Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13718

 1                           Thursday, 26 August 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.17 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning

 6     everybody in and around the courtroom.  This is case IT-08-91-T, the

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  Good morning to everyone

 9     and I'm glad that everyone has been able to make it, despite this very

10     wet weather.  May we have the appearances, please.

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

12     Joanna Korner, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

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

14     Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for Stanisic Defence

15     this morning.  Thank you.

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

17     Igor Pantelic, and Katarina Danicic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Am I given to understand that there are

19     a number of preliminary matters which -- with which we'll deal before the

20     witness returns?

21             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Your Honour, can I deal with my first two

22     short matters, first of all, but I need to deal with it in private

23     session, if that is possible.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  We go into private session.

25                           [Private session]

Page 13719











11 Pages 13719-13724 redacted. Private session.















Page 13725

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [Open session]

22             JUDGE HALL:  The Trial Chamber by majority, Judge Harhoff

23     dissenting, agrees to the admission of the document as being admitted --

24     which is now admitted and marked as an exhibit.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D352, Your Honours.

Page 13726

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Now could the usher please escort the witness back

 3     to the stand.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  And, Your Honours, I note for the record that

 5     Tom Hannis has joined us in the Prosecution.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC:  Just for the record, Aleksandar Aleksic, who joined

 7     the team during this break.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Vasic, good morning to you.  As a matter of

10     courtesy, I should --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Good morning.

12             JUDGE HALL:  As a matter of courtesy I should explain to you that

13     the reason for the delay in your -- the continuation of your testimony

14     this morning was that the Court was dealing with a number of procedural

15     issues, but now Mr. Zecevic may resume his cross-examination.  Before he

16     does so, I remind you you're still on your oath.

17                           WITNESS:  GOJKO VASIC [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

21             May the usher provide the witness -- a statement to the witness.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Vasic.

24        A.   Good morning.

25        Q.   Mr. Vasic, yesterday we spoke about Kotor Varos.  I showed you

Page 13727

 1     some documents, and now I want to move on to another municipality, namely

 2     Zvornik.  Unless I'm mistaken, in your schematic, you mentioned two cases

 3     of -- or two instances of crimes against non-Serbs in the municipality of

 4     Zvornik, and that is mentioned in the KU register; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   I wasn't able to identify these instances, but I will try to do

 7     so now with your help.  We'll see whether the KU register corresponds to

 8     these documents.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 1D002398, tab

10     38 to the witness.

11        Q.   Here this is an official note of the first instance court of

12     Zvornik about the murder of two persons by identified perpetrators.  The

13     two victims are Avdurahman Haskic and his wife Zuhra Haskic.  By their

14     names, I conclude that they are Muslims; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Since this is the document of a court, it is marked KRI-22/92; 92

17     being the year, and the date is 20 June 1992.  Is this crime entered in

18     the register of the SJB of Zvornik which you reviewed?

19        A.   I cannot say for certain, because under 1 in the register of

20     crimes a murder is entered but three victims are mentioned.  Maybe a

21     mistake was made so that the reporting person was also entered as a

22     witness.  But anyway, under this number in the KU register I see three

23     victims.

24        Q.   All right.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Maybe I can interject, maybe try to be a little bit

Page 13728

 1     helpful with this.  If you have a KU or crime register number available,

 2     if you can give us that, that's the way we can check with the crime

 3     register and see if there is an entry for it.  Otherwise, this witness,

 4     without having the register in front of him, it's hard for him to verify

 5     if this entry goes to this particular case.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Mr. Olmsted, this is precisely my question,

 7     whether this -- this event, this criminal event, the murder of two

 8     non-Serbs, has been entered in the KU register, because what we have here

 9     is the court document.  So it would normally be -- in the normal

10     circumstances there should have been a KU entry and then the criminal

11     complaint, criminal report was filed with the Prosecutor, and then the

12     court would -- would be involved in this -- in this matter.  And that is

13     precisely what I am trying to find out from the witness, and I don't have

14     the KU number for this because even the witness cannot identify it.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, that's my point, is -- as we know, the -- the

16     crime register contains a listing of all the reports filed by the police.

17     So if the police did not file a criminal report with regard to this

18     incident, it wouldn't be in the crime register, and so just -- sometimes

19     you're talking about apples and oranges.  If you're talking about an

20     on-site investigation, we don't know whether it was investigated by the

21     police, and if you do have that information and you do have a KU number,

22     that would be helpful and that's how we could link it to the crime

23     register, and that's the only point I wanted to raise with you.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It seems to me the witness wants to

25     it say something.

Page 13729

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  In the crime register of Zvornik,

 2     under 1, the murder of three victims was entered, and under number 63,

 3     the murder of three victims is also entered, but their identity could not

 4     be established from what is entered in the register.  Maybe we can check

 5     that.  So it's a KU 1 and KU 63, these two entries.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  I note that the witness is referring to the

 7     unrevised annex, and perhaps I can provide him with a revised annex so

 8     that we're reading off the one that's the most current.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] KU 1, three victims in the revised

10     version.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   We'll need some time to find the numbers in the KU register of

13     Zvornik, and then we'll get back to this.

14             Tell me, in the KU register for Zvornik, did you see any crime of

15     rape where the perpetrator is a Serb and the victim a non-Serb?

16        A.   Yes.  It's KU 27.

17        Q.   What date is that?

18        A.   In this overview there are no dates but just the number KU, and

19     the crime, and who the perpetrator was.

20        Q.   Does it have to do with Zdravko Cvoric's case?

21        A.   I cannot confirm that.

22        Q.   The perpetrator?

23        A.   I cannot confirm that because I don't have the overview of

24     Zvornik in front of me.  If we could show the Zvornik KU or if I could

25     see the hard copy.

Page 13730

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not sure if the Prosecution

 2     have that with them, then perhaps they might assist the witness, that's

 3     the Zvornik register.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  In fact, I do have this particular register, and I

 5     will provide it.  I'm just wondering how fruitful this will be if we go

 6     along this course.  This witness obviously had a limited task with regard

 7     to the crime registers, and so he's not going to be able to speak to

 8     great lengths about the cases, but he certainly can, as an example, show

 9     where this one is in the log-book.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may just

11     explain.  The witness was show the KU registers.  When we talked

12     yesterday, the witness and myself, he confirmed that these KU registers

13     by themselves are not sufficient to establish with sufficient certainty

14     what the Prosecution wants to establish in this case.  I am now

15     specifically showing the witness that there are documents which confirm

16     that criminal proceedings were conducted against persons in the

17     municipalities which he looked over and that this was not entered in the

18     KU registers.  So this was situation where, in fact, criminal proceedings

19     were conducted --

20             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed along your course, Mr. Zecevic.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, here's the Zvornik crime register.

23     We'll give it a number of 10495.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.

Page 13731

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Under KU 27 -- just a second.  A

 2     person -- how do you say, Zdravko Coric as the perpetrator?

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Yes.

 5        A.   That's right.  The 3rd of August, 1992.  And let us not mention

 6     the name of the victim.

 7        Q.   All right.

 8        A.   And under KU 1, as we said, three victims, murder.  It is not the

 9     case which you showed but the case dated the 4th of May, 1992, and the

10     following persons were murdered:  One Croat and two Bosniaks.

11        Q.   All right.  Let us then go back to the case 1D00-2398, which we

12     can see on the screen.

