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you have explained that yesterday. You did so, because
6 according to the law, detention could only last up to one month, after
7 which it could only be prolonged up to two months if a higher instance
8 court decided so, and if the Supreme Court made a decision to that effect
9 then detention could be extended to up to six months.
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. The prosecutor abided by this type of qualification in the
12 indictment stage. It is an exhibit, P317, item 19. These people were
13 charged with aggravated theft rather than robbery, robbery being the more
14 serious crime. My question, hence, is whether you can recall that being
15 the actual indictment.
16 A. Yes. I was able to see that yesterday on the screen. However, I
17 had not seen that before. I could read that yesterday.
18 Q. Thank you. I believe we rounded off of this topic. My intention
19 was to illustrate that it was a discretionary right of the prosecutor to
20 provide descriptions or qualifications of the crime and that in that
21 regard he or she was completely independent and no one could influence
22 their work in that respect.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think, Mr. Cvijetic, you have mind your point,
24 and you have of covered this area, so there be no reason to venture any
25 further into this.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Simultaneously with this procedure concerning this type of crime
3 which fell under the category of general crime, one of the group members
4 was also charged with a war crime; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. However, those proceedings were handled by the military
7 judiciary, and you said that there were two criteria to decide upon the
8 jurisdiction of that court. One was the status of the perpetrator, i.e.,
9 if they were military personnel, and two, the type of crime, if it was
10 indeed a war crime; correct?
11 A. Yes. I tried to explain that yesterday. In the first criminal
12 report it was explained in a single paragraph when it said that the
13 accused was handed over to the military prosecutor's office and to the
14 military court in Bijeljina. As we could see, he was interviewed by a
15 military policeman during his detention in the military court about the
16 circumstances of such war crimes.
17 Q. I will show you 1D75, which is a Defence exhibit. I suppose you
18 have not had occasion to see this document before, but you can see now
19 that this is an information sheet of the Ministry of the Interior about
20 the particular activity carried out by the ministry.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to the last
22 page so that we could see the very last paragraph of the document.
23 Q. Please read out the last paragraph.
24 A. Do you mean that I should do it?
25 Q. Yes, but read it to yourself.
1 A. What I was able to read was that there was some information held
2 by the Serb armed forces military police, as well as some other
3 authorities of Republika Srpska, to the effect that this person,
4 Dusan Vuckovic, committed a number of crimes, including massacre over the
5 citizens of Muslim ethnicity who were also citizens of
7 I was aware of this at the time, and this is how the prosecutor
8 explained why this person was not included in his request to conduct an
9 investigation. By that time he had been handed over to the military
10 court because he was charged with the war crimes mentioned. Other than
11 that, I cannot explain whether he was later on released from detention or
12 perhaps sent to the court in Sabac -- Samac.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Sabac.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a fact though that there
15 were proceedings before the court in Sabac.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. I just wanted to corroborate what you said already, because it
18 says here that he was taken over by the military police. As for Sabac,
19 we have to inform the Judges that this town is not in Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 but in the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia proper;
22 A. Yes. This Dusan Vuckovic was also a citizen of Serbia, and I
23 presume that was the reason why the case was handed over to their
25 Q. You have already answered my next question. You said that you
1 even assisted the competent authorities of Sabac in order to conclude the
2 case. A judgement was finally issued, which is 65 ter number 294.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps it could be shown to the
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, where are we going with all of
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was about to
8 conclude this topic with the witness about the division of jurisdiction
9 between civilian and military prosecutions.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, this area was covered in extenso
11 yesterday by the Prosecution, and I really don't think that you have
12 added anything new during your cross-examination to this aspect.
13 May I remind the parties that the parties are not at liberty to
14 use as much time as they -- as they would like to but, rather, that they
15 are required to stay focused on the charges raised in the indictment at
16 all times and to stay focused on the issues that were raised during
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this topic was
19 covered in examination-in-chief. I don't think this is the right
20 document that we have on the screen, though, but perhaps it is no longer
21 necessary for it to be shown to the witness, because she had not seen it
23 I believe this concludes this topic, and I'm ready to move on to
24 the next.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps I can add something. I
1 was shown the judgement by the Prosecutor during proofing. I was shown
2 the judgement. I think it was by a court in Sabac, and I do remember
3 having contacted them in order to forward the material I had. I also
4 referred them to the military prosecutor's office and the military court
5 to try and obtain the relevant information there.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The document I actually wanted to
7 recall was 65 ter 1294, although I won't be showing it to the witness.
8 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, since you were investigating judge back in 1992,
9 you also attended on-site investigations, especially in cases of serious
10 crimes; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You will agree with me, therefore, that in 1992 in the territory
13 of Bijeljina municipality, to a large extent, there was an increase of
14 all types of crime and especially serious crime; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. There was an increase in the number of murders as well; correct?
17 A. Yes. The number of murders increase significantly. There were
18 exceptionally many murders in the area of Bijeljina.
19 Q. This Chamber is seized of a number of cases of murder which took
20 place within the inter-ethnic context, i.e., in which the perpetrator and
21 the victim were of different ethnicities. There were such murders in
22 Bijeljina as well; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Yesterday you discussed with the Prosecutor some of the cases
25 where the victims were Muslims. I wanted to conclude that topic by
1 putting a small number of documents to see -- to see what the outcome of
2 all those cases was.
3 I won't ask you for the exact percentage, but perhaps you can
4 tell us generally what was the ratio between the murders in which victims
5 were Serbs as opposed to the number of murders in which the victims were
6 non-Serbs? Could you share that with us?
7 A. I can't speak in percentages. It would be far too difficult, and
8 I have never specifically dealt with it.
9 At the time, there was a lot of weapons in Bijeljina. Many
10 murders took place, and I attended many an on-site investigation. Even
11 those I never attended I knew in those cases as well who the victims
12 were, because my colleagues would inform me.
13 In any case, there were more Serb victims than non-Serb victims.
14 Q. Were there such murders in which there were Serbian victims,
15 whereas the perpetrators were not Serbs? Can you recall that?
16 A. I don't know whether it was in 1992 or 1993, but there were such
18 Q. One of the first murders to take place in which the victim
19 [Realtime transcript read in error "cripple"] was a Muslim was the murder
20 of Salko Kukic of Bijeljina; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You attended the on-site investigation along side the prosecutor
23 and the civilian police; correct?
24 A. I did not attend the on-site investigation. It was done by my
25 colleague, Veselin Bozovic, however, I was familiar with the case.
1 Q. The Prosecutor showed you a log-book of the lower prosecutor's
2 office in Bijeljina where we see an entry of a criminal report submitted
3 against the perpetrators of that crime. However, you said that
4 immediately following that the case was referred to the military
5 judiciary for further processing; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have, unless it's
8 already time for the break, to have that criminal report on the screen.
9 JUDGE HALL: You have another six minutes, Mr. Cvijetic.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is 1D105.
11 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, you can see here that the public security station
12 in Bijeljina, or the centre of public security, identified the
13 perpetrators initially submitting this criminal report to the basic
14 prosecutor's office in Bijeljina. This is what we can gather from the
16 A. Yes. I know that. After the on-site investigation and after
17 evidence was collected, the police gathered all relevant information and
18 arrived at the conclusions that these were the persons involved in the
19 murder. They were quick to discover the perpetrators and to submit the
20 criminal report to the prosecutor's office.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We can move on to the next
22 document immediately. I think it is 65 ter 1286. 1286.
23 Q. We can see here that indeed the military prosecutor took over
24 this case and the proceedings therein by having submitted a request for
25 an investigation.
1 You will agree, since you were familiar with the case, that the
2 threshold was met for this case to be deferred to the military court
3 because these were military conscripts; correct?
4 A. Yes. These were military policemen, and it was known precisely
5 what unit they belonged to.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Cvijetic, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Microphone for counsel, please.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Apologies.
9 I seek to tender this document into evidence.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D00343, Your Honours.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just before the break --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, I have -- I seem to have a problem
14 with the previous document and what is said in the transcript about that.
15 You asked the witness:
16 "Were there such murders in which there were Serbian victims,
17 whereas the perpetrators were not Serbs. Can you recall that?"
18 The witness answers:
19 "Yes, there was one. I don't know, in 1992 or 1993."
20 And then you ask one of the first murders to take place in which
21 the -- and there is an odd word in the transcript. What did you mean,
22 the perpetrator or the victim was a Muslim? You asked the witness one of
23 the first murders was to take place in which the "cripple" was a Muslim,
24 was the murder of Salko Kukic, in Bijeljina; correct? So my question is
25 what should -- what did you mean, whether the perpetrators was a Muslim
1 or the victim was a Muslim?
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The victim was
3 a Muslim, and that was one of the first murders -- my colleague is
4 telling me that the transcript is wrong about that. The word should be
5 "victim." It seems to have been recorded improperly.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Then I agree. Thank you.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Zecevic is telling me what the
8 word in the transcript was, and now I understand your confusion.
