1 Friday, 27 August 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everybody in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Good morning to everyone.
10 May we take the appearances for today, please.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
12 Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic for
15 Stanisic Defence.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
17 Igor Pantelic, Aleksandar Aleksic, and Katarina Danicic for
18 Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Is there anything that -- yes,
20 Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honours. There is one matter I wanted to
22 bring up with you before we started. I wasn't able to address it
23 yesterday because we were running late. And if I could do it before the
24 witness comes in; it may take me five minutes. And I guess I would like
25 to go into private session because I make reference to a protected
1 witness, and I have to discuss some names.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We go into private session.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 13780-13783 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, it was me who caused all this
4 trouble, so I would like to apologise once again. It was really an
5 honest mistake, because I just misspoke the names.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Krgovic.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Now, Your Honours, before the witness is ushered
8 in, I would like to correct the transcript of yesterday, and my friend
9 from the Office of the Prosecutor brought my attention to it. It's page
10 13.772, line 2. I was quoting the document P405, and by quoting it I
11 said -- I'm sure I said "SJB Doboj," but it was recorded as "CSB Doboj."
12 So instead of "CSB," it should say "SJB Doboj," which is actually the
13 quote from the document, and the document stays as it is.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Vasic, good morning to you. Before --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] good morning.
18 JUDGE HALL: Before Mr. Zecevic moves to wind up his
19 cross-examination, I remind you you're still on your oath.
20 WITNESS: GOJKO VASIC [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Vasic. I know that I kept you
1 busy last night, but I hope that wasn't a big problem.
2 Before we start dealing with that, I would like to return to
3 something regarding which Mr. Olmsted intervened yesterday twice, and I
4 somehow omitted his intervention.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 1D362.
6 Q. I will remind you this is about criminal reports of the murder of
7 one Muslim and one Croat in Doboj in August 1992. Mr. Olmsted's question
8 was, or rather, his intervention, that these two criminal reports, which
9 are both entered here, refer to the same event. So we -- we may have
10 wrongly presented them as two events. So please take a look at the first
11 document, 1D362, for which yesterday we established that it was not
12 entered in the KU register.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it refers to four perpetrators of murder of one Ivan Cigoj
15 and one Ferid Cabric, which happened on the 31st of July, 1992. One
16 Vukojevic is mentioned as the first suspect, then Mirko Ninkovic, also
17 known as doctor, then Jovica Vukojevic, born in 1973, and one Mladen;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please show the
22 witness 1D355.
23 Q. In this document, 1D355, and there is a -- it is marked as
24 entered in the crime register as entry 7/92, which must be on the first
25 page, which we don't have, and this really is partly about the very same
1 incident, but there's another perpetrator by the name of Zoran Ninkovic,
2 aka Atata. The one in the previous document was Mirko Ninkovic, aka
3 Doctor, and I established that the names of their fathers and mothers as
4 well as their dates of birth differ.
5 In this criminal report, we can see that this Zoran Ninkovic,
6 apart from taking part in the breaking and entering and being an
7 accomplice in the murder of those two men but also after the
8 aforementioned four persons took those two men out of that flat and
9 killed them, he stayed behind in the flat and committed -- or committed
10 the murder of one Serb, one Milos Savic.
11 Can you see that in this criminal report?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So you agree with me when I say that this -- these are actually
14 two different incidents and two different cases, one against four persons
15 and this one against Zoran Ninkovic; correct?
16 A. These incidents are partly linked. The public prosecutor's
17 office could have merged them because they were committed at the same
18 place, they started at the same place. However, this murder has been
19 singled out. This Zoran Ninkovic, also known as Atata, had to be held
20 responsible as a accomplice in the first murder of those two men.
21 Possibly the public prosecutor's office asked the police to submit the
22 reports under the same entry number.
23 Q. However, in this case, apart from his being an accomplice in the
24 murder of the two non-Serbs, he also committed another murder, and the
25 other four were not suspects in this latter case.