13             Sir, this is an official note drafted at the it basic court in

14     Zvornik.  On the right-hand side of the Zvornik we can see the employees

15     of the Public Security Station Zvornik, one Delic, Vlado, an inspector,

16     and Damjanovic, Dragomir, who is forensic technician.  This is an

17     official note that has to do with the on-site investigation in relation

18     to the murder of these two persons; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   As an official note was drafted by the basic court and as the

21     Judge who was on duty was present, it is undoubted, as this is a crime

22     which is prosecuted ex officio, it is undoubted that the event should be

23     included in the KU register; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Do you have any explanation as to why this was not done?  I mean,

Page 13732

 1     I'm not asking you to speculate.  If you don't know, just say so.

 2        A.   I don't.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, would I tender this

 5     document.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D353, Your Honours.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  My apologies,

 9     Your Honours.  Just a second.

10                           [Defence counsel confer]

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   If we compare it with the crime of rape, that is to say the case

13     against Zdravko Coric, you have established that it is entered in the KU

14     register; correct?

15        A.   Correct.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And just for the sake of reference,

17     this is document 65 ter 2114.  For the sake of the completeness of the

18     witness's testimony, I would suggest that this document also be tendered.

19     It is a case file from Zvornik and has to do with the crime perpetrated

20     by Zdravko Coric, rape against a person of Muslim ethnicity.  If there

21     are no objections, would I tender this document as well.

22             JUDGE HALL:  You said for completeness.  We -- aren't we in

23     danger of redundancy, Mr. Zecevic?

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, that is a million dollar question,

25     Your Honour.  I fully agree with you.  The fact that the document is in

Page 13733

 1     the KU report is sufficient for me.  I was just thinking that it might

 2     not be bad to have this one just to fulfil the picture, but I would

 3     understand the position of the Trial Chamber fully.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  I think we could do without this one, Mr. Zecevic.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  I understand.

 7             [Interpretation] Could we now please show the witness 1D04-2290.

 8        Q.   Sorry, if I understood -- that's tab 40.  I apologise.  If I

 9     understood you properly a second ago, you said that in your chart you

10     came across one crime of rape committed by a Serb against non-Serbs in

11     Zvornik.

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   And we have found that case file.  I just showed it to you a

14     while ago.

15             Now you can see in front of you a request to open investigation,

16     which was drafted by the basic prosecutor's office in Zvornik because of

17     a crime committed on the 20th of May, 1992, also a rape committed by one

18     Zoran Tomasevic, and the damaged party is the underaged member of a

19     non-Serb ethnic group.

20             Can you confirm whether this crime is registered in the KU

21     register from Zvornik or not?

22        A.   This request does not ask for the investigating judge, that is to

23     say the prosecutor doesn't refer to the KU number, but this crime was

24     committed in Bratunac, so most probably this crime was registered in

25     Bratunac.  I say most probably because I haven't examined their books,

Page 13734

 1     but it cannot be excluded that the criminal file was submitted at the

 2     prosecutor's office and that then the prosecution requested that

 3     investigation be opened.

 4        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as the witness

 6     examined the document which Mr. Olmsted presented to him and which is in

 7     front of him now, that's 65 ter 10495, I am of the position that possibly

 8     we should include this document in the evidence, though I wish to it hear

 9     the Prosecution's position regarding this matter.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And before we hear the Prosecution's observations

11     on the matter, I would wish to just put one question regarding the date,

12     because it appears that the murder took place on the 20th of May, and

13     there was a criminal report on the 25th of May, 1992, but the request

14     appears not to have occurred until a year later, namely 26th of May,

15     1993.

16             Is there any explanation for this?

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  Which murder are you

18     referring to?  You mean the rape or --

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.  Sorry.  Yes, yes, yes, the rape, yes, sir.

20     I'm referring to the document on the screen.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand.  Well, in this request to open the

22     investigation, the public prosecutor from Zvornik on the 26th of May,

23     1993.  Maybe that's a mistake, I'm not sure - files the -- the request to

24     open investigation for the crime that happened on the 20th of May, 1992,

25     a crime of rape.  That is -- that is what I can read from this document,

Page 13735

 1     Your Honour.  And I'm not sure I follow the discrepancies on the dates

 2     that you were mentioning.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I can also read from the screen, and I was just

 4     putting a question as to why was this request made only one year later.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, probably the public prosecutor can answer

 6     that, but I can ask the witness, Your Honour, if -- if the witness is

 7     able to help.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] You have heard the question.  Can you please

 9     answer.

10        A.   One the reasons why the request was sent again to the

11     investigating judge only one year later is the place of birth and

12     residence of Zoran Tomasevic.  He was born in Pancevo in Serbia, and

13     probably the prosecution organs could not get hold of him.  And that was

14     probably why the prosecutor's office waited until the presence of the

15     suspect was certain.  So that's one of the reasons that could have caused

16     such a delay.  And that happened in the entire area of the former SFRY.

17     The identity of the perpetrator was perhaps established as soon as the

18     crime was reported, because the damaged party may have known him

19     personally, but maybe he was at large all the time from the date when the

20     criminal file was submitted to the date on which this request to open

21     investigation was submitted by the prosecutor's office.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, do you have a view on Mr. Zecevic's

24     application?

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  If the application is with regard to the

Page 13736

 1     Zvornik crime register 10495, we have no objection for it being admitted

 2     into evidence.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit 1D354, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, was that your application?

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  No.  [Microphone not activated]

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  That's what I thought.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Your microphone isn't working.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I was referring to the -- I don't

11     know if you --

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, it's okay.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  I was referring to the actual KU book from Zvornik

14     which Mr. Olmsted -- thanks to Mr. Olmsted, was provided to the witness,

15     and the witness consulted that document in order to be able to give us

16     the answers and enlighten us on these documents which I presented to him.

17     That is why I felt it is needed that this document be admitted.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So it is this document, the 10495.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is, correct, 65 ter 10495.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And then what about --

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  1D104-2290?

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The one on the screen?

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, the witness explained, I believe, why this

25     document was not entered in the KU register of Zvornik because the place

Page 13737

 1     where the rape was committed belongs to the territory of another SJB, and

 2     that is why I didn't thought there was enough nexus to offer that

 3     document for admittance.  But would I gladly do that if the Trial Chamber

 4     would want me.  Thank you.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you.  Mr. Vasic, we will move to another

 6     municipality.  This time, Pale municipality.  Can you please find it in

 7     the binder.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps this document should be

 9     returned to the Prosecution.  [In English] Could the usher please help

10     and return the document to Mr. Olmsted.  Thank you very much.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  The microphones are a bit odd today.  Just to note

12     for the record, this is also, I believe, a revised annex.  So the witness

13     should refer to the revised annex that we offered yesterday.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.

15        Q.   Sir, unless I'm mistaken, your chart says that the KU register of

16     the public security station Pale does not contain any crime in which the

17     perpetrators were Serbs and the damaged parties were non-Serbs; is that

18     correct?

19        A.   Yes, correct.

20        Q.   And that there are two crimes in which the damaged parties are

21     non-Serbs and the perpetrators are unidentified.  In both cases this is

22     the crime of murder under Article 36 of the Criminal Code.

23        A.   Yes.  It is a total of four victims.

24        Q.   Four victims in total?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 13738

 1        Q.   All right.  I see in your statement something for which I need an

 2     explanation.  I'm referring to your statement.  Let me find the exact

 3     date.  A statement dated the 31st of March and 1st of April this year,

 4     item 24.  You say that you reviewed the KU register of the SJB of Pale

 5     from 1992 and you say:

 6              "In this crime register, I wasn't able to find any crimes that

 7     are mentioned in the annexes to the indictment."

 8        A.   I was requested to check whether some crimes or incidents that

 9     caused great harm were processed, but there were no -- no such in that

10     register.

11        Q.   Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think I am, the indictment in

12     this case only mentions two instances of murder in the territory of the

13     Pale municipality in 1992, with two victims.  And here we see that it was

14     entered that two murders had been committed with a total of four victims,

15     four non-Serbs.

16        A.   Yes.  But it says that the crimes were committed but not entered,

17     but such offences cannot be found here, only such as were committed and

18     entered in the KU register.  Thank you.