9 Your Honour, I wanted to show the witness another document, but I
10 believe it's time for the break.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we take the break now. Twenty minutes.
12 [The witness stood down]
13 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honours?
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have on our
19 screens 65 ter document 2757.
20 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, I think you were shown this document yesterday by
21 the Prosecution, and I think it has been admitted as Exhibit P1541. I
22 just want to follow the chronology as to the outcome of this murder of
23 Salko Kukic.
24 We can see here that after this was deferred to the military
25 court, the prosecutor decided to discontinue prosecution, which resulted
1 in the abandonment of investigation by the investigating judge. Can you
2 see this document?
3 A. Yes, I saw it yesterday.
4 Q. So whatever we said in introduction with regard the discretionary
5 right of the prosecution is shown here. He exercised this right in order
6 to discontinue the investigation, although he had the perpetrators. He
7 had the qualification of the crime, because there was no doubt that this
8 was a pure criminal murder that was accompanied by robbery. You have
9 seen that.
10 A. Yes, I have, because I saw also the on-site investigation report
11 in which this was stated.
12 Q. However, this was not discussed yesterday, that is to say that in
13 view of the prosecutors abandoning the investigation, since we both
14 worked for the prosecution in the past, we would like to see what was the
15 reason for this decision.
16 You know that the crown witness and the only eyewitness of this
17 murder of Salko Kukic was his wife who was there at the flat when the
18 murder took place. Do you know about that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. However, after this case, and you should know that as well, she
21 left Republika Srpska, and I think that she's currently living in the
22 federation, or maybe abroad. Do you know anything about this?
23 A. No. I have no information about that, but I suppose that there
24 must have been a reason for the prosecutor to abandon the proceedings at
25 this particular stage despite the fact that the case was relatively
2 Q. If a prosecutor abandons the proceedings at this stage, the
3 investigation can always be resumed once there are conditions met, that
4 is to say when the crown witness or the eyewitness is available to the
5 prosecution organs; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Had the prosecutor persisted in issuing an indictment, he would
8 have run a risk of having the accused acquitted due to the lack of
9 evidence because he would miss the crucial piece of evidence, that is to
10 say the eyewitness to the crime. I am speaking theoretically only.
11 A. I told you yesterday that I don't know what the reasons belie
12 this decision.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, you are stating the obvious, and
14 there is no reason to go further here in this matter. You have added
15 nothing new to what was said yesterday, and you have been unable to
16 explain to the witness just -- to the Chamber, sorry, just what exactly
17 turns on the facts that the prosecutor is independent and has a
18 discretion to abandon investigations. So I suggest you move on to
19 something else immediately.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to wrap this up,
21 Your Honours.
22 Q. Do you know whether these proceedings were continued after the
23 war and if the perpetrators were convicted?
24 A. Yes, I know exactly that after a certain period of time and after
25 the military court stopped working and probably after evidence was
1 obtained, the proceedings were resumed and the perpetrators mentioned in
2 the criminal report submitted by the interior and based on the request
3 from the military court submitted to the military court investigating
4 judge I know that a final judgement was reached, and I know that all
5 these individuals were convicted and are currently either serving the
6 sentence or have already served it.
7 Q. Thank you. Let's now move to the next case. In your discussion
8 with the Prosecution, and we can see that from your statement as well,
9 you mentioned another extremely serious case in which a family numbering
10 several individuals was killed. That was a Muslim family who was killed
11 in 1992. This family was known in Bijeljina as foster family. Did you
12 discuss this case with the Prosecution?
13 A. I became interested in that particular case because that was
14 truly a very touching and moving event since that was a family of
15 reputable people, and I know that the police worked hard on trying to
16 identify the perpetrators, that they carried out various
17 information-gathering procedures, and I know that the proceedings were
18 instigated before the military court, because the perpetrators were
19 identified, the people who killed those three Muslims, but they also
20 killed another three people of Serbian ethnicity, and the perpetrators
21 were members of the military. I know that they were tried and that they
22 were tried by the military court in Bijeljina.
23 Q. I asked you about this because at the time when you discuss this
24 with the Prosecutor that was in 19 -- in 2006.
25 A. Yes, 2006.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In that respect, can we please
2 have Exhibit 1D034632. 1D034632. It's okay now. I don't think that's
3 the correct document. I'm going to repeat again. 1D034632.
4 Q. So on page 1 we can see that this is a decision on detention for
5 the perpetrator of these specific individuals. You recognise their
7 A. Yes. These are these individuals, and I attended both on-site
8 investigations, that is to say when the three Muslims were killed and
9 then when the three Serbs were killed. And I was assisted by the police
10 of the Bijeljina Public Security Station -- or, rather, public security
11 centre in this investigation.
12 Q. Let's just look at the next page so that we can see what happened
13 and what the prosecutor did.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have the next page.
15 That's right. I think that you have to move to the next page in English.
16 Q. As you can see, the military prosecutor took charge of this crime
17 and instituted an investigation; is that right?
18 A. Yes, and I think that number 1 a Serb victim, but there is
19 another portion that deals with the Muslim victims.
20 Q. Yes. For that purpose we shall have to see the next page in
21 B/C/S and probably the next page in English as well where we can see the
22 names of the family that we spoke about. You can see under item 2 are
23 the names of the family that we have just mentioned; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since
1 Mrs. Simeunovic attended an on-site investigation in this case as an
2 investigating judge, she's fully familiar with this. I seek to tender
3 this document into evidence.
4 JUDGE HALL: There doesn't appear to be any objection. Admitted
5 and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D00344. Thank you, Your Honours.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. I'm not going to test your memory, but can you recall that the
9 initial sentence was death penalty, but can you remember anything about
10 what the sentence was, in fact?
11 A. I think that they were sentenced to death, but since at the time
12 when this conviction was passed the Dayton Accords were already signed,
13 it became disputable whether death penalty could be effected or not.
14 Therefore, I don't know how this all ended and what sentence they served.
15 Probably 20 years as a substitute for death penalty.
16 Q. Very well. I can only confirm that what you said at the very end
17 is correct, because I have the same information.
18 Now let's move to the next case. When I asked you about your
19 on-site investigations, I actually wanted to mention the next case in
20 which you participated.
21 Do you know that at the beginning of the war, apart from the rise
22 of crime rate in Bijeljina there also appeared various paramilitary
23 formations, including those that were involved in illegal trafficking of
24 Muslims into the FRY and Serbia? Are you aware of those activities?
25 A. Well, I know that there were such cases, that people were leaving
1 Bijeljina one -- ones were leaving, the others were coming in, but who
2 did that, I don't know. It is a fact, though, that there were a variety
3 of armed groups, and I think that people thought it was safest to stay
5 Q. One of those groups executed, so to speak, a number of Muslims,
6 and you were also involved in this case. Do you recall that incident?
7 It happened on the Drina, and I believe that you conducted an on-site
8 investigation. Am I right?
9 A. Yes, I did. But I cannot tell you exactly what year that was,
10 whether it was 1992 or 1993, but it was impossible to forget such a
11 thing. A large number of Muslims were involved in this case who had been
12 taken away from their house in a brutal manner, took -- taken to the
13 River Drina and killed there. After this became known, the police tried
14 to detect the way in which these people went missing. They managed to
15 gather certain information, and they eventually arrested a number of
16 people. I don't know exactly how many, but I know that among the
17 perpetrators there were four or five or even maybe more individuals who
18 were Serbs, and I clearly remember that there was a Muslim woman among
19 the perpetrators as well.
20 After these people were taken away from their homes, they were
21 taken to the Drina where they were executed.
22 We went to the crime scene. The police called me to join them,
23 but we did not manage to find any clues or evidence. However, detention
24 was imposed because there was other evidence available. There was a
25 request for investigation pursuant to a criminal report that had been
1 submitted, and then on the Drina we tried to reconstruct the event. The
2 police even filmed this area and these proceedings, and that helped us to
3 find certain clues such as bullet casings and other pieces of evidence I
4 can't remember at the moment. But anyway, this helped in providing
5 evidence which ultimately led to the conviction of these perpetrators.
6 Q. Mrs. Simeunovic, some of those murders that took place in 1992
7 were brought to court either when the perpetrators were apprehended or
8 after evidence was collected at a later stage.
9 A. Yes. After an on-site investigation, evidence is collected, but
10 the identity of the perpetrators remained unknown, which prompted the
11 police to continue their work towards detecting the identity of the
13 As far as I know, it seldom happened that such murders remained
15 Q. Yesterday the Prosecutor showed you the criminal log-book of the
16 basic prosecutor's office in Bijeljina. Can you just confirm that the
17 court as well kept their log-book which showed the phases of criminal
18 proceedings of the cases that we are interested in; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. These log-books were also kept by the military prosecutor's
21 office and the military court; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. This kind of log-book was kept by the police as well. As an
24 investigating judge, you should know about that.
25 A. Of course. Each police document had its own number.
1 Q. All these organs, and you should know that as well, compiled
2 periodical reports on their work in which they presented statistical data
3 relating to the trends of crime, the successful detection and prosecution
4 of crimes; isn't that correct?
