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]
11 Pages 13719-13724 redacted. Private session.
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.
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
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
24 Q. All right.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Maybe I can interject, maybe try to be a little bit
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
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
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
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
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,
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,
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,
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
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
25 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. If the application is with regard to the
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
1 can provide that to the Defence. During the break, I will give you a
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]
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
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
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
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
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.
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 --
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
25 MR. ZECEVIC: But with all due respect, Your Honours, these
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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]
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.
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
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
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;
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
1 clearly stated in the register.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please have the document
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
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]
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
1 Doboj to find out which criminal reports were received by that office;
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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.
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
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.