19        Q.   Speaking of which, the situation is the same in the Bijeljina

20     municipality.  In your schematic for the Bijeljina municipality, we see

21     two criminal offences in the KU register of the SJB of Bijeljina where

22     the perpetrators were Serbs and the victims non-Serbs; correct?

23        A.   One murder and one extortion.  Items 224 and 297, respectively.

24        Q.   But in your statement that we have just seen, dated 31 March and

25     1 April this year, and that is item 27 of your statement, you say once

Page 13739

 1     more that you have examined the KU register for the CSB and the SJB of

 2     Bijeljina and say:

 3             "In this KU register, I could not find any criminal offences that

 4     are mentioned in the annexes to the indictment."

 5             Since in the annexes to the indictment not one crime committed in

 6     Bijeljina is mentioned, I would like to know what you meant.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I think this is a bit confusing for

 8     this witness, because there's two issue at stake here, because the

 9     witness was asked to look at two different things separately.  First, he

10     was given our indictment and the annexes to our indictment, as well as

11     another -- another form that brought in all the various crimes that are

12     in those schedules per municipality, and he was asked first to identify

13     whether any of the of crimes that we specifically mentioned in the

14     annexes, or in our schedules of our indictment, he could find any

15     criminal reports for those.  The second part was with regard to serious

16     crimes.

17             These annexes in the revised annex for Bijeljina deals with

18     serious crimes.  It does not address crimes alleged in the schedules of

19     our indictment, and that really is the explanation for why there are two

20     different things.  But I think the witness is confused because you're

21     kind of conflating the two, what's in our schedules versus what is a

22     serious crime.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  If I may respond.  It was not at all my

24     intention to confuse the witness.  I am only asking, because I do not

25     understand the comment made by the witness in his statement under 27, his

Page 13740

 1     statement of 31st and the 1st of April of this year, 31st of March and

 2     the 1st of April, where he said he could not identify in the records, in

 3     the KU book, any of the crimes alleged in the indictment, but there is no

 4     crimes alleged in the indictment in Bijeljina.  Not a single specific

 5     crime has been alleged in your indictment against our clients in this

 6     case in Bijeljina.

 7             MR. OLMSTED:  Now I understand my learned friend's point and let

 8     me correct him that we do charge Bijeljina in the indictment.  We charge

 9     Batkovic detention facility, which was in Bijeljina, as well as it does

10     fall within the general persecutory count, count 1.  So that is the

11     scheduled crime that was at issue for this first part of his task.  The

12     second part of the task was with regard to serious crimes and that's what

13     this annex refers to.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, could you attempt your question again,

15     please.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I will, Your Honours.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, you heard what we said.  I'm confused by

18     your statement where you say in item 27 that you weren't able to find any

19     crimes with which I totally agree, since not one particular crime from

20     the territory of Bijeljina municipality can be -- is -- correction, is

21     mentioned in the indictment.  What Mr. Olmsted is saying about the

22     military camp of Batkovic is something else altogether, and clearly we

23     cannot expect the opening of the camp or anything of that kind to -- to

24     be entered in the register.

25        A.   Yes, but in this table of crimes that may be found in the KU

Page 13741

 1     register, we could see the places where something happened or whether

 2     there is intelligence about that, and I said whether I found it there or

 3     not.  And the crimes themselves are mentioned in the register.  But I

 4     don't have all these documents, so maybe that's why this resembles a

 5     Chinese whispers.

 6        Q.   Just explain to me one thing.  Did the OTP tell you to look for

 7     information about crimes committed at specific places, or did you do it

 8     based on the intelligence that the MUP of the RS has?

 9        A.   No.  The OTP gave me a table where some places and events are

10     mentioned, and they wanted me to check whether these were investigated

11     and entered in the relevant registers.

12        Q.   So you received a table from the OTP mentioning particular

13     crimes, and they asked you to check whether they are entered in the KU

14     registers of the MUP throughout the RS.

15        A.   Yes.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Olmsted, I'm indeed quite

17     surprised that we never received that document.

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, you do have the document.  That might be an

19     oversight that I did not include it with his 92 ter package.  It is

20     included with the -- I believe it's ST-136 is 92 ter package.  All it is

21     is taking the schedules which are arranged by category of crime or

22     detention facility and putting in by municipality, because the witness

23     had to review the log-books municipality by municipality, so it made

24     sense that he looked at them from the perspective of -- rearranged the

25     schedules in a way that made it easier for him to do that.  We certainly

Page 13742

 1     can provide that to the Defence.  During the break, I will give you a

 2     copy.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  If you provide we can discuss this during the

 4     break so we don't use the valuable court time.  However, if you can

 5     provide with the 65 ter number of this document so we can put it on

 6     the -- on the monitor.  And -- and the part which refers to Bijeljina,

 7     territory of SJB Bijeljina so witness can comment if that is the document

 8     which he had in mind -- which he was talking about.

 9             [Interpretation] Perhaps we can return to this issue after the

10     break once we -- once the relevant documents are ready.  And I can move

11     on to something else, or perhaps have the break a bit earlier,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Well, we're just two minutes away, so it is probably

14     a convenient point to break.

15             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

16                           [The witness stood down]

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 11.14 a.m.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  I'm waiting for the witness, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE HALL:  While we're waiting for the witness, do we

21     correctly -- is our arithmetic correct that this witness, we aren't going

22     to complete this witness until tomorrow?

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  It appears so, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thanks.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 13743

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue, Your Honours?

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Mr. Vasic, since we solved the issue of Bijeljina during this

 5     break, we will move on to the following municipality I would like to

 6     speak about with you, and that is Doboj.

 7             If I understood probably, in your diagram you state that at the

 8     SJB and at the CSB of Doboj there was one crime committed by a Serb where

 9     the victim was a non-Serb.

10        A.   I don't have it before me.  Maybe we could see it on the screen.

11        Q.   That's Annex 15.  I can give you my copy if you want.

12        A.   All right.

13        Q.   Can you confirm that in your diagram it reads that you

14     established that the KU -- in the KU registers for the CSB and the SJB of

15     Doboj there is only one crime entered which was committed by a Serb

16     against a non-Serb?

17        A.   Yes.  That is KU 64, entry KU 64, in the SJB of Doboj.

18        Q.   And these -- and this crime is?

19        A.   It's a -- it's the crime of murder as entered in the KU register

20     of the SJB.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the OTP now please assist us

22     concerning 65 ter 10493, please.  In my conversation with the Prosecution

23     before resuming, we established that this document was wrongly scanned

24     and put into e-court as such, which makes it impossible for the witness

25     to look at it in e-court.  Therefore, the Prosecution agreed to put the

Page 13744

 1     document on Sanction, for which I'm grateful.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes.  In the interim, we've directed the problem

 3     and it's in e-court and now 65 ter number 10493, and it's on the screen

 4     right now.  And, Mr. Zecevic, the record says that this KU entry 64 was

 5     for the crime of murder.  I'm not sure if that was misstated or what, but

 6     I think the crime was for rape.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  I heard the witness said the rape, and

 8     about the -- about his answer concerning the eight crimes of the unknown

 9     perpetrators were murders, but maybe witness can clarify that.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I said that the crime entered

11     under KU 64 at the SJB was an instance of rape, and eight crimes

12     committed by unknown perpetrators that are entered in the register of the

13     CSB were instances of murder.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Thank you for this explanation.  Let us now look at the crime

16     register which we have before us.  There are eight instances of murder

17     committed by unknown perpetrators against non-Serbs.  If I followed

18     attentively, this refers to the entry starting from 11/92.