5 A. Yes. That's the usual procedure.
6 Q. You would agree with me, wouldn't you, that if we want to have a
7 true picture about the number of crime, the percentage of detected crimes
8 that ended in trials, and particularly the crimes that contained this
9 inter-ethnic element, can only be gained after we have gathered all these
10 elements that we spoke about; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, but to add on that, I would like to add that the court also
12 kept its special log for ongoing investigations, and there was a separate
13 log-book for trials. There was another log-book kept of specific
14 investigating measures such as on-site investigations. They were
15 recorded in a separate log-book.
16 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, in your work -- or, rather, in the work of the
17 Prosecutor's office and the police, did you ever notice different
18 approaches in detecting and prosecuting the perpetrators depending on
19 whether the victims were Muslims or the Serbs? Did you trace any
20 indication of discriminatory approach in their operation?
21 A. I am sure that there was no discrimination against any of the
22 victims. I am sure that the police and I, myself, worked diligently in
23 all cases and applied equal approach.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam, can I just follow up on this answer,
25 because you told the Court either earlier this day or maybe yesterday, I
1 can't remember, you also told the Court that there were more cases
2 involving Serbs as victims than there were cases in which the Muslims
3 were victims. So is your testimony that the -- this difference can be
4 explained only by the fact that more crimes were committed against Serbs
5 than crimes committed against Muslims?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed murders specifically,
7 and I think we discussed this for the entire war period. Now, I did not
8 make any calculations, nor did anyone show me any statistics, but as far
9 as I know and based on those on-site investigations that I attended, and
10 I attended many, there were far more victims among Serbs and perpetrators
11 among Serbs than the case was with Muslims.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: So maybe I misunderstood your answer earlier on,
13 because I thought you told us that there were more cases in which -- hold
14 on a minute. So your testimony is that the reason why that there were
15 more cases in which Serbs were victims was a reflection of the facts,
16 namely that more crimes were committed against Serbs. Is that what
17 you're telling us?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can explain it in the
19 following manner: The majority of the population in Bijeljina was Serb,
20 and that was the reason why there was a greater percentage, and we don't
21 know exactly what that percentage is, but I know from my work that the
22 number of Serb victims was greater than the number of murdered Muslims at
23 that time in that period between 1992 and 1995, because I attended most
24 of those on-site investigations, and the explanation for me of that is
25 that the majority of the population was Serb.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: And therefore your conclusion is that because --
2 or since the majority of the population was Serb, it was only natural
3 that the majority of crimes were also committed against Serbs.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, the last thing that is left to be clarified is to
7 look into the motives for some of these gravest criminal offences. Would
8 you agree with my conclusion that all of these murders were purely
9 criminal murders, the classic type of murder?
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, is that a proper question?
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I will rephrase my question
13 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, do you know what the predominant motive was in
14 the perpetration of these most serious crimes?
15 JUDGE HALL: Isn't that the same question?
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, I put a direct
17 question now. I did not put a leading question. I was asking the
18 witness whether she knew what was the motive behind these crimes.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, but her role as an investigating judge, she, as
20 a matter of common sense, may have deduced some motive. It's
21 speculative. It's her conclusion, this matter of any assistance to the
22 Tribunal. It's really neither here nor there. She's entitled to draw a
23 personal conclusion, but it's really irrelevant, isn't it? She is
24 entitled to draw conclusions. So are you. So is everybody else
25 observing the facts that with which we are concerned but those
1 conclusions are not evidence.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will rephrase yet
3 again my question.
4 Q. What -- can you tell us, all of these accused, what crimes were
5 they charged with?
6 A. For the crime of murder as described in Article 36 and perhaps
7 37. I can't tell you the exact paragraph.
8 Q. Thank you. I will now move on, Ms. Simeunovic, to one other
9 question. You had occasion to co-operate with the police in the course
10 of your work, so you should be familiar with the hierarchy within the
11 police, so let me ask you this: In 1992, how well were you acquainted
12 with the chain of command, as it were, the hierarchy within the police?
13 A. Well, I did not really go into this, nor did I pay much attention
14 to the police hierarchy. That was not something that was the focus of my
15 work. I -- for the most part I had contacts with inspectors and forensic
16 technicians. I never had occasion to attend any kind of meeting or
17 gathering with the chiefs of police or whatever their titles were, but I
18 do know that in 1992 there were frequent changes, personnel changes,
19 within the police. And at that time, in early 1992, when the whole thing
20 began, when the police was established I can't really tell you what it
21 was called, but it was in SAO Semberija and Majevica originally, and then
22 later on that name changed, but I can't tell you exactly what the name of
23 the police organ was.
24 Q. So in those early days it was established at the level of the
25 municipality and at the regional level, which is the SAO Semberija and
1 Majevica, or the Serbian autonomous districts; correct? Do you know
3 A. Well, up until those events from early 1992, Bijeljina was a
4 municipality and it had a police force at that level. The higher level
5 was, as far as I know from my work -- oh, both for -- this refers both to
6 the police and the judicial organs. The higher level was in Tuzla.
7 However, in 1992, Bijeljina's jurisdiction was extended to surrounding
8 places such as Lopari and similar, so that this was the area that I was
9 familiar with, and I know the people who were in charge of those areas
10 and who operated there. In other words, in Bijeljina, Ugljevik, in other
11 words, within the Bijeljina municipality and on its outskirts.
12 Q. Just briefly, did you know who the minister of the interior of
13 Republika Srpska was in 1992?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Very well. I would now like to show you an "Official Gazette,"
16 that's what it was called, of the Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please pull up 65 ter
18 2442, under tab -- the Prosecutor's tab 62. Very well. Could we please
19 pull up page 8 in the B/C/S version, and in English that would be
20 page 10.
21 Q. In the B/C/S version on this page, the last paragraph we see an
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we just zoom in on the bottom
24 part of the page where we see 230. That's in the right column,
25 right-hand column, the last paragraph.
1 Q. Here we just see who passed this decision, and now I would just
2 like to move on to the next page in the B/C/S version, because we don't
3 really see much on this page, that's page 9.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us now zoom in.
5 Let's look at the upper left-hand corner. Let's zoom in on that and see
6 the decision. Very well.
7 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, please take a look briefly at this decision in
8 the English version. We have the relevant first two articles. We
9 probably don't need the others.
10 A. I have read it.
11 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, we see here that this decision of the Presidency
12 envisages that women, too, will be conscripts in the conditions in which
13 the Serbian Republic found itself. Do you agree with me? Is that what
14 we can infer from this?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The reason I'm asking this is the following: Were you
17 assigned -- were you assigned any duties? Did you get any kind of
19 A. Yes, I did receive a decision or a written decision, I can't
20 recall exactly, on my wartime assignment, and I, Biljana Simeunovic; and
21 it said "Conscript - is hereby assigned to work duty as a judge," and
22 this came from the military office in Bijeljina.
23 Q. Very well. Thank you.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And now if we can look at page 15
25 of this same "Official Gazette" in the B/C/S version and 18 in the
1 English, please.
2 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, I suppose that you can recognise your first and
3 last name, so in this "Official Gazette," your appointment as judge was
4 actually punished; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I observed looking back, page by page, in this same "Official
7 Gazette" that some 19 or so people were assigned to various judicial
8 posts; correct?
9 A. Yes. I think that's the correct figure, together with the
11 Q. And I think that I came across some six names that were non-Serb.
12 So is that correct? Do you -- can you confirm that there were also
13 non-Serb colleagues who were elected or appointed at that time as judges?
14 A. Yes, I know, although I was absent at the time from the area, but
15 I do know, for instance, that Mr. Alija Zvizdic, specifically, I know of
16 his case, that he was elected at this time. And to this day, he is the
17 president of the lower court in Bijeljina. He was elected as judge at
18 the same time when I was. I know. I recall that clearly. There were
19 some others, but I can't really recall. We can see it if we look at this
20 "Official Gazette."
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please just see the
22 previous page in both versions, just to see a few sample names. In the
23 B/C/S also, please.
24 Q. Here you can see that there is a colleague of yours, a woman, a
25 Ms. Alma Salihbegovic also elected; correct?
1 A. Yes. Under number 263.
2 Q. If we go one page back again.
3 A. Well, under number 255 we can see Alija Zvizdic.
4 Q. And you can also see above that Alida Nad-Madzarac [phoen]
5 another name.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And now let's go back another page. Here you can see the names
8 of Vinko Vusadin and Muhamed Gluhonic as well as Ismail Salihbegovic.
9 A. Yes, and we were all elected at the same time.
10 Q. Could you please just tell us what nationality were these people?
11 A. I think that Vinka Vusadin was Croat. Ismail Salihbegovic has
12 got to be Muslim. Muhamed Gluhonic is Muslim. I mean now we would use
13 the term Bosniaks, but at that time we used the word Muslim.