1 A. Yes, precisely.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 Since we have clarified this, let us return to the documentation
4 I handed you yesterday in the afternoon with the request to review it.
5 It's about Sanski Most.
6 In Sanski Most, if I remember your schematic correctly, you
7 concluded that four crimes against non-Serbs were committed; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And six crimes where the victims were non-Serbs and the
10 perpetrator is unidentified; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That's was you established after reviewing the KU register of
13 Sanski Most; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Yesterday I gave you a total of nine documents, tabs 4
16 through 12, from the Stanisic Defence documents list for you to establish
17 whether or not each of these documents was entered in the KU register of
18 Sanski Most, and if not, point out which weren't.
19 A. The first document that -- which you marked as number 4,
20 concerning the murder committed by Nenad Malic against two victims, the
21 criminal report was not entered in the police station because from the
22 very outset of the investigation military security was involved. The
23 police, as you can see from the documentation, assisted with the on-site
24 investigation, and the criminal report was drafted by the command of the
25 6th Krajina Brigade so that from the very beginning through the end the
1 investigation was conducted by military security bodies and then the
2 police. This was only entered in the log-book of on-site investigations.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. Document number 5 is similar. The suspects are Mile Gvozden and
5 Miroslav. It's about the murder of nine Croats in a village. From the
6 outset of the investigation, the services of military security were
7 involved, and they also completed the investigation. The police only
8 assisted with on-site investigations. That's why these two incidents
9 were not registered, because the police didn't draft a criminal report
10 nor was there a reason for them to do so.
11 The decision of the first instance court of Sanski Most, that's
12 document number 6, refers to KU 68/92 or is entered under this number.
13 It's a decision in a trial for rape, as is mentioned in the table.
14 Q. Thank you. Good.
15 A. Case number 7 was registered as KU 93/92.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. It concerns the crime of murder, and it can be found in the
18 overview. So I said that these are already in the register.
19 The murder of Petar Ivankovic and other persons, a total of four
20 persons, was entered in the KU register in 1993. So it isn't included in
21 this overview. The incident happened in 1992, but it was entered at the
22 beginning of 1993. So this can be considered regular.
23 Q. Please tell us the tab number of this document.
24 A. This number --
25 Q. No. On the yellow slip.
1 A. Eight.
2 Q. So it's tab 8. If I understand you correctly, so the document
3 under tab 8 was not included in your register because it was entered in
4 the KU register in 1993, although the event itself happened in 1992?
5 A. Yes. This is a specific situation. A quadruple murder was
6 reported, but the bodies were not found. It was later established that
7 the bodies had been interred so that subsequently, pursuant to the orders
8 of the public prosecutor's office and the court, some activities had been
9 conducted, such as exhumation and autopsy.
10 Q. I understand. Let's move on to tab 9.
11 A. This incident was entered as KU 75/92, and it's included in the
12 overview and the summary. This involves four victims. The on-site
13 investigation was conducted by the judge.
14 Q. All right. And tab 10?
15 A. As far as I could tell, this is a letter written by Kajtaz and
16 sent to one Vlado - I'm not sure Vlado who, but it must be a politician.
17 It's some sort of a threatening letter. Unless he helps him concerning a
18 criminal investigation, then he will say that this Vlado and some people
19 in the power structure of Sanski Most ordered him to commit this murder.
20 And it is entered in KU under 85/92. This is Ivo Tutic and others.
21 Q. And tab 12?
22 A. Tab 12 refers to the same crime, but I must say that the offence
23 under 75, with several victims: First, two persons were reported for
24 whom it was established that they were present when the crime was
25 committed, but later, in the investigation of the Military Prosecutor's
1 Office which later on took over the case, it was established that the
2 perpetrators were Kajtaz, probably the one who wrote this letter - and I
3 say probably because I cannot be certain because I haven't seen the
4 letter before - and one Maksimovic.
5 So document number 12 is the indictment for the crime entered
6 under KU 85/92.