19        A.   Eleven, 12, 13.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the relevant page on

21     e-court where the entries 11, 12, and 13 can be found.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  And I think if you just turn to the next page that

23     should be sufficient.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Eleven, 12, 13.  These are the

25     first three entries on this page.  Then 16.  That's the sixth entry, and

Page 13745

 1     18, the eighth entry.  They are all committed by unknown perpetrators,

 2     that is "NN," and are marked red.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we perhaps rotate the image.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  To rotate it, please.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a suggestion,

 6     if my colleagues from the Prosecution agree.  We can save some time.  I

 7     have here 15 documents from the public security station and security

 8     services centre in Doboj.  These are documents which are on our list,

 9     tab 41 until and including tab 55.  I suggest, Your Honours, that I

10     should give all these 15 documents to the witness and let the witness

11     establish on the basis of examining these documents whether any of them,

12     any of these criminal files, are included in the crime register, and then

13     we might show only the ones that are not included in the crime register

14     to the Trial Chamber and tender them into evidence.  I think that in this

15     way we might significantly shorten the time that we need for the

16     questioning of this witness.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  I don't object to that procedure.  I've been

18     informed that there is a problem with e-court, so let's publish the

19     log-book on Sanction now so that he can review the log-book as he goes

20     through the documents.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  And while you are -- while

22     you are putting the Sanction on, may the usher give this to the witness,

23     if it pleases the Court.  Thank you very much.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, I have now given you 15 documents, criminal

25     files from the public security station and security services centre in

Page 13746

 1     Doboj, with the names of the damaged parties.  I would ask you to review

 2     these documents and check them against the list which is on the screen in

 3     front of you so that all those which are recorded in the crime register

 4     do not have to be shown to the Trial Chamber.  And as for the ones which

 5     are not there, we will show them and then tender them into evidence.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, can I ask you how long will this

 7     take the witness?

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  I believe two more minutes.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  And that is substantially shorter than if I would

11     present document --

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It's not -- I don't have a problem with it.  I

13     was just wondering whether it would be appropriate to ask him to do that

14     in the break we have to take in a few minutes, or even right now.  Could

15     he do it in that break?

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, by all means, Your Honour.  Maybe that's --

17     that's even better.

18             MR. OLMSTED:  The only problem is -- is that we only have an

19     electronic version of this log-book.  I don't have a hard copy of it.  If

20     we can set him up somewhere with e-court, that probably won't be a

21     problem.  Obviously I can't interact with him, so I'm not sure how that

22     can be done.

23             JUDGE HALL:  I understand from the Registry that the problem has

24     been corrected with the version on screen.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Perhaps since we've been moving back between

Page 13747

 1     Sanction and e-court, maybe we can just stay in Sanction for now.  Does

 2     that cause any -- oh, I see.  It's in e-court.  So that's fine.  So we

 3     can go back to e-court.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, if I may be of assistance,

 5     maybe I can ask my assistants to print out the relevant pages of the --

 6     of the KU book and then we give the witness at the break so we don't lose

 7     any more time.  And I will provide the copies to the Registry and then

 8     the Registry can give it to him through the Victims and Witnesses Unit.

 9     And we take the break now so Your Honours can deal with the ex parte.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  It's one of those days, I see.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  When it rains, it pours.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Could we please go back to the

14     cover page or the first page so that I could see numbers from 1 to 10.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's proceed with the cross-examination.  We

16     need another five to ten minutes before the --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Can we please show the witness the first page of the crime

20     register with the numbers 1 to 10.  Did I understand you properly, that

21     that's what you need?

22        A.   Yes, yes.

23        Q.   There it is.  Would you like us to zoom in?

24        A.   This is the second page once again.  The previous page, please.

25     Can we show the previous page.

Page 13748

 1             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, with regards to this book, and I

 2     discovered this last night when I was reviewing some of the documents the

 3     Defence has proposed for cross-examination, I noticed that the first page

 4     of this log-book is missing from the exhibit.  Now, that could be one of

 5     two things.  One, it could have been a bad job of photography in that

 6     when the investigators went out to take photographs of this log-book that

 7     they missed the first page or the first page simply doesn't exist.  What

 8     we can do is go back to Doboj and check to make sure that the page is

 9     either missing, or if it wasn't photographed properly to rephotograph it

10     to be included in the exhibit.  This is an error, obviously.  The

11     investigators were photographing thousands and thousands of log-book

12     pages and sometimes something goes missing.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  One of those days you said, Mr. Zecevic.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Vasic, I apologise.  Such things happen.  If

16     you can, try and help us.  I don't know if you can give us the answer

17     without reviewing the page which we obviously do not have.

18        A.   From the first page we have three crimes of murder committed in

19     two cases by unidentified perpetrators and in one case by identified

20     perpetrators.  These are numbers 5 and 6 with the unidentified

21     perpetrators, and KU 7 is the number under which there is a murder of a

22     non-Serb committed by a Serb.

23        Q.   Just a second.  But these three instances which you enumerated

24     now on the first page are not in your schematic?

25        A.   No.  Because --

Page 13749

 1        Q.   So your schematic as compared to the numbers should be modified,

 2     and these three entries under numbers 5, 6, and 7 should be included in

 3     it.  Did I understand that correctly?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Could you now please give back the documents to me.

 6        A.   Should I state which ones are recorded in the register?

 7        Q.   First please return these three which are not there so that we

 8     can tender them into evidence and then we shall slowly move on.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness just gave

10     me three documents.  These are tabs 45, 47, and 48, and the documents are

11     criminal reports dated the 3rd of August, 1992, 1D03-1240.

12             As the witness has reviewed the documents, I think that there is

13     no need to show them in e-court again.  Unless there are any objections

14     from the Prosecution, I would suggest that they be admitted.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I recommend a different course.  As I

16     suggested that the Prosecution goes back and determines whether there is,

17     in fact, a missed page in the log-book, and if we can find that page to

18     admit that page along with the log-book itself so you have a complete

19     log-book, and there you can see for yourselves entries 5, 6, and 7,

20     rather than admitting documents that really don't relate directly to this

21     witness's testimony.  Since he can't speak about the cases themselves, he

22     just simply reviewed the log-book.  And that will make it clear that his

23     analysis left off that first page because it was simply missing from the

24     log-book.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  But with all due respect, Your Honours, these

Page 13750

 1     documents, they contain the reference KU 5, 6, and 7, and the witness

 2     testified to that.  So it would be much shorter way to introduce these

 3     three documents.  I don't have anything against, but if we are to ask the

 4     Prosecutor, the investigator goes to Doboj and photocopies the first

 5     page, then we will have to return the witness for the -- for continuance

 6     of the testimony.  I think this is a much shorter cut and much shorter

 7     way of introducing these documents and having the full picture.  Thank

 8     you.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  That wasn't my recommendation to have the witness

10     return, it was simply to admit the log-book itself into evidence and then

11     we will report back whether the page exists or it doesn't.  If it does

12     exist, we'll just add that to the exhibit so that you will have the

13     complete exhibit with the missing page.

14             JUDGE HALL:  So you agree with the application to admit the

15     log-book?

16             MR. OLMSTED:  To admit the log-book, yes, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE HALL:  And we appreciate that this matter of the missing

18     page we are going to have to return to.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, yes.  I will ask that the log-book be

20     admitted that has been agreed with the Prosecution, but what I want is to

21     admit these three documents which are relevant to our case and which do

22     not exist in the existing log-book because of the missing first page.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry --

25             JUDGE HALL:  So we would admit the documents, Mr. Zecevic.

Page 13751

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  Let me

 2     read the documents.  The first one I read -- please bear with me,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             The first -- the first one I read was 1D03-1240.  That is the

 5     criminal complaint of 3rd of August, 1992.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit 1D355, Your Honours.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  The second document is -- is the document

 8     1D01-0307.  That is a criminal complaint filed on the 8th -- on the 1st

 9     of August, 1992, and it's recorded on the face of it as KU 5/92.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  And this will be Exhibit 1D356, Your Honours.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  And the last document is 1D00-3668.  It's the

12     criminal complaint filed on the 1st of August, 1992, and on the face of

13     it it's been recorded in the KU log-book as number 6/92.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  And this it will be Exhibit 1D357, Your Honours.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, perhaps it would be good to have it

17     on the record.  You did not mention the KU number for the first one.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Okay.  Yes, that is correct, Your Honours.  I

19     failed to do that.  The document which is admitted as 1D355 has a KU

20     number 7/92.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

23             MR. OLMSTED:  And --

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I move the Trial Chamber now to admit the

25     log-book?