14 Q. Very well. Mrs. Simeunovic, thank you very much. I have
15 completed my cross-examination, and I have no further questions for you.
16 Thank you for testifying before this court.
17 JUDGE HALL: You may proceed, Mr. Pantelic.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Simeunovic. I do not have
20 many questions for you, because this municipality was not mentioned in
21 the indictment against my client, Mr. Zupljanin, so I will be brief.
22 In answering the questions from the Prosecutor regarding the
23 competences of the military prosecutor and military courts, you told us
24 what you knew about that situation. In order to assist this
25 Trial Chamber, could you please describe what the context was at the time
1 that is the subject of this indictment, 1992, which was a time of war?
2 So you mentioned already that the court was in the process of being
3 established on all the other government agencies, so the entire situation
4 was confusing and rather grim in view of the fact that it was wartime;
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In the course of your regular duties, I suppose that you
8 encountered a number of difficulties such as some very basic work
9 conditions. For instance, office supplies, technical aspects and so on.
10 Very frequently, for instance, there were power blackouts. So could you
11 describe the conditions in which you worked in 1992, briefly.
12 A. I can tell you that we worked in very difficult conditions.
13 There were periods with power cuts lasting up to one or two months in
14 continuum. And when there was electricity, it came on every three or
15 four days for some eight hours a day. Therefore, I wouldn't even be able
16 to tell you any longer whether we had a telefax or photocopiers at our
17 disposal. Even if we did, we had no electricity to use them. And I'm
18 certain that in the court building where I worked there was no heating.
19 The on-site investigations we also conducted had to be done under
20 difficult circumstances. Frequently we did not even have torch lights if
21 this happened at night-time, and then we used car lights, and there were
22 very few cars at the time. Sometimes six or seven or eight of us would
23 attend a scene of crime in a single vehicle.
24 Q. Your last sentence was not entered into the transcript. I think
25 you said you and your colleagues, given the shortage of vehicles when
1 attending scenes of crimes, often went together and some of you even had
2 to sit back in the trunk; is that correct?
3 A. Yes. And I also omitted to say that even the phone lines were
4 down. It was very difficult to get in touch with an investigating judge.
5 The police frequently had to come and fetch me from my village, and they
6 would find me working in my garden.
7 Q. In such wartime circumstances, as is generally known here,
8 practically all police forces were mobilised and resubordinated to
9 military units, because in particular in the region of Bijeljina, there
10 were many combat operations which took place; is that correct?
11 A. Well, I wouldn't know that. I really would not.
12 Q. So we have this specific situation as you have said in one of the
13 answers to Mr. Olmsted's questions yesterday concerning the competencies
14 of the military judiciary: When there was a crime against civilians in a
15 combat area, then in terms of jurisdiction an on-site investigation
16 should be carried out by a member of the military judiciary, that is to
17 say a military prosecutor or a military investigative judge and the
18 military police; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Any person, irrespective of their position, if they have
21 information about a crime, is obliged to report the crime to the
22 competent authorities; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Hence in a situation in which, let's say -- well, I'm not saying
25 this is true, but if you have such information, do share it with us. If
1 someone reports that specifically non-Serbs were killed in a village, and
2 if at that moment if there was a police patrol or police organs nearby,
3 they would carry out initial measures; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. This is also foreseen by the law on criminal procedure in
5 cases where the competent court was not the lower court but a higher
6 court, or if there was no territorial jurisdiction, then such a court
7 would be tasked with carrying out initial activities and then to refer it
8 to the competent court. If there were urgent investigative measures to
9 be undertaken irrespective of subject matter and territorial
10 jurisdiction, they simply had to be done.
11 Q. There is also missing from the transcript. You mentioned
12 securing evidence and securing the scene of crime in order to preserve as
13 much evidence as possible; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And then, of course, any further procedures transferred to the
16 military investigative authorities which would then carry out their own
17 on-site investigation and so on.
18 A. If we are still following the line you began with your initial
19 question in cases where there were crimes against civilians, and in case
20 these were war crimes, then the answer would be yes.
21 Q. I was trying to draw a clear distinction, and perhaps you can
22 tell the Chamber something that is based on your own experience, there
23 were a great many murders in Bijeljina in the town itself, in the urban
24 part where there had not been combat, and of course in such circumstances
25 the competent authorities were the civilian authorities and judiciary,
1 and in that case they were in charge of the whole procedure; is that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. We don't have your answer recorded. Could you please repeat it.
5 Yes. It's in there now.
6 The greatest problem is in understanding the competencies of the
7 police in such a situation. Say -- you are now a prosecutor with the
8 federal prosecutor's office. In 1991 [as interpreted], amidst a war
9 chaos, it was very difficult to get by witness statements and solid
10 evidence in terms of potential war crimes; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it was, as it is now.
12 Q. Since during your career, for which I pay tribute to you because
13 you were an attorney, an investigative judge, a judge, and in some other
14 bodies, I won't praise you for being -- I wouldn't have praised you for
15 being a prosecutor because I don't seem to like them too much, but then
16 that's my character, but in the police we have something called
17 "rukovodjenje," which can loosely be interpreted as "management," whereas
18 in the military we have command and control; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Just a correction to transcript. It's at page 49,
21 line 17, instead of 1991, I mentioned 1992. Thank you.
22 Q. [Interpretation] You, as the investigative judge, must have been
23 able to consult with your colleagues, or perhaps you attended some
24 symposia and exchanged experiences, I presume. We have heard evidence
25 here about the difficult situation within which the members of the
1 judiciary had to work in, in Republika Srpska, especially those who were
2 in charge of prosecuting grave crimes and war crimes in which members of
3 paramilitary units and other armed people such as reservists issued
4 threats and exercised great pressure upon those people who courageously
5 tried to go about their work.
6 In Bijeljina, if you have such information, were there such
7 situations where there was pressure put on the judiciary by reservists or
8 some other people?
9 A. There have always been pressures, at that time as well. This did
10 not include only murders. There were robberies, and there was pressure
11 put on us, but we took things seriously as we took the difficult times we
12 were going through. We did our work responsibly, I believe, and this
13 includes both the judiciary and the police, at least to my knowledge, in
15 Q. I have no further questions of you, and I thank you for your
16 testimony, Ms. Simeunovic.
17 A. I think I failed to answer your question when you were saying
18 something and I had no time to answer. It had to do with administration
19 and the system of management within the administration system.
20 In state administrations, there is indeed the system of
21 management, including the police. Orders are not issued. In the system
22 of administration, those who disagree with the opinion held by their
23 superior is free not to follow it up, and they are free to submit a note
24 with the explanation of their position, whereas in the army one must
25 obey. And I also believe in the police the system is that of management,
1 whereas in the army we have the system of command and subordination.
2 Q. Thank you for your broad answer. [In English] Just a short remark
3 to the particular word in English. Page 51, line 5. I think the more
4 appropriate English word should be "directing" or "direction" in terms of
5 this line in administration. Not management, because management is more
6 close to -- to some commercial action. Just a short remark, nothing
7 more. Thank you.
8 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted --
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on. What exactly did you intend to correct,
10 Mr. Pantelic?
11 MR. PANTELIC: Word, Your Honour. This is page 51, line 5. In
12 English it was translated like the system of management, but in state
13 administration it's, rather, a --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please, can we have the witness repeat her answer
15 and then get the translation from the interpreters.
16 Madam, do you remember your answer to Pantelic's question
17 relating to the administration of the police? What did you say exactly?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, would I need to hear
19 the question again.
20 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. I understand you fully. In Serbian, your answer was quite
22 appropriate. You made the distinction between management and command.
23 However, our friends the interpreters, and we need to be precise, said
24 something else. I think it was cleared up in the Popovic case.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, I suggest we stop here and ask the
1 interpreters for a verification of what was said. Thanks.
2 Mr. Olmsted.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
5 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, with regard to your last statement I just want to
6 confirm, you never worked within the Ministry of the Interior; is that
8 A. I never worked for the Ministry of the Interior, but I did work
9 in the state administration. I was the government secretary, and we had
10 to follow the law on administrative procedure and administrative service.
11 We followed the same legislation in -- and the Ministry of the Interior
12 had their own separate law as well. However, they also had to operate
13 under the law on administrative procedure.
14 Q. Thank you for that answer. Please try to keep your answers a bit
15 shorter, though, because we want to get out of here on time and so you
16 can go home.
17 When did you work -- when did you hold this position as
19 A. Well, I wasn't a secretary in terms of an office secretary. A
20 government secretary is actually the head of a service.
21 Q. We understand what you meant. When were you government
22 secretary? Can you just give us the years?
23 A. Between 2001 and late 2003.
24 Q. You answered some questions from Mr. Pantelic about
25 communications. In 1992, you did have access to the telephones. The
1 telephones did work. Isn't that the case?
2 A. They did not function completely.
3 Q. When you say "completely," does that mean it was intermittent,
4 that there were times when they worked and times that they didn't? Is
5 that what you're telling us?