7 All crimes were entered except for the first two which were dealt
8 with by the -- by military bodies, and there was no need for them to be
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Some -- I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, document number 11?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I read the document number 11, and the witness --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: There's nothing in the --
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, I'm sorry. That's --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: There's nothing in the record, in the transcript.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Sir, you and I also spoke about document under tab 11. It's a
18 report about which you spoke about a murder refer -- on -- it's the same
19 incident as the crime under tab 12.
20 A. The document you marked under tab 11 refers to the same case that
21 was entered under 85/92, KU 85/92. It's the murder of two persons, and
22 the perpetrators are known.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
25 [Interpretation] So let's just conclude. These nine documents
1 that I gave to you, two -- the first two documents relate to documents
2 drafted by the military security; and for those reasons, because it was
3 under the jurisdiction of the military justice system, they were not
4 recorded in the Sanski Most KU, but they were probably registered in the
5 record of investigations because the Sanski Most police assisted.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. In tab 8, there is a criminal report submitted on the
8 25th of December, 1992, and it was recorded in the KU register only in
9 1993, although the event took place in 1992. And in that sense, your
10 diagram should be augmented by that one incident; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in relation to these
13 two first documents referred to by the witness, drafted by the military
14 security, these are tabs 4 and 5. For purposes of reference, these are
15 documents 1D41 and P1282.
16 Tab 8, the document that was entered into the register in 1993,
17 this is document P116.
18 I have now completed my cross-examination.
19 Mr. Vasic, I would like to thank you, particularly for the
20 assistance that you have provided on the clarification of facts regarding
21 these documents. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
23 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Vasic.
1 Good morning, Your Honours.
2 Mr. Vasic, I'm Dragan Krgovic. I would like to introduce myself.
3 I represent Mr. Zupljanin, and today I will be putting questions to you
4 regarding your testimony to date and your statement provided to the
6 Mr. Vasic, in your statement and in your testimony, you
7 mentioned -- actually, my question specifically relates to the Teslic
8 register and specifically to one report, which is generally known to have
9 been submitted and to have been acted upon. It was not actually entered
10 or cannot be found in the register under the number that it bears. This
11 is the report that was already talked about that refers to the Mice Group
12 from Teslic; is that correct?
13 A. Yes. We did check, together with the Prosecution, all the data
14 on that criminal report, and I don't have the document in front of me
15 now, but I think that it was registered under number 132 KU, but
16 actually, it was actually not entered under that number but some other
18 The only possibility why this could have happened was that the
19 inspector who drafted the report in the Banja Luka CJB asked for the KU
20 number by telephone, this was not entered immediately, and that is why
21 this slip-up occurred. What's important is that the charge reached the
22 prosecutor's office and that it was brought to trial. So in an analysis,
23 these matters can perhaps cause some problems.
24 These problems can occur when the CSB is in charge of the
25 investigation and requests the KU number from the field, because the best
1 practice would have been to go to the field, to record the report, and
2 leave it there for operative records purposes, because in this case is
3 this is not done what can happen is that we can look for a report, we
4 don't find it because it's not entered anywhere, but it would have been
5 submitted to the Prosecutor.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at 2D27 now, please.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the document. It has the
8 registry office at the top, and then it has the number 132 KU, but that
9 is not actually the official record number that it was entered under.
10 Q. Mr. Vasic, can you look at page 2 of this document. The number
11 of the perpetrators --
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at page 2 of this
13 document, please.
14 Q. The perpetrators are listed starting from number 1 to number 15.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the third page in
16 the e-court now, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sixteen perpetrators recorded.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. In the statistics that you did for Teslic, when you spoke about
20 the number of perpetrators and their ethnicity, that should also
21 include - so that the data would be relevant and there would be a
22 complete picture given of the work of the police in Teslic - this number
23 should be included as well, these perpetrators who are mostly of Serb
24 ethnicity; isn't that right?
25 A. This should have been entered in the register. The register was
1 analysed and perhaps this was not expressed, but now this document is
2 known about, it belongs to Teslic, and is the result of the CSB centre in
3 relation to breaking up that criminal group that had committed, as far as
4 I know, several crimes in the Teslic area.
5 Q. Can you please look at this page now where you can see the
6 number -- or, rather, the charges. This is in the second paragraph. A
7 number of crimes were committed, violating public law and order and
8 traffic rules, participation in the group committing a crime. So, in
9 essence, this would be a joint criminal enterprise, as crimes like this
10 are now being treated in Bosnia, the group of persons who commit a number
11 of crimes.