Page 13752

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  The log-book for SJB Doboj is 109 -- I'm sorry.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  It's -- it's the CSB Doboj log-book, and it's

 4     10493.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit 1D359, Your Honours.  Yes,

 6     Your Honours.  1D358.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  1D358 is 65 ter 10493.  Okay.  Thank you very much.

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Vasic, let us move on.

 9        A.   The document which you showed here connected with the number KU

10     16/92 is mentioned in the overview.  Then KU 18/92 also.  24/92 as well,

11     a murder.  Security services centre was in charge of that.  29/92, 31,

12     and 34.

13        Q.   So you managed to identify among these documents those which have

14     been included in the KU register as well in your schematic; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Can you now please return these documents to me.

17        A.   The documents --

18        Q.   Now we will move to the last group of documents.

19        A.   As for --

20             JUDGE HALL:  I understand that they're ready for us to do the

21     other work with which the Chamber has to deal now, so perhaps this would

22     be a suitable point.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE HALL:  We have to rise, and it seems to me that you should

25     think in terms of returning at the time when we would have resumed for

Page 13753

 1     the final session that's at 12.25.

 2                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  So we are about to go into closed session.  We will

 4     resume in open session at 12.25.  The Bench need not rise in order to

 5     accommodate this.  So ...

 6             I should add it's a closed session to deal with an ex parte

 7     situation.  Thank you.

 8                           [Closed session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE HALL:  So we reconvene in open court, and I invite

22     Mr. Zecevic to resume his cross-examination.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. Vasic, although it has nothing

25     to do with me, but the situation is just like that.

Page 13754

 1             We broke off when we were dealing with the documents from Doboj

 2     from that set of documents that I gave you.  Could you explain the

 3     situation with the documents you have in front of you.

 4        A.   These documents have no KU entry number, so probably they weren't

 5     entered, and the CSB sent them to the basic public prosecutor's office in

 6     Doboj.  The authenticity of the documents can only be established for --

 7     by conducting a check at the public prosecutor's office, and the crimes

 8     involved are causing general danger with lethal consequence.

 9        Q.   No, no.  You'll just give it back to me.

10        A.   I couldn't find these documents in the KU register because

11     there's no mention on the documents that they were entered there, and

12     that was not the usual practice.  What was sent to the prosecutor's

13     office should have been marked "KU."

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher to

15     return the documents to me.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I apologise.  I was speaking about

17     document KU 29, that it was entered in the register.  Could you -- could

18     I see it again so we may check whether it was indeed entered, because 24

19     was, but I'm not sure about 29.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Do you want to see it on the screen again?

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D358 in

23     e-court, the page with item number 29.  And could the usher please return

24     this document to the witness.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Before going to that, would I like to ask the

Page 13755

 1     witness, the previous documents you gave back to Mr. Zecevic, you said

 2     you couldn't identify them as being in the KU register.  My question is:

 3     Are they not, or are you not -- are they not in that register, or are you

 4     not able to identify and to tell us whether they're in the KU register or

 5     not?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  If these reports were filed in the

 7     register, we would have found them because these are serious crimes, and

 8     they would have been included in the statistics, although they were not

 9     marked as KU.  In the statistics, it would have been clear that they were

10     entered in the KU register because these were serious crimes that were

11     involved, causing general danger with lethal consequences involved.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So you say they are not in the KU register;

13     right?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Can I see KU 29?  Although the

17     description reads "Inflicting serious bodily injuries," but if this was

18     entered in the register, then it isn't included in the statistics because

19     there is no mention of lethal outcome of the injuries.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] So could we please see 1D358 on the

21     screens for the witness to see.  We need the page with entry number 29.

22     My guess is that it's on -- oh, here it is.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.  It mentions serious bodily

24     injuries.  That's why it isn't included in this analysis.  If there had

25     been -- if these injuries had resulted in death, it would have been

Page 13756

 1     clearly stated in the register.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please have the document

 3     back.

 4        Q.   So if I understood properly, the document under tab 52,

 5     1D01-0321, and that's a criminal report dated 20 November 1992, against

 6     unidentified perpetrators, and the victim is Ismet Hrnjadovic, obviously

 7     a Muslim who died of the consequences, so this document can be found in

 8     the register.

 9        A.   And it's marked 29 through 92.

10        Q.   All right.  But since you were unable to establish by looking at

11     the register that this person died, you didn't consider the crime

12     committed so serious as to be included in your schematic.  Did I

13     understand you properly?

14        A.   Yes, precisely.

15        Q.   Now that you have looked at this document, you think that this

16     document should be included in the schematic that you attached to your

17     statement.

18        A.   Yes.  It would have been good, because that would have completed

19     the information.  Serious bodily injury with lethal consequence within 24

20     hours, that can even be qualified as murder.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] In line with this comment,

22     Your Honours, I seek to tender 1D01-0321 into evidence.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D359, Your Honours.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 13757

 1        Q.   Very well.  Let us now return to the documents that you gave back

 2     to me a minute ago.  They're also from Doboj.  The first one is

 3     1D01-0311.  You're about to see it in e-court.  By reviewing these

 4     documents, namely this one and the following five, that -- and you

 5     established that for some reason these documents were not entered in the

 6     KU register, although they should have been given their nature.

 7        A.   Yes.  Correct.

 8        Q.   The document that we see on the screen is dated 22 August 1992.

 9     It's a criminal report for murder.  We see that the perpetrator is NN.

10     That is, unidentified.  And the victim is one Husein Colic.  Judging by

11     his first name, he is a Muslim; correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   This is also a serious crime, murder.  So that by applying these

14     criteria, we can conclude that if it had been in the KU register, it

15     would have been included in your schematic; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender

18     document 1D01-0311, and that is tab 41, into evidence.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D360, Your Honours.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22        Q.   The following document, 1D01-0313, tab 42.  This situation is the

23     same as with the previous document.  It's dated 24 August, 1992, a

24     criminal report against an unidentified perpetrator or several

25     perpetrators for murder, and the victim is Esad Saracevic from Doboj.

Page 13758

 1     Judging by the first name and the last name, too, we can conclude that he

 2     is a Muslim; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Again if this document had been entered in the KU register, you

 5     would have included it in your schematic because since it's about a

 6     serious crime, it should have been included in the schematic; correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender this

 9     document into evidence too.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D361, Your Honours.

12             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   The following document, 1D01-0315, tab 43.  This is about --

14     actually, this is an on-site investigation report.  Let me be very

15     precise now.  On the first page of the letter which the CSB Doboj sent

16     out, it is signed by the chief of the centre, Andrija Bjelosevic.  It was

17     sent to the public prosecutor's office.  It's about the case of

18     Bozidar Vidovic and others, who are Serbs, and it's about the activation

19     by an antitank mine at Svjetlici, which is probably a village in the

20     Doboj municipality, as a consequence of which Sejfudin Hodzic died on the

21     spot, who is also a Muslim.  And one Mirsad Durmic sustained serious

22     injuries, also a Muslim; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   If this document had been entered in the KU register due to the

25     seriousness of the crime and the lethal outcome of the action, it would

Page 13759

 1     have been included in your schematic; correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I speak to tender this document

 4     into evidence.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Your -- Your Honours -- Your Honours, I look at

 6     this document and I don't see a crime.  I see the people died because

 7     they ran over a mine, so I'm not sure it really establishes what the

 8     Defence is attempting to establish with it.  We need further evidence

 9     that this was, in fact, a deliberate crime committed by someone.  It

10     could be simply an accident.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted echos the Chamber's query, Mr. Zecevic.