6 A. It happened that the telephone lines were down.
7 Q. Yes, but my question is: Were they down all the time or did they
8 function from time to time? I mean, we just want to have an
9 understanding of the communications. Were you able at certain periods to
10 communicate with, for instance, Pale?
11 A. I think there was ever -- there was never any need for me to
12 communicate with Pale. I never called them so I can't tell you much
13 about that. What I can tell you is that the local telephone lines
14 occasionally didn't work. I truly cannot tell you what the case was with
16 Q. Thank you. Just to clarify something about your appointment as a
17 judge of the Basic Court in Bijeljina. Were you appointed by the
18 military to that position or was it through the Ministry of Justice that
19 you were appointed as Basic Court judge?
20 A. I think I covered that at the outset. In the period between
21 April and May, and probably in June as well, I was out of work
22 occasionally. This was due to an injury my daughter had sustained, and
23 she was in the hospital.
24 As for my appointment, as was the case with my colleagues, was
25 put forth by -- my nomination, actually, was put forth by the
1 municipality of Bijeljina. Later on, we all received decisions signed by
2 Radovan Karadzic, which were published in the "Official Gazette."
3 Q. Thank you. Can we have P120 on the screen, please.
4 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps before you move on, Mr. Olmsted, we should
5 take the break.
6 [The witness stood down]
7 --- Recess taken at 5.21 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 5.46 p.m.
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, I assume that having regard to the fact
10 that your witness for tomorrow is locked into tomorrow, that you intend
11 to -- you fully expect to finish this witness today.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Absolutely, Your Honour.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 MR. OLMSTED: Can we have P120 on the screen, and if we can turn
15 to page 121 of the B/C/S and page 43 of the English.
16 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, you answered some questions during
17 cross-examination regarding the role of the police once an investigative
18 judge has instituted an investigation in a matter. What you have before
19 you is Article 151 of the criminal procedure code that was in effect at
20 the time.
21 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn the page on the B/C/S. We can
22 leave it where it is on the English. Just advance one page on the B/C/S.
23 Q. All right. I want you to look at item number 6, which states
24 that law enforcement should draw up criminal charge and provide all
25 evidence of crimes presumably to the prosecutor. I want to focus though
1 on what follows. It says:
2 "If law enforcement agencies learn of new facts, evidence, or
3 traces of the criminal act after submitting the criminal charge, they
4 have a duty to gather the necessary information and submit a report to
5 that effect as a supplement to the criminal charge to the public
7 Was that, in fact, the rule that applied in 1992?
8 A. I believe that we are speaking here about the Law on Criminal
9 Procedure that was in force at the time.
10 Q. So these duties that we just talked about, they applied
11 regardless of what stage a particular case was in the criminal justice
12 system. Isn't that correct? This is an ongoing duty of the police.
13 A. Yes, and it says clearly here that it is their duty to gather the
14 necessary information and to submit a report to the public prosecutor as
15 supplement to the criminal report. So what they are talking here about
16 is information.
17 Q. Yes. Now, once an investigative judge, such as yourself, issued
18 a decision to conduct a investigation, were there instances where you as
19 an investigative judge needed the services of the police to perform
20 something during the investigation?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. For instance, who would execute your search warrants?
23 A. The police -- or, rather, the organs of the interior.
24 Q. And we could just refer to them as the police. And who executed
25 any arrest warrants that you would issue?
1 A. I did not issue arrest warrants. An order to that effect had to
2 be issued by a trial chamber, but such orders were carried out by the
4 Q. And who conduct forensic work such as ballistics or fingerprints?
5 A. It could have been done by the police as well, either
6 independently or on orders by the investigating judge or the prosecutor.
7 They would do it independently prior to submitting a criminal report.
8 Q. What about exhumations? Did the police provide any kind of
9 services for exhumations?
10 A. The police could not conduct these activities in absence of a
11 judge. They could only carry out an exhumation on orders issued by the
13 Q. But just to clarify, it was the police crime technicians who
14 actually conducted the exhumation; is that correct?
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, Your Honours. I
16 would kindly ask my colleague Mr. Olmsted to clarify with the witness the
17 issue of exhumation and post-mortem, because the witness's answer was not
18 recorded in the transcript properly. Could she be asked to repeat the
19 answer, please.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Yes.
21 Q. Could you just repeat your last answer. With regard to
22 exhumations, what role did the police obviously under the instructions of
23 the investigative judge perform exhumations?
24 A. They conducted such actions that were technical in their nature.
25 They secured the evidence. They organised all the forensic and technical
1 procedures in that sense but following an order by the judge, and they
2 could never carry out that independently.
3 Q. If they attempted to do something independently, would that be
4 against the law?
5 A. Yes, it would.
6 Q. You also answered some questions today regarding the role of the
7 Prosecutor in charging the accused, and I want to ask you a few questions
8 in the context of the case you worked on in 1992 against the members of
9 the Yellow Wasps.
10 We talked about, during your direct examination, how you received
11 the police crime report in that case, as well as a number of annexes that
12 came along with that report. Did any of the information that the police
13 provided to you mention any crimes committed by the Yellow Wasps against
15 A. If we are talking about this specific criminal report that we've
16 seen today as well as yesterday, it was submitted along with a request
17 for investigation by the prosecutor. In other words, the criminal report
18 could not submit -- could not be submitted by the police to the judge
20 This criminal report with all the addendum was submitted with
21 this request. There is a paragraph in the criminal report which states
22 that Vuckovic, Dusan was in detention in the military court. Maybe I
23 will be wrong in my interpretation because I cannot exactly remember how
24 it was worded, but that implied that he was either a member of the
25 military or that he committed war crimes. And also stated in the
1 criminal report was that there were two other individuals at large, and
2 later these individuals were not mentioned in the request for
3 investigation submitted by the prosecutor.
4 Q. But other than that, other than that which you just told us, was
5 there anything else in the information provided by the police that made
6 any mention of crimes against non-Serbs?
7 A. I'm telling you I did not receive these documents from the police
8 but, rather, from the prosecutor's office, along with the request for an
9 investigation. Whether there was any other material submitted to the
10 prosecutor, I cannot tell you anything about that, but the fact is that
11 the police did not file this report to me directly, but they did it to
12 the prosecutor's office together with the annexes, and in their segment
13 there was no mention of war crimes apart from what I already told you,
14 that Dusan Vuckovic was in remand prison in the military court.
15 Q. When did you first learn that a member of the Yellow Wasps,
16 either Dusko Vuckovic or any other ones, committed a crime against
17 non-Serbs? When did you first learn that?
18 A. I cannot tell you the exact date, but after receiving a call from
19 a court in Sabac in Serbia, I was notified of the fact that they were
20 conducting proceedings concerning war crimes, but that was at the time
21 while the war was still going on.
22 Q. Is it possible that occur in 1993?
23 A. I told you I cannot tell you exactly, but it is possible that it
24 happened in 1993.
25 Q. At any rate, it was after the courts in Serbia had already opened
1 up an investigation into Dusko Vuckovic?
2 A. Yes, because I was called by someone from this court, which meant
3 that they had the case file in their hands.
4 Q. Now, with regard to the Article 151, item (1) charge that was
5 included in the criminal report filed by the police against
6 Vojin Vuckovic and the others, had the police provided the prosecutor,
7 and through the prosecutor to you, any information that the crime
8 involved body injury that would have justified or warranted a higher
9 charge in that case?
10 A. I don't think that this was Article 151. It may have been. It
11 involves robbery and theft. I don't have this particular article in
12 front of me, but this article reads that if a crime is committed - and
13 I'm just rephrasing - with particular use of force by an organised group,
14 and if we are talking about a group it involves robbery, and if items are
15 seized from people that was not an ordinary theft, and if it involves the
16 use of firearms that amounts to robbery, as I said. So what derived from
17 this report was that they set up a check-point, that these reported
18 persons were armed and that they used these arms to seize vehicles,
19 documents, and other valuables.
20 Q. Do you disagree that the prosecutor charged them only with
21 aggravated theft, in other words, Article 148?
22 A. The prosecutor's office filed a request for investigation, so we
23 didn't come to the phase of indictment yet. It cited Article 148, theft.
24 I wouldn't agree that that was an ordinary theft, not even an aggravated
25 fact, but I believe that the police was right in their qualification of
1 the crime.
2 Q. Well, I'll move on.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 28 -- I'm sorry, 65 ter
4 2687, and if we can turn to page 8 of the B/C/S and page 3 of the
6 Q. You testified today that you believe there were more Serb victims
7 than non-Serb victims in Bijeljina. And just to clarify, that was based
8 upon your own on-site investigations that you conducted?
9 A. I'm testifying the whole time only about what I know and about
10 the knowledge that I have.