12 A. Yes. These persons are responsible for the disappearance of a
13 large number of persons whose fate I think in that period was not
14 resolved. They are responsible for taking them away and for their
16 Q. Also, illegal detention is mentioned.
17 A. Yes. Illegal detention, taking them away, and their
19 Q. Murder, from Article 36.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And could you also look at page 5 now.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show page 5 in the e-court
23 now, please, of this document.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Using firearms, more than 30 people
25 who were detained at the premises of the Teslic SB.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. And what else is being referred to here are two more murders.
3 And in item 5, also the killing of Hajrudin Becirevic and the killing of
4 an army member who had taken part in their capture; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in order to get the real picture about the work of the police
7 of the Teslic municipality, regardless of the fact that this is not
8 included in the register, it should have been included in your report.
9 Over 30 killed, mostly Bosniaks and Croats, plus 16 of those charged and
10 a large number of crimes involved. Isn't that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. OLMSTED: I note -- I note for the record that his report
13 does, in fact, address this particular case. So that is a slight
14 misrepresentation. He mentions it in -- the substance of his statement.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] But the numbers were not included
16 in the final report.
17 Q. You did not include these numbers in your report when you spoke
18 about Teslic; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, that is why I told you in the beginning that the report was
20 based on the KU register. And this particular case, I mentioned that
21 this was analysed with the Prosecution, the Prosecutor's office, and it
22 was mentioned in the report. It was actually not in the register, and
23 that's why it was not included in the statistical review.
24 Q. The statistical review.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Had it been included in that review, the situation in Teslic
2 would have been represented differently.
3 A. Yes, because that means that at least 30 crimes with serious
4 consequences had been resolved.
5 Q. Which indicates that in order to give an assessment about the
6 work of the police and the crimes, the KU, if it's the only source used,
7 would be an unreliable means to show that?
8 A. From the perspective of an analysis, you have data about crimes
9 that are committed and then you can compare that to a previous period and
10 compare to other agencies. This type of analysis is different. It was
11 supposed to be done on the basis of the KU register. That's what was
12 done. Perhaps if it had been compared to the diary and log-book of
13 events and the log-book of investigations, perhaps the results would have
14 been slightly different. But this is a relative matter. All we can
15 speak about is what had been done to date.
16 Q. What, actually, I would like you to confirm for me, in order to
17 gain an actual picture - and I'm not talking about statistics because
18 that can sometimes be the result of incorrect data - the result would
19 have to include these types of criminal reports plus an analysis of the
20 log-book of events as well as the log-book of investigations?
21 A. From the point of view of crimes, investigations are much more
22 important. This particular one is more important than 50 others because
23 an organised group, practically a paramilitary formation, was broken up
24 that had already established in specific territory its rule. Let me put
25 it that way. And they worked upon the principle of they could do
1 whatever they wanted. And that is why it's important that the police and
2 the army recognise that at that point in time and they, let's say,
3 eliminated this group.
4 Q. Mr. Vasic, in replying to my question, you said that you made
5 your analysis on the basis of the KU register. When you were doing your
6 analysis, did you have the opportunity of looking at certain criminal
7 charges? I'm speaking about Teslic now, specifically.
8 A. No, I didn't have the space or the time to go to Teslic and to
9 deal with those matters. All I had were the KU registers in electronic
10 form. I extracted the data from that. I didn't go any broader. I
11 didn't even look at murders of non-Serbs by non-Serbs. I didn't deal
12 with murders carried out by Serbs against Serbs. Only the questions as
13 they were put in the table were dealt with for this particular
14 statistical review.
15 Q. When a crime appears in the register, the name of the perpetrator
16 is recorded, the article he is being charged with, and if there are any
17 victims, if that is known. Is that what is entered?