12     What is your response?

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  The allegation by the Prosecution was there was a

14     discriminatory policy of the MUP of Republika Srpska during 1992 where

15     all the cases or the criminal acts or deaths of the Muslims were not --

16             JUDGE HALL:  We haven't lost sight of that.  The narrow question

17     is whether this particular incident constituted a crime or as Mr. Olmsted

18     said was an unfortunate accident.

19             MR. OLMSTED:  And, Your Honours, I ask the Defence again to

20     please refrain from especially speaking about what the Prosecution's case

21     is purportedly to be when the witness is present.  I think that is an

22     issue for argument at the end of the case.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I was only trying to explain.  Your Honours,

24     the point of the matter is that this document has been sent by the CSB to

25     the public prosecutor.  So therefore there has to have been a certain

Page 13760

 1     criminal procedure before the prosecutor, otherwise these documents would

 2     not have been sent to the prosecutor.  That is my explanation.  Maybe --

 3     maybe the witness can help with that.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, certainly you can ask the witness, but I

 5     think he's already established that he doesn't have any personal

 6     knowledge about these various cases as far as the representation as to

 7     why this was sent to the prosecutor, that again would probably require a

 8     degree of speculation on the part of this witness given he doesn't know

 9     anything about this particular case.

10             JUDGE HALL:  So on the face of it, Mr. Zecevic, this doesn't

11     relate to a crime, and it seems that it would -- is therefore not

12     relevant.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.

14             [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown the following

15     document:  1D01-0309.  That's tab 44.

16        Q.   This is again a letter sent to the basic public prosecutor's

17     office.  The date is the 10th of August, 1992, and the security services

18     centre in Doboj is submitting to the basic public prosecutor's office in

19     Doboj the official note drafted at the site of a fire at Jozo Barukcic's

20     house.  On that occasion, the owner of the house, Jozo Barukcic, lost his

21     life.  He died because of the injuries he sustained.

22             It is not mentioned that criminal proceedings have been

23     initiated, but it is a fact that some sort of investigation had to be

24     conducted in case when the death of a person occurred.  It had to be done

25     ex officio; correct?

Page 13761

 1        A.   Yes, precisely.  Regardless of whether it was an accident, a

 2     suicide, or a murder, an investigation would be conducted, though in case

 3     when death was the result of an accident or if someone committed suicide,

 4     then a report would be submitted to the Prosecution to decide.  So it is

 5     important for the investigative judge and the prosecutor's office to

 6     conduct an investigation and decide whether there are any elements of a

 7     crime or not.  If there was no suspicion that this was arson, certainly

 8     this would not be registered in the KU register, but it would be normally

 9     recorded at the prosecutor's office.

10             So there was an investigation, and if during the on-site

11     investigation it was established that this person burnt himself, whether

12     because there was a problem with heating or because there was some other

13     failure and then the person suffocated and whether it was a suicide or if

14     the person was murdered, if he was not murdered then it would not be

15     registered in the KU register.

16        Q.   In any case, this document shows that the police, that is to say

17     the Doboj CSB, conducted an investigation of the death of Jozo Barukcic -

18     I believe that he is a Croat - regardless of the results that they

19     established at the end; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In any case, regardless of the results that they established, it

22     is up to the prosecutor to decide what sort of proceedings would be

23     initiated once he received the documents which members of the Ministry of

24     the Interior submit to him; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 13762

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I agree that we

 2     really do not know whether this was a crime or not.  However, it was the

 3     death of a Croat.  As the witness confirmed, the police conducted an

 4     investigation, and from the moment when the documents were submitted, it

 5     was in the hands of the prosecutor's office and not the police.

 6     Therefore, I believe this document to be relevant and I suggest that it

 7     be admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, well, of course I won't raise the

 9     same objection I raised before, but in addition, all this witness is

10     doing is looking at this document and reading what it says and agreeing

11     with what the Defence is asking.  So I don't think it's adding anything

12     to admit the documents itself into evidence.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Well, the question I was going to ask is isn't this

14     the same type as the last document, Mr. Zecevic?

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, that is correct.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Qualitatively speaking.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  I think that there is similarity between the two

18     documents, but still, Your Honours, with all due respect, the proposition

19     which we think is relevant is which -- which the witness confirmed, is

20     that the -- is that the police has done its job concerning the death of

21     the person of the other ethnicity.  In 1992 reported that, conducted an

22     investigation, and gave the file to the prosecutor's office.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  In relation to crimes, Mr. Zecevic.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honour, but we don't know if this was a

25     crime or not, because the investigation might -- might have developed

Page 13763

 1     that it was -- that the fire was set.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The point is is it in the KU register or not, and

 3     what the witness says basically, if it's not a crime, it's not in the KU

 4     register.  So because if it is not in the KU register, you could -- you

 5     could conclude that it is not a crime.  But in any event, it doesn't

 6     prove anything.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  I --

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So why should we admit it?

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  I fully agree with Your Honour, but as you have

10     seen from the previous documents, there have been criminal complaints,

11     obviously crimes of murder, which have not been recorded in the KU, and

12     that is the whole point, because what we say is what the witness

13     confirmed to me at the very beginning, that the KU register alone is not,

14     is not to be trusted fully to show the -- the situation as it was.  That

15     is why I am going through this -- through this exercise, Your Honours,

16     and I think it's relevant, and of course we intend to rely on this.

17             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, this is not a criminal report.  This

18     is information going to the prosecutor's office.  What follows is the

19     witness says there is an on-site investigation.  If there is evidence of

20     a crime, the police have to investigate it, file a criminal report.  So

21     there's a whole procedure that must follow this, and therefore this is

22     simply one page and it doesn't tell us anything beyond what the witness

23     has told us, which is the police have a duty to investigate and report

24     things to their prosecutor.  So why it's not in the crime register, this

25     witness cannot explain.  Maybe there was never a criminal report filed on

Page 13764

 1     it.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I apologise.  I explained why this

 4     is not in the register, because deaths which are the result of accident

 5     or suicide are not entered in the register.  They are recorded in the

 6     usual clerk's office which is present in each police station.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  For the same reasons why the previous document we

 8     declined to admit it, we decline to admit this.

 9             Mr. Zecevic, in terms of the evidence that the Chamber has heard,

10     which as we understand is directed to establishing the -- that the KU

11     register on which the Prosecution relies is not wholly accurate, that

12     is -- appears to be incontrovertible at this point, and we wonder on that

13     basis how many more like specimens you intend to tender in support of

14     this proposition which the Prosecution, as I appreciate the evidence, is

15     not in a position to refute as a basic principle?  We know that there's

16     room for argument in terms of the effect of all of this, but in terms

17     that the KU register was not wholly accurate, that seems to be fairly

18     well established.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I do have only one more document,

20     which is a criminal complaint, and I think it's irrelevant for this

21     particular municipality.  However, the next municipality that I have, it

22     is my understanding that the KU register was never shown to the witness,

23     and therefore I intend to introduce these documents in support of the --

24     of our position that the -- that the police in that particular territory,

25     in that particular municipality, which is in our indictment and in the

Page 13765

 1     relevant time, were performing their duties in accordance with the law.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Let's move, Mr. Zecevic.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 4             [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness 1D00-6974.

 5        Q.   Sir, in a few seconds you will see this document on the screen.

 6     It's under tab 46.  This is a criminal report submitted by the Doboj CSB

 7     on the 3rd of August, 1992, against known perpetrators, four of them.

 8     Three were fully identified, and the fourth one was partly identified.

 9     All of them Serbs.  The crime that they are charged with is murder, and

10     the victim is Ivan Cigoj, a Croat, and Ferid Cabric, who I suppose is a

11     Muslim.  Can you see that?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   You have established that this criminal report, even though it

14     should be included in the crime register in Doboj, maintained by the

15     Doboj CSB, has not been entered in it, and as this is a serious crime, it

16     should also be included in your schematic; correct?