11 Q. You had a chance to review this file during proofing. It
12 involves --
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one moment,
14 please. Your Honours, we are talking about a crime that is not covered
15 by the indictment. We already had an attempt by the Prosecution to
16 tackle this issue, and this also did not derive from my
17 cross-examination. I never addressed this case, and the Prosecutor is
18 again raising this issue despite the fact that you denied the request by
19 the Prosecution to include it in the indictment. We already had the
20 similar situation with another witness, and we agreed that this case
21 should not be included, and that is exactly why I avoided to mention it
22 at all.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, they opened the door when they're
24 asking questions about the number of crimes committed against Serb
25 victims versus number of crimes against Muslim victims. I have a case
1 here that involves a significant number of Muslim victims.
2 Counsel's incorrect in his assertion -- well, he's correct that
3 it's not part of the indictment, but he's incorrect that the
4 Trial Chamber said we couldn't lead any evidence on it. In fact, the
5 Trial Chamber held in its decision that this did not exclude the
6 possibility that this evidence could be used for other purposes, and here
7 is exactly another purpose. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it,
8 but I think it's important. And I think it's very important that -- that
9 the Trial Chamber is aware of what was going on in 1992, and this is just
10 another instance of -- of addressing the issue of the number of victims
11 that has been raised on cross-examination.
12 I also mentioned that there were some adjudicated facts that were
13 denied with regard to this, on the basis that they were -- involved
14 police, I believe, was the reason. They went to the core elements of
15 this case, I think is probably a more accurate description, and
16 therefore, we have to lead evidence on this because they were denied
18 JUDGE HALL: But inasmuch as this is, as I understand it,
19 ancillary to the matters charged in the indictment, please be brief and
20 to the point, because you, I suppose, as it were, are citing another
21 example and it is only for that purpose, by way of analogy.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. I think we are on the same wavelength,
23 Your Honour. It's similar fact evidence but it's not a specific crime in
24 our indictment, yes.
25 JUDGE HALL: Which I confess I didn't fully understand when I was
1 a student and 40 years later hasn't helped, but go on.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, you had a chance to review this entire case file
4 during proofing, and it is with regard to the murders of a number of
5 members -- in fact, 22 members of three Muslim families, the Serugalic
6 [phoen] family, the Sjemenovic family, and the Malagic family in
7 Bijeljina in September of 1992. Have you ever heard of this case?
8 A. Let me put it this way: I have seen this report and all this
9 document in your office the other day. As for this incident, at the time
10 I hadn't heard anything of and I didn't know anything about it. My first
11 knowledge was acquired from the media, and later on I learned about it
12 from the documents that you showed me. Therefore, I'm reluctant to
13 comment on it.
14 Q. Back in 1992, do you recall hearing -- hearing anything over the
15 radio or other media about the disappearance of any of these families?
16 A. No, I didn't hear anything about it on the radio or in other
17 media. As I said earlier, we had no electricity. We couldn't listen to
18 the radio. We couldn't watch TV all the time. Therefore, I did not have
19 an opportunity to hear about that.
20 Q. I think I probably know the answer to my next question but I'll
21 ask it anyway. Are you aware whether any on-site investigation was
22 conducted in 1992 with regard to these 22 murders?
23 A. Given that we are talking about 22 people in 1992 no on-site
24 investigation was definitely carried out, otherwise I would have
25 remembered an investigation into the deaths of such a large number of
2 Q. So is it safe to say that this incident did not factor in your
3 statistics that you gave during cross-examination?
4 A. No.
5 MR. OLMSTED: May this be marked for identification.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour --
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know on the
9 basis of what we are going to mark something that is not included in the
10 indictment, and the witness didn't provide even the initial threshold
11 that we need for marking a document for identification.
12 MR. OLMSTED: We'll be using it with other witnesses, and
13 therefore since this witness was shown it, I think it's beneficial to
14 have it, at least, marked for identification so we can tie in the
15 testimony of this witness as well as any future witnesses.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I believe that despite this
17 additional explanation by Mr. Olmsted, I don't see any reason for this to
18 be marked for identification, so no new arguments have been offered.
19 MS. KORNER: Can I just -- I don't want to take any -- and be
20 very quick about this. I want it clearly answered by the Defence. There
21 are elements of the evidence in this case which relate to incidents not
22 specified in our indictment but which are being produced to show the
23 widespread and systematic nature of matters and are similar fact
24 evidence, and rather like His Honour Judge Hall, I struggled somewhat
25 when I did my bar finals, but I do think I now have enough grasp of it to
1 know that it's relevant and admissible. So it's not a proper objection
2 to say simply because it's not in our indictment. And as Mr. Olmsted
3 said this file is going to be dealt with by other witnesses.
4 JUDGE HALL: And I noticed the application was only to have it
5 marked for identification, and so I would have thought that in terms of
6 the application itself would have been sufficiently clear as to why it
7 was being done in this manner.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Did we get a P number for it? I'm not sure we did.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document is marked as P01543
10 marked for identification.
11 MR. OLMSTED:
12 Q. During cross-examination, you answered a number of questions
13 regarding the murder case where the victims were of the Cehajic family.
14 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have on the screen 65 ter 10471.
15 Q. And I believe your testimony was that there were two families
16 that were murdered. One was a Muslim family and the other one was a Serb
17 family. And we looked at some documents that reported both murders.
18 Now, what we have in front us is the judgement in the
19 Dragan Matovic and Zoran Tomic case. So the case that we are now talking
20 about. It's dated 30 December 1993.
21 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 2. And I apologise
22 there is no English version of this yet so we'll just mark it for
23 identification and get a translation later.
24 Q. But if you can look at the -- what's under -- written under
25 section --
1 MR. OLMSTED: If we can scroll down a little bit. Oh we're still
2 on page 1. Turn to page 2. That's -- I think it we see it now.
3 Q. If you look under item II and there's a heading. Can you read us
4 that heading under number II, the capitalised heading.
5 A. Well, I see this judgement for the first time today.
6 Q. I understand that. I'm only asking you to look under item number
7 II, Roman numeral II. You see that there's a sentence and then there's a
8 capitalised heading. Can you confirm that this heading states that the
9 accusation is rejected?
10 A. Do I have to read it out loud?
11 Q. Yes, please.
12 A. "Pursuant to Article 349, item 3 of the Law on Criminal Procedure
13 of the former SFRY, the accused Tomic, Zoran involved, hereby charges are
14 dismissed on the basis of that on the 30th of November, 1992, in
15 Bijeljina, on Gavrila Principa Street number 1, he entered flat number 1
16 owned by Mehmed Cehajic in order to intimidate them --"
17 I would kindly ask the Prosecutor and the Trial Chamber because I
18 cannot remember who was it who passed this judgement. I only saw that
19 there were two indictees. I can see in the previous paragraph
20 Roman numeral I we did not go over. Under II it says charges are
21 dismissed against accused Zoran Tomic. I don't know what happened with
22 the other indictee. Therefore, I'm not competent to either read this out
23 loud or to provide any comments on the document that I had never seen
25 Q. That's fine. This -- what you just read out it's just because we
1 don't have an English version of it, so I wanted to put that into the
2 record, but this section essentially drops the charges or rejects the
3 charges in the murder of the Cehajic family; isn't that correct?
4 A. Yes, but it only relates to the accused Tomic, Zoran, where it --
5 they are dropped. I don't know if that refers to the other accused as
7 Q. Do you know --
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a moment,
9 please. We have come to the point where you warned me earlier and asked
10 me why I was dealing with this. Now, the Prosecutor here actually
11 suspended further prosecution of one of the accused, and of course I
12 don't -- I can't go into details why and so on, but in the explanation of
13 this --
14 MR. OLMSTED: [Overlapping speakers]
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And if you read and go through the
16 decisions and conclusions as to why a prosecutor has suspended or in the
17 events where a prosecutor has suspended further prosecution, then this is
18 usually the format in which the Court would decide to drop all charges,
19 and this also relates only to one of the accused.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, Mr. Cvijetic has a tendency to do
21 this, and he gives evidence and argument when it's not appropriate. I'm
22 simply laying some foundation for this document, and that's it. It
23 relates to a criminal file that he, himself, sought to admit into
24 evidence. This document is not part of the file that he admitted into
25 evidence. And therefore, for completeness, so we have a complete file, I
1 am going over this document very briefly and then I'll move to admit it
2 or move to mark it for identification pending translation so that the
3 Trial Chamber has a complete picture of what happened in this case.
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, please assist me. When Mr. Cvijetic
5 was conducting his cross-examination, I was inclined, but I didn't, to
6 interrupt him to inquire why he was asking certain questions given the
7 universality of the principle that prosecutors always have a discretion
8 in terms of prosecution. Not every crime is always prosecuted. And it
9 is also a fact that I suppose can be -- that can be universally accepted
10 that when the discretion is exercised there is often controversy and
11 that's just one of those facts of life. And I wasn't sure why he was
12 taking pains to cite specific examples of when this would have happened.
13 For our purposes need we go -- go beyond the fact that the prosecution
14 was suspended or dropped or whatever? Again it's one of those things
15 that happens, because it seems to me that the road down which you are
16 headed is going to bog the Chamber down into a side argument about why
17 the discretion was exercised in the particular way here.