18 A. Yes. If the perpetrator is unknown, that column remains blank
19 until the person is discovered. The other columns can be filled in. In
20 some places there are perhaps errors. And that means that sometimes the
21 way the name of the victim is entered, we are not able to tell what their
22 ethnicity is.
23 Q. And sometimes one person committed several crimes against a
24 victim, and that is also something that you cannot see?
25 A. Well, that you can see if the perpetrator is unknown, but if a
1 person or a group is discovered and they committed a number of crimes,
2 then sometimes this would be entered as sub-entries. And sometimes you
3 would not enter all of the crimes involved, but you would just generally
4 write the number of the crimes committed.
5 Q. Now I'm going to show you an exhibit, and that will be 1D03-1248.
6 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, if Mr. Krgovic could give a tab
7 number, if it's from the Stanisic collection, that would be helpful,
8 given the number of documents.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That is number 28 in the
10 Stanisic Defence binder.
11 Can we have the B/C/S version on the screen, please.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, just for the record, tab number 28
13 in the Stanisic Defence list is 1D03-12 -- 1284, and in the transcript it
14 is said 1248. So it should be 1284.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Exactly, Your Honour. You're completely right.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Vasic, take a look at this criminal report against these four
19 persons. I believe that you dealt with it in your report. Do check,
21 A. I'm not sure, because this seems to be KU 249, but the total
22 number of entries was 229, so I don't understand.
23 Q. That's the very reason why I'm asking, because I believe that
24 this is missing in the analysis, but I wasn't certain either.
25 A. This KU number, according to the documents I have at my disposal,
1 wasn't used at all, so it couldn't have been included in my analysis.
2 But this is about a group of four persons who committed a series
3 of crimes. These are all unconnected crimes of robbery, but the public
4 prosecutor's office and the court merged such offences because they were
5 committed by the same group for -- in the extended period of time.
6 Q. And the victims are Muslims; right?
7 A. I think they are all Muslims. Yes, they are.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this log-book for Teslic does go
9 to -- the one we have in our possession goes to entry 229. It's again
10 possible, like the Doboj one we looked at yesterday, that there was a
11 page missing. We can't know that again until we go down in the field and
12 verify it. Because obviously if there's an entry 249, it seems like
13 there's a page missing from this log-book.
14 So what -- again, what I recommend we do is we send our
15 investigator down, see if there's a missing page, if there is, photograph
16 it, and we'll bring it back. And therefore the analysis is complete,
17 because obviously this witness won't be coming back to testify as to the
19 But just to be understood that this witness, the log-book he had,
20 the entry stopped at 229. That doesn't mean that there might have been
21 another page missing. And so we'll look into that and report back to the
22 Trial Chamber.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. At any rate, Mr. Vasic, the information from this report should
25 have been included in your analysis.
1 A. If they had been entered in the KU register, they would have
2 been, but if we can take a look at the last page of the Teslic register,
3 then we'll see that the last entry is 229. We can take a look at the
4 copy that we have and clarify the situation.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask my learned friend the
6 Prosecutor to display the last page of the Teslic register.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the last page.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: Sorry, can I have assistance from the Prosecutor?
9 Can we have the last page of the log-book from Teslic.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, while we are waiting for this and to
11 add to the confusion about the number of the document, I was told it was
12 not you that was citing the wrong number but the number is wrong in the
13 list of Stanisic Defence. It is 1D03-1248, as you said. So now I hope
14 the transcript will be correct. Thank you.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Okay.
16 MR. OLMSTED: The Teslic Crime Register is 65 ter 10494.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: So can we have this document on the screen.
18 [Interpretation] Let us see the last page of this log-book.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can we go back to the previous
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Please let's see the previous
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because then the document is
24 entered. Yes. Here's a number 249, but is there the previous page too?