17        A.   If it had been recorded in the K register, it would be there.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I tender this document into

20     evidence.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit 1D362, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But, Mr. Zecevic --

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- was it then included in the K register?

Page 13766

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, Your Honours.  The witness -- the witness

 2     confirmed that this entry, this criminal complaint, was never reported in

 3     the KU register although it should have been, in accordance with the law.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I think this is the difficulty of

 5     this inquiry without the witness seeing the entire documents and the

 6     log-books.  For instance, when I was reviewing this document last night,

 7     I noticed it appeared to be related to another document on the Defence's

 8     document list, 1D03-1240, which appears in the crime register under entry

 9     7/92.  Now, if they're related cases, it's just simply another criminal

10     report regarding the same criminal incident, then it would be in the same

11     entry for that crime register.

12             So it's very difficult for the witness to sit here today and say,

13     Oh, this criminal report is not linked to another entry in the crime

14     register without seeing the files, without looking at the crime register

15     and making that determination.  So I think there is a limit to the amount

16     of information this witness can provide on-the-spot notice in

17     cross-examination without all the information he needs to make that

18     assessment.  Maybe the Defence can confirm that those two criminal

19     reports are related, the one that is under KU 7/92.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  If my recollection is right, the KU 7/92 was not

21     recorded previously by the witness as well.

22             MR. OLMSTED:  That was because of the missing page in the

23     log-book which we will look into.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, maybe when we have the complete log-book

25     maybe we can discuss this some more.  And with all due respect,

Page 13767

 1     Your Honours, the witness is the Prosecutor's witness, and he was asked

 2     to comment on the documents he has never seen before, and he produced the

 3     charts and the diagrams based on these documents.  So I don't see any

 4     difference from what I'm doing and what the -- what the Office of the

 5     Prosecutor was asking this witness to do, none whatsoever.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  I think Judge Harhoff has really hit the nail on

 7     the head.  If we have a KU number, then it's quite easy to go to the

 8     log-book and say, Yes, this witness misidentified it.  He should have

 9     included it in one of his annexes.

10             But without a KU number, we have a criminal report here.  We

11     don't know if it was filed.  We don't know what happened do after it was

12     written.  We don't know if it's in the crime register because we don't

13     have a cross-reference number.  So really the witness would have to look

14     at this criminal report, at the criminal report under KU 7/92, determine

15     whether they're the same entry or they're really the same criminal

16     transaction and say, Yes, it is recorded in the KU.  It really does take

17     a little bit of a further development which I think for the purposes of

18     this witness, which is simply looking at the crime register and saying,

19     Yes, I can see from this document that this log-book, that these are

20     crimes committed against non-Serbs, I think that's really the extent what

21     he's trying to do.  As far as showing him criminal reports or case files

22     and asking him to link them to the log-books, well, that does require

23     considerable effort on his part here on the stand to do that, and

24     unfortunately Defence is not really giving that full opportunity to do

25     that.

Page 13768

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  May I just complete.  Maybe we have a different

 2     interpretation of the witness's answer, but -- but my remark was prompted

 3     by the witness's response to your question, Mr. Zecevic, the response on

 4     page 12, line 22, in which the witness says that if the incident had been

 5     recorded in the K register it would be there, presumably in the KU

 6     log-book.  It's just -- so my question was, well, was it then registered

 7     somewhere?  That remains, as I understand it, an open question.  The fact

 8     remains that, yes, the police did do its work in the sense that a

 9     criminal report was made, as we see it in front us, and so the only

10     question that remains is whether the -- the investigation that was made

11     and initiated by the police in Doboj, whether that was recorded in one or

12     some other log-book, and that's where I'm still uncertain.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well -- but that is precisely, Your Honours, what

14     my -- what our complaint on this exercise of the -- of the Office of the

15     Prosecutor is, because we say that by analysing only the KU register,

16     the -- the real situation will not be established, because as we -- as I

17     mentioned yesterday with the witness, there is a book of -- of on-site

18     investigation.  There is a daily log-book.  We hear now that there is a

19     normal log-book where -- where all other documents are recorded such as

20     the documents which you denied the admittance which I showed just -- just

21     couple of minutes ago.

22             So therefore, what we are saying is that in order to -- for

23     the -- for the Office of the Prosecutor to establish what they tried to

24     establish, they will have to bring all these documents together and then

25     invite us to draw the conclusions.  That is the point.

Page 13769

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But the Presiding Judge's remark a while ago

 2     still stands, namely that evidence has been provided to show that the KU

 3     log-book in itself is incomplete to understand the full picture, and I

 4     think this is accepted by the Chamber.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well -- well, I'm perfectly satisfied, because the

 6     whole exercise what I'm -- what I am performing is aimed to show

 7     Your Honours that that is the fact, and that is why I'm showing these

 8     documents, in order to establish that some of the documents which

 9     normally and according to the law should have been entered in the KU

10     register were, in fact, not, which does not mean, as the Office of the

11     Prosecution is suggesting, that the police was turning a blind eye

12     against the crimes for non-Serbs, but are, in fact, the result of

13     something completely different, situation or --

14             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, I think this is better suited for

15     argument, not while the witness is here testifying.  I think Your Honours

16     are correct, that that is one piece of evidence in the Prosecution's

17     case.  Obviously the Prosecution has presented a whole number of

18     different types of evidence which we hope the Trial Chamber will look at

19     as a whole to try to understand the picture of what was happening back

20     then, but beyond that I don't think it's necessary to go into more oral

21     argument as to what the evidence shows or what it doesn't show or what

22     the Prosecution's position is or what it isn't.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I would like to go back to that last document

24     with the more or less -- with -- the witness's answer was not very clear

25     to us, so the question is to the witness:  Were you able to say that this

Page 13770

 1     crime, the crime in that last report that was -- that was discussed, was

 2     not in the QA -- the KU log-book?  Was that what you were telling us?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  This document, the way it is is

 4     not marked KU, so based on this I can only say that it cannot be found in

 5     the KU register.  Would I have to review the entire KU register once more

 6     to try to find whether it is entered anywhere, and if so, under which

 7     item number.

 8             So from the statistics that I have, I can say that there has not

 9     been one single case of a murder of a group of non-Serbs by Serbs.  Based

10     on the documents that I had at my disposal, I can say that this kind of

11     report is not entered in the KU register.  However, it may be one of the

12     entries from 1 to 10, because I've never seen them.  But as it isn't

13     marked KU, the validity of this document must be checked with the public

14     prosecutor's office of Doboj, because the question arises now whether

15     this document was sent to the prosecutors at all.  It may have remained

16     at the station.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Is Your Honour satisfied with the answer, or should

18     I ...

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Whether this was sent to the

20     public prosecutor's office or not is a matter of speculation.  I cannot

21     claim either that it was or that it wasn't based on the document as it

22     is.

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. Vasic, the essence of what you're trying to say is that it is

25     necessary to review the log-books of the public prosecutor's office at

Page 13771

 1     Doboj to find out which criminal reports were received by that office;

 2     correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  That is the best way.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  May I continue, Your Honours?

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Since we have spoken about the inadequacy of the KU register ...

 9                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Since, as I said, we spoke about the inadequacy of that register

12     as the only indicator, I would like to show you P405.  It's a document

13     which is a report about the audit of the SJB conducted by the CSB, dated

14     22 October 1992.  It's a report drafted --

15             JUDGE HALL:  Let me remind you this document is confidential.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm terribly sorry.  I wasn't aware that this

17     document was confidential at all.  Sorry.

18                           [Defence counsel confer]

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, perhaps then we shouldn't show the document

20     to the witness.  I will just read to him the relevant paragraph.