18 I -- I'm not losing sight of the fact that it was -- that it is a
19 part and parcel with the Prosecution's case that the criminal justice
20 system was, as it was, subordinated to the broader plan of discrimination
21 against non-Serbs. That's clear from the Prosecution's case, but that
22 having been -- that being obviously before us, need we get involved in
23 these details of the specific cases, because how does it assist?
24 MR. OLMSTED: Well --
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, and as Judge Harhoff says, the witness says she
2 doesn't know about the details of this case.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Well, let me first say that I agree with you that I
4 did not understand the point of Defence counsel's questions regarding
5 discretion of the prosecutor to pursue or not pursue a particular case,
6 but that's not -- wasn't the point of why I'm trying to get this in.
7 What we -- this is going more to the issue of -- of crimes committed
8 against non-Serbs, and what happened to those cases. We now have a case
9 file in evidence that at one point, at least, involved crimes committed
10 against non-Serbs. Then the same perpetrators committed a crime against
11 Serbs, and the case was fully investigated at that stage, and now we
12 have -- we have a case file now that's in evidence. And this is simply
13 the judgement now, a Prosecutorial discretion issue, but a judgement, in
14 that matter, and I think to have a full picture now that we have a case
15 file in there that we need to have an idea of what happened in the -- to
16 the case, and this is not so far removed from the indictment period that
17 it would be ridiculous. And I didn't object to the admission of that
18 file initially, but now that -- I want this to be part of it, and if
19 we're going to then revisit it, then I would say the whole file should be
20 excluded from evidence.
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, even if you do admit
23 this into evidence, you will not have a full picture, because these
24 proceedings have been renewed. So there was an appeal and then there was
25 a new trial. So you do not have a full picture.
1 Now, what is relevant for us, and you were right in interrupting
2 me, and that's where I stopped, was that the police actually did their
3 job, and in this particular instance they did detect and identify the
4 perpetrators of this crime.
5 Now, all I can do now and all I can say now is -- because I know
6 that this case was retried, but I think that we don't need to go into so
7 much detail, and I was just trying to focus on what we consider relevant
8 to our case.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Once again, Defence counsel's giving evidence.
10 It's not accurate what -- his description of what happened in the
11 procedural history of this case. We don't need to go into this. This is
12 part of the case file. The case file has been admitted into evidence and
13 the Prosecution respectfully requests that this too be admitted into
14 evidence so that the case file can be viewed together with it.
15 JUDGE HALL: Of course one of the handicaps we have is we don't
16 have an English version of this particular document at this point.
17 MR. OLMSTED: And that's why I was suggesting we mark it for
18 identification pending a translation, and then the document of course
19 speaks for itself.
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, we're going to shut you down on this
21 point. Move on to something else.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Is it going to be marked for identification,
23 Your Honours?
24 JUDGE HALL: No.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MR. OLMSTED:
2 Q. All right. I want to cover one more topic. Well, let me ask you
3 just one last question regarding this case. Do you know why the charges
4 were dropped against Zoran Tomic with -- with regard only to the Cehajic
5 family murders? Do you have any information about that?
6 A. Well, I declare that I will speak the truth and only the truth,
7 and only about the things that I know and have personal knowledge of at
8 the beginning of my testimony.
9 Now, as far as the murder of this family, Cehajic, and what I
10 know is the following: That the police began on investigation after they
11 received a report that a murder had been committed. They probably could
12 not get in touch with me, perhaps because the phone lines were down or
13 for some other reason. So in any case, they began an on-site
14 investigation before I arrived. In the meantime, they managed to get
15 hold of me. I arrived there, but I arrived at the time when the on-site
16 investigation was already under way. The entire investigation was
17 conducted by the CSB in Bijeljina, rather the public security station,
18 their forensic technicians and the police. I came to the on-site
19 investigation, so that then there was a record made. If you allow me,
20 I'd like to complete my sentence. So the police compiled this report and
21 I agreed to what was in it, and they continued their work on detecting or
22 identifying the perpetrators and clarifying all the trace evidence that
23 we recovered including fingerprints, shell casings, bullets, and so on,
24 whatever else was found on -- at the crime scene.
25 In this particular case, this is what I know about it from my own
1 experience. As to what happened afterwards, I've already answered the
2 Defence counsel's question. I told you also what I knew. I did inquire
3 about it. I learned that there was -- that it -- that there was the
4 trial, that the proceedings were underway. There were two murders in
5 case here, a Muslim family, a mother, father and child, and in the second
6 case there were also three people murdered, the father and two sons. And
7 my interest was really professional but I never went to discuss this with
8 the court or the judicial organs, and I do not really know any --
9 anything else about it, and I don't think it would be appropriate for me
10 to talk about what I had heard about it or what I was told by someone
11 else. I can tell you what I did or what was done during the on-site
12 investigation, and perhaps for more information on the trial itself, you
13 should find the person who was involved in that.
14 Q. On Monday, did you immediate with Mr. Cvijetic about this case?
15 A. No.
16 Q. While you were here in The Hague you never met with Mr. Cvijetic?
17 A. Yes. I met you first that whole day, and then on the next
18 morning, I met Mr. Cvijetic for an hour or so, and we never mentioned
19 this case at all.
20 Q. During that meeting, did you discuss the issue of jurisdiction
21 over war crimes, whether the military court has jurisdiction or whether
22 the civilian court has jurisdiction over war crimes?
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with knowledge and
24 approval of the Prosecution, we met on the premises of the Prosecution.
25 The Prosecutor's office. And I don't know why that would have anything
1 to do with what we discussed there, and I don't even know whether the
2 Prosecutor is entitled to know and inquire about it.
3 JUDGE HALL: Where are we going, Mr. Olmsted?
4 MR. OLMSTED: Well, this is just my question, and then I'm going
5 to go on to another topic, but I think the record is -- we can reflect in
6 the record whether they talked about that topic and then let me ask some
7 questions that go beyond that, but I think we're entitled to ask that as
8 a foundational question.
9 JUDGE HALL: It sounded as if you were setting up to impeach your
10 own witness, but anyway, let's go on to the next question.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Well --
12 Q. Can you tell us how long you've known Mr. Cvijetic for?
13 A. I've known Mr. Cvijetic since the 1990s. I think that's when
14 I -- we met. I -- we never had any social contacts. I never discussed
15 or had any conversations with him. We just were passing acquaintances
16 because I was a judge and he was a Defence counsel. He would come
17 official [as interpreted] so we never had any social contacts. And he
18 would certainly not qualify as a close person from my circles or even an
20 MR. OLMSTED: May we have 65 ter 2002 on the screen, please.
21 Q. Yesterday -- or actually today during cross-examination you
22 testified that the military courts had jurisdiction over all war crimes.
23 During proofing you had the opportunity to review the SFRY Law on the
24 Military Courts that was in application in 1992.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I failed to mention
1 when my learned friend Mr. Olmsted with one of the earlier witnesses
2 touched upon this Law on Military Courts, and I never opened that issue
3 either with those witnesses or with this one. The reasons why I did not
4 wish to go into the Law on Military Courts with the witnesses here is
5 very simple. In order to resolve the issue -- well, I have to explain,
6 Your Honour, what the reasons are for my objection to Mr. Olmsted dealing
7 with this and why he can't deal with that.
8 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will be brief.
10 JUDGE HALL: No, Mr. Cvijetic. Inasmuch as we're dealing with
11 the interpretation of a law, whether you dealt with it in
12 cross-examination or not is of no moment at this point. Mr. Olmsted may
13 proceed with his question, and if, at the end of the exercise, there is a
14 live question as to what the law means, no doubt counsel on both sides
15 will seek to address the Chamber on that, but I'm not going to prevent
16 Mr. Olmsted from asking this witness, who is a professional person, the
17 question dealing with the provision of the law. It seems a straight
18 forward question to me.
19 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to the second page of both the
20 B/C/S and the English.
21 Q. Now, you had a chance to look at Article 13 of this law.
22 MR. OLMSTED: If we can zoom in a little bit on that.
23 Q. And it specifies when the military courts have jurisdiction over
24 a crime committed by a civilian; isn't that correct?
25 A. This article? Whether this article or any other, when I was
1 proofed by the Prosecution, you showed me one of these articles. I'm
2 not -- I can't really focus and go through it, and I'm not sure whether
3 it's this one, but I told you then that it is very difficult to interpret
4 this, and I cannot easily give my clear position on a law or on an
5 article of that law, because all I have before me is an article of the
6 law, and I don't have the whole law before me, the entire text of that
7 code. And I think that I said the same when the Defence counsel put
8 similar questions. I said that I was not an expert on that and that I am
9 loathed to go into interpreting the Law on Military Courts because that
10 was not with my purview. And as for my testimony here, I can testify as
11 to the facts that I had knowledge of and the things that I saw myself so
12 that I am reluctant to give my view on this, and in any case, whether we
13 were given instructions at the time or whether that was the position
14 taken at the time, but in any case, as I mentioned earlier, the position
15 was then throughout that time that the military courts would deal with
16 war crimes and not civilian courts, and even I, because I was assigned to
17 do work obligation, I was also a conscript. But I really am reluctant to
18 give my opinions here and to speculate about this law, because I was not
19 invited here as an expert witness but, rather, as a fact witness, and I
20 think this is something that you cannot really ask of me, and I can't say
21 anything about it.