25 These robberies are not included. Can we go back to the previous
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: I am told that there is no previous page.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't seen this page. That's
4 why I'm saying that I need the previous one, because I would like to see
5 the page where it says that the last entry is 229.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. We've loaded the entire crime register for
7 Teslic for 1992 that we have in our possession. It is in e-court. I
8 think because it was loaded in a particular format the Registrar's having
9 a legal bit of trouble going back to the previous pages, but they are
10 there. What we could do is put them on -- well, if we had a moment, we
11 can put it on Sanction and then we can, from here, flip back and forth
12 between the pages.
13 But, again, I represent that there could be a couple missing
14 pages from this log-book and that would really be the answer to that
15 issue, that if the pages between 229 -- covering entries between 299 and
16 249 are the ones that are missing, then that's just a matter of us going
17 down, back to Teslic, checking the log-books, seeing whether those pages
18 are simply missing or whether it was an error on our part in
19 photographing them, and if it is the last -- or, well, actually, either
20 way, we would notify the Trial Chamber as to the situation and the
21 Trial Chamber could take that into consideration when they do their final
22 analysis of this issue.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] In the meantime, I would like to
1 ask the witness something to confirm.
2 Q. Mr. Vasic, you didn't include in your analysis entries from 229
3 through 250; correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please enlarge this last
6 page so we can see it better.
7 Q. Here we see 249.
8 A. Three sub-entries.
9 Q. Yes, three sub-entries. And we may conclude that your analysis
10 would have been complete for Teslic if you could have included the two
11 missing pages.
12 A. Yes, correct. The entries from 229 through 250.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender this
14 document into evidence.
15 MR. OLMSTED: No objection, with the proviso, of course, that
16 once we figure out what the mistake is, or if there is a mistake, that we
17 re-exhibit it with the full pages and in the proper order.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, perhaps what we could do is we could
20 mark it for identification now, and if the Registrar does not lock this
21 document in the system, once we've sorted out this issue of the missing
22 pages, we can reinsert them, we can put them in correctly, and then we
23 can get it admitted into evidence at that stage.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: No, no. [Interpretation] Your Honours, I examined
25 the witness based on the document as it is now, and he also made his
1 analysis based on this document. So if the Prosecution wants to make
2 a -- wants to make a bar table submission, then they may do so. But I
3 just want to state for the record that the witness didn't have all
4 relevant documents required for his analysis. But I seek to tender the
5 entire document without the MFI marking.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: And it's the log-book you're -- you're talking
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. But I will also
9 tender the previous document.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the issue here is whether this
11 particular case, which is under -- I guess -- is it -- I can't remember
12 the KU number, but whether it is or is not in the log-book. And I think
13 that's -- isn't that the issue?
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] The issue, whether or
15 not it is --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Isn't the issue whether or not it is taken into
18 account in the statistics this witness made?
19 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. I mean, that's -- that's true, but there's
20 two issues there: One, did he miss it -- well, if it's -- one issue is
21 whether the log-book represents it. In other words, is the log-book
22 complete? It contains all the criminal reports filed by the Teslic SJB.
23 And the way you can determine that is if you have the complete log-book
24 with the missing pages and you can say, yes, this entry is in those
25 missing pages and therefore the log-book was complete.
1 As far as this witness is concerned, it's clear that he didn't
2 consider it because he wasn't given those particular pages that are
3 missing from this log-book.
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic's point is that we're dealing with what
5 is today. The fact that there may be, upon further investigation, it may
6 be discovered that what he in fact examined was incomplete is a matter
7 still to be determined. The point is that today the witness's testimony
8 and what he has done is based on what he had available.
9 So we would admit it. Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D97, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could the Registrar repeat, please, the 65 ter
13 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The 65 ter number would be
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: 10494. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I also seek to tender
17 the previous document that I showed to the witness, 1D03-1248. It's a
18 criminal report.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Well, we object to that because I think what this
20 witness was able to say is that it is a crime that potentially involves
21 non-Serbs and that if he had that page in the log-book he would have
22 included it in his statistics. Beyond that, what's the need to admit it
23 into evidence?
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- I apologise. This
25 particular criminal report - you can take a look at entry 249 in the
1 KU register - that is the very criminal report which was entered in the
2 registry but was not included in the analysis.