21        Q.   On page 5, which is page 7 of the English text of this document

22     it says -- this is the report prepared by the -- by the workers of the

23     Ministry of Internal Affairs.

24             [Interpretation] These people from the ministry, when they

25     audited the CSB, found out the following, it was established, and I

Page 13772

 1     quote:

 2              "That at the CSB Doboj, no register exists about the reception

 3     of criminal reports, the so-called KU register, although they were warned

 4     at the beginning of August to do so.  They were given an extended

 5     deadline until the 22nd of August to do so and retroactively enter all

 6     criminal reports, as well as enter them in the operative register."

 7             Does this clarification shed any light on the situation with the

 8     KU register at the SJB of Doboj?

 9        A.   Possibly, because the ministry headquarters was duty-bound to

10     control the work of the lower-ranking organisational units such as the

11     police administration and the criminal police administration and check,

12     in the course of such audits, whether or not the laws and regulation were

13     is being abided by, and based on that, instruct the centres and the

14     stations to eliminate any possible shortcomings.  If the shortcomings

15     were more serious, they could launch disciplinary proceedings against the

16     responsible persons.

17        Q.   Thank you.  It seems to me, sir, that at the beginning of your

18     reply you said that some of the KU registers were never shown to you.  I

19     believe that you were unable to find them.  I think you mentioned Vogosca

20     and Kljuc, among others; right?

21        A.   Vogosca, Ilijas, Kljuc, and I can't remember the fourth

22     municipality now.

23        Q.   It's a fact, isn't it, that Vogosca under the Dayton Accord

24     became part of the federation?

25        A.   It's the same with Vogosca and Ilijas.  And I think that there's

Page 13773

 1     also Hadzici.  The same case -- the same applies to them.  And in 1995

 2     they became part of the federation.

 3        Q.   So in all these cases we can assume -- well, actually, I don't

 4     want to have you speculate, but in most of these cases were you -- or,

 5     rather, where no KU registers were found, that was at the SJBs which

 6     under the Dayton Accord became part of the federation?

 7        A.   Kljuc immediately before the Dayton Accord and these three after.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  For that reason I must show you some documents from

 9     Kljuc so we may establish whether or not these documents, given their

10     nature, were such as to be entered in the KU register.

11             MR. OLMSTED:  As my learned friend has established, there -- the

12     crime register for this municipality could not be located, so this

13     witness, given that he's already stated that he doesn't know -- he has no

14     personal knowledge of what was happening in other municipalities beyond

15     Laktasi, I'm not sure that this is going to be useful for the

16     Trial Chamber to show him a bunch of criminal reports that have no

17     association with any log-book that he's reviewed.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I take -- I take the argument from my learned

19     friend to be of some substance.  I do agree, to a certain extent, but,

20     Your Honours, Kljuc is one of the municipalities in the indictment.

21     These are the criminal reports and the documents prepared by the police

22     at the relevant time -- relevant time to the indictment.

23             We heard from the witness that the KU register and probably none

24     of the -- of the log-books normally kept in the SJB cannot be located.

25     So I would be grateful for the instruction of the Trial Chamber in which

Page 13774

 1     way should I proceed, if -- if I should proceed at all with this witness.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honours, there probably are better

 3     witnesses then for seeking to admit this kind of evidence, witness who

 4     probably can talk more about the documents that he intends to show this

 5     particular witness.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, we are not unmindful of the potential

 8     relevance of the evidence that you wish to lead, but our difficulty is

 9     that -- notwithstanding the present responsibilities of this witness,

10     whether there is a better witness who can -- who can prove the documents

11     on which you wish to rely, because it seems to us that taken at its

12     highest, all the witness can -- can tell us is that having the over --

13     having the current overall responsibility, the custodian of these

14     records, this is something that should have happened 20 years ago.  So

15     where does that leave us?  Mr. Olmsted's point is that -- as I understand

16     it, is that he accepts the relevance of where you're going, but there

17     must be a better witness who can establish the link.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand and appreciate, Your Honours.

19             Your Honours, I see the time.  What I'm proposing to do, if there

20     is no objection from the Office of the Prosecutor, that I -- I give the

21     set of documents to the witness which pertain to the municipality of

22     Sanski Most, and that is the KU register that he has reviewed.  It -- it

23     refers to documents listed as tab number 4 until tab number 12, so nine

24     documents altogether, and I propose to give these documents to the

25     witness so he can verify if these documents -- if any of these documents

Page 13775

 1     are, in fact, in the KU register and, therefore, in his diagram, and he

 2     can inform us tomorrow.  And if some of the documents are not, I will

 3     just make the reference to them and -- and that is how I'm going to

 4     finish my cross-examination.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  And that should save us some time.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, definitely.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

 8             MR. OLMSTED:  No.  The only thing is, of course he can -- he has

 9     his annexes with him so he can certainly compare the documents to his

10     findings in his annexes.  As far as the log-book from Sanski Most itself,

11     I'm not sure, do we want to get that to him?  Is that necessary for the

12     purposes of what my learned friend wants to do?  I'm not sure.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, it would depend on the witness.  It guess

14     that it would be better if the witness would be provided with the

15     log-book from Sanski Most so he can be in a position to verify these

16     documents so we'll lose minimum time tomorrow.

17             JUDGE HALL:  So the usher will pass them on.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Vasic, we are about to take the adjournment --

20     sorry.

21                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Vasic, we are about to take the adjournment for

24     the day.  Your testimony is not yet quite at an end.  Mr. Zecevic is

25     winding up his cross-examination, he having exhausted the time allotted

Page 13776

 1     to him, but he will be with you briefly for tomorrow and then

 2     Mr. Krgovic.  So we have a few matters with which to deal before we rise,

 3     so the usher will escort you from the courtroom and we will resume

 4     tomorrow morning in this courtroom at 9.00.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  We crave the indulgence of the interpreters and the

 7     rest of the support staff, although we notice it's past the time for the

 8     adjournment, we understand the Prosecution has a few matters to raise.

 9     But before they do that, we wish to issue an oral corrigendum to the

10     order that was made today in respect of Witness 023, and that is the

11     documents may be added to the 65 ter list, and through oversight, one

12     number was omitted, and that number is 10397, which should now be

13     regarded as incorporated into that order.

14             Yes, Mr. Hannis.

15             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  In view of the time, I'll

16     just raise one and ask to raise the other one tomorrow.  The most

17     pressing relates to a discussion that was had Tuesday afternoon with

18     Ms. Korner when you were having the discussions about scheduling

19     witnesses and problems that happened with estimates of cross-examination.

20     We had made a request asking Your Honours to possibly reduce the gap from

21     six weeks to four weeks, during which we could call witnesses who are

22     going to appear to testify about the adjudicated facts, and I think

23     Judge Hall at page 13642 indicated that you would discuss and revert to

24     the parties at the next sitting.  I don't know if you had an opportunity

25     to do that.

Page 13777

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             MR. HANNIS:  And, Your Honours, I raise it now because

 3     Ms. Pidwell and I are meeting with victim witnesses this afternoon to

 4     speak about scheduling issues [Microphone not activated].

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, we wish to be heard on the subject.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think you were heard, and for -- for the record

 7     at this point, the Chamber has discussed the issue of the six weeks'

 8     delay, and we discussed it in the context -- in the broader context of

 9     seeking to avoid times in court where no witness is available, and so we

10     will hand down our decision on that major issue, but for the limited

11     purpose of -- of altering the six weeks delay, the Chamber's position is

12     that we will not allow this.  So the six weeks still is the delay that we

13     will work with.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  And tomorrow morning if I

15     may raise another issue concerning something that Mr. Krgovic raised

16     today.  We may resolve it during the evening.  If not, I'd like a chance

17     to address it in the morning.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  So we take the adjournment until 9.00

19     tomorrow.

20                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

21                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 27th day

22                           of August, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.