22 And I would just like to add that this is exactly what I said to
23 you also during the proofing session, and I think this is what I also
24 said to Mr. Cvijetic today in answer to one of his questions.
25 Q. And just very briefly, so you're not really familiar with this
1 Law on Military Courts. Is that what I understand from your last answer?
2 A. Well, not quite. It's, rather, because you only showed me one
3 article during the proofing session, and Mr. Cvijetic also put some
4 questions about this law. And as for this law, I think it must be at
5 least 18 years that I haven't seen this law. So to ask of me now to
6 interpret it by just looking at one of its articles, it's really
7 impossible. I cannot really say anything about the code in its entirety
8 based on this one article, and I really can't tell you anything about
9 what I think about any of these articles of this law. And that was not
10 the purpose of my presence here anyway.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have on the screen 65 ter 1294.
12 Q. Now, this is the judgement in the Dusko Vuckovic --
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please,
14 Your Honour. You did not allow me adduce this and to show it to the
15 witness. We had a discussion about this, and this was the judgement that
16 I intended to show the witness, a judgement by the Sabac court, and I
17 believe that it was Judge Harhoff who said that this was not something
18 that we should go into at this point, and I simply desisted, but when I
19 desisted, now my colleague Mr. Olmsted is trying to present it here.
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Olmsted. Where are you going?
21 MR. OLMSTED: Well, it's an interesting objection because I
22 assume they wanted this document into evidence, but I'm going in a
23 different direction with it, and I just beg the indulgence of the
24 Trial Chamber. Let me ask my last few questions and then I'm done with
25 it, but I believe I'm taking a different tact than my learned friend did.
1 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, if you can just read the first paragraph in this
2 judgement and wait for me to ask you a question.
3 A. "In the name of the people. The Sabac District Court, in a
4 Chamber composed of the president of the Chamber --"
5 Q. I'm sorry, I should have specified. Just read it to yourself.
6 We don't need it read into the record as we have an English translation.
7 Just quickly review it and then let me ask you a question.
8 A. I've read it.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, this is a judgement in the Dusko Vuckovic and
10 Vojin Vuckovic case that was rendered by a court in Serbia. Does this
11 refresh your recollection as to whether this case was tried by a civilian
12 court or a military court in Serbia?
13 A. Well, here it says it was tried before the District Court in
15 Q. And just because we're not very familiar with the system in
16 Serbia, would the District Court be a civilian court?
17 A. Well, I'm not familiar with the legal system in Serbia either,
18 but if it says District Court, then it says -- then it means that it's
19 not a military court, because if it was a military court, that's what it
20 would say.
21 Q. Can you tell us, is there any reason that you can think of why a
22 war crime case such as this one would fall under the civilian
23 jurisdiction in Serbia but the military jurisdiction in the Republika
25 A. Well, again I can just give you my opinion. I don't know how
1 relevant it is. It is not my testimony. It would just be an opinion of
2 a lawyer from Bosnia and Herzegovina who at the time in 1992 happened to
3 be in the judiciary.
4 We've already heard here that it was wartime, that it was -- that
5 we worked under difficult conditions but that we all did our best under
6 the circumstances as they were. So this man, Dusko Vuckovic.
7 JUDGE HALL: I'd be holding in the realm of speculation. How is
8 this of any assistance to us, Mr. Olmsted?
9 MR. OLMSTED: I think we are going towards the area of
10 speculation. I agree with you --
11 JUDGE HALL: Going towards?
12 MR. OLMSTED: I wanted to see if she knew, and she said that
13 she'd only be able to give an opinion about it. I didn't want to
14 interrupt her, that's all.
15 JUDGE HALL: That's as far as she could take it obviously.
16 MR. OLMSTED: I agree, Your Honours. Thank you for your
18 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, just one final question. Isn't it, in fact, the
19 case that once Dusko Vuckovic was found by the military court in
20 Bijeljina to be within the jurisdiction of the civilian court in
21 Bijeljina, the civilian and military --
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I think this is a leading question
23 and --
24 MR. OLMSTED: Well, let me finish my question.
25 JUDGE HALL: I was just about to say can we hear the question.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Yes.
2 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, once this case -- once the case -- or once
3 Dusko Vuckovic was transferred from military, Bijeljina military court to
4 the civilian court, isn't it the case that the civilian and military
5 police, if they had any information regarding crimes that Dusko Vuckovic
6 had committed against non-Serbs they should have provided those
7 information --
8 JUDGE HALL: No, Mr. Olmsted.
9 MR. OLMSTED: -- to you?
10 JUDGE HALL: No. You might have a point, but try again.
11 MR. OLMSTED: I'll try one more time.
12 JUDGE HALL: I'm not -- with a compound question such as you just
14 MR. OLMSTED: All right.
15 Q. Assuming -- let's just -- I don't want to assume. Hold on.
16 Once Dusko Vuckovic was transferred to the civilian court
17 jurisdiction --
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, just for me to understand, if you
19 said transferred to the civil court, do you mean the civil court in
21 MR. OLMSTED: No. We saw a document during her testimony where
22 the case against the Yellow Wasps was expanded to include Dusko Vuckovic,
23 and that was the military prosecutor relinquishing jurisdiction over
24 Dusko Vuckovic because they found that he was not a regular member of the
25 army and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the civilian court.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
2 MR. OLMSTED: And my question --
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me remind you
4 that the witness has already answered this question, explaining that it
5 only had to do with the crime of theft, which indeed was under the
6 jurisdiction of the civilian courts. We did receive that answer, and now
7 the Prosecutor is asking the very same question. She explained in detail
8 yesterday why he was brought before the Bijeljina civilian court.
9 JUDGE HALL: I'm sure Mr. Olmsted thanks you for your reminder,
10 Mr. Cvijetic.
11 MR. OLMSTED:
12 Q. Ms. Simeunovic, once the case was transferred back to the
13 civilian court, the case against Dusko Vuckovic, did the civilian and
14 military police have an obligation to inform you of the crimes that he
15 had committed against non-Serbs?
16 A. Since the police handed over that part concerning war crimes to
17 the military prosecutor's office and the military judge pronounced the
18 measure of detention, I don't know what followed. The police was not
19 obliged to notify me, and the military court was not obliged to do that
20 either, although that would have been collegial of them to do. However,
21 they only forwarded the information about theft.
22 You used -- you said that it was transferred, and I have already
23 told you that I don't know what happened with that man, whether he was
24 transferred to another detention and whether he was prosecuted in Serbia.
25 I only know that later on someone from the Sabac court called me and sent
1 letters asking that we send all the information we had about the case,
2 but I don't know the rest. I don't know what ensued following the
3 transfer and what the military court did. I suppose they had issued an
4 order on detention. I don't know what logic they followed on the whole
5 thing. And as for Serbia, there was really no possibility for me to find
6 out, and I saw this judgement when you showed it to me for the first
8 I only know that this man Dusko passed away while in jail and
9 that there was a war crimes trial ongoing at the time against him in
11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to tender
12 this into evidence. It's, again, part of larger case file. I don't
13 think the Defence will object as they were attempting to tender it
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is satisfied what the witness has said
17 on the record about this and we don't propose to admit it because we
18 don't consider the document relevant.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours again it is part -- you do have
20 a lot of documents from this case file, and here is the ultimate decision
21 in that case. I understand that maybe this is not the best witness to
22 introduce it through, but because it is part of a file -- we can
23 certainly file a bar table motion to try to admit it that way, but we
24 thought it would be more expedient to just --
25 JUDGE HALL: Anyway, we have ruled on the present application at
1 this point.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Okay. Your Honours, no further questions.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, allow me to put objection on the
5 record in relation to the practice of our young friend Mr. Olmsted with
6 regard to his way of re-examination. In previous cases when he was also
7 conducted re-examination, he was far beyond --
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic.
9 MR. PANTELIC: I want to put that on the record.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think you should do that not in the presence of
11 the witness.
12 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise.
13 JUDGE HALL: We thank you, madam, for your testimony. You're now
14 released as a witness, and we wish you a safe journey back to your home.
15 The usher would now escort you from the courtroom. Thank you, ma'am.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and good-bye.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE HALL: I take it that the Prosecution is on track with its
19 witness for tomorrow.
20 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour. He's here and ready to go. And,
21 indeed, Mr. Di Fazio has provided a very short proofing note, which tells
22 you that he recognises photographs.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I think we've seen that.
24 MS. KORNER: Yes.
25 JUDGE HALL: So we take the adjournment to tomorrow at 2.15 in
1 this courtroom.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.53 p.m.
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day
4 of August, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.