3 Q. Mr. Vasic, you agree that what was entered under 249 was the
4 criminal report that I showed you before?
5 A. Yes. It's a criminal report which has this entry number and the
6 three sub-entries, 01, 02, 03.
7 JUDGE HALL: That, too, is admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D98, Your Honours.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us show the witness
10 Exhibit 1D03-1316. I apologise. In the Stanisic Defence set, it's
11 tab 32.
12 Q. Mr. Vasic, take a look at this criminal report. Did you include
13 it in your analysis?
14 A. No. This is KU 44/93. Although it refers to an incident from
15 1992, it was entered on 6 March 1993 in the KU register. My analysis did
16 not include the following year because many acts committed in 1992 were
17 only entered and dealt with in 1993, 4, 5, or later.
18 Q. And this is about four persons?
19 A. Four persons who committed a crime in the summer of 1992, but the
20 criminal report was only filed in 1993.
21 Q. And we see from the narrative that there are several victims and
22 that several crimes have been committed.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Let us turn to the following page. If you take a look at who the
25 victims are, there are a number of names, but there are also Muslims:
1 Hamed Hodzic, then Mehmed Rakic [phoen], Omer Rahic; then some Croatian
2 family names such as Cosic, Baja Cosic and Ilija Cosic. And you would
3 agree with me when I say that this is basically about crimes against
4 Croats, Muslims, but also Serbs; correct?
5 A. Yes. There are some crimes in late 1992 and then early 1993.
6 Q. And in view of this principle providing statistics about the work
7 of the police, these crimes should also be included, not on the basis of
8 the analysis of the record but on the basis of a comprehensive analysis
9 of the work of the police of Teslic in 1992; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, precisely. This is an indicator that regardless of when the
11 crime was committed the police worked to -- to resolve those crimes.
12 These crimes were committed in 1993 [as interpreted] and reported to the
13 prosecutor's office.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please --
15 Q. I apologise. We were overlapping, and I am speaking quite fast.
16 Your last answer was not translated. You, in essence, said these crimes
17 were committed in 1992 and solved in 1993.
18 A. They're not all from 1992, as I have noticed. They were resolved
19 in 1993, and that is when they were processed.
20 Q. So a number of these crimes were committed in 1992 and some in
21 1993, but they were solved in 1993.
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
24 tender this document into evidence.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted -- yes, Mr. --
1 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, this document is from
2 March 1993. It's outside the indictment period. We have no indication
3 whether --
4 JUDGE HALL: Well, the witness has explained the relevance of
5 that date, and we -- we had a similar document yesterday.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Well, that's -- that's fine, Your Honours, and I
7 hope that when we present documents outside the indictment period that
8 relate to events in 1992 that they also are admitted, similar case files.
9 JUDGE HALL: It depends, and we will see, Mr. Olmsted.
10 This document is admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D99, Your Honours.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just wanted to look
13 at two more criminal reports, but perhaps this would be a good time to go
14 on a break, and then I will proceed to show these other documents.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Yes.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. Before the witness comes in, or
21 while he's coming in, I just wanted to raise a couple issues.
22 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Well, could I deal with a
23 matter --
24 MR. OLMSTED: Sure.
25 JUDGE HALL: -- before you do.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 JUDGE HALL: The Prosecution filed a motion yesterday to amend
3 the Rule 65 ter list -- ter exhibit list for Witness ST-197, who may be
4 taking the stand in early September. And the Chamber would wish to
5 inquire whether the Defence intends to respond; and if so, whether they
6 can do so by Tuesday next, the 31st of August.
7 Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. This is with regard to
9 what has just been admitted as 2D97, which is the Teslic SJB Crime
10 Register. Having a look at it in e-court, I notice that there was only
11 five pages, four or five pages, in e-court. I want to make it clear that
12 that's not what this witness reviewed for purposes of this project.
13 That's what he saw on the screen during his cross-examination. But what
14 he, in fact, reviewed was a much larger range that covered the entire
15 1992 time period. And I just want to clarify that. I don't know if the
16 Trial Chamber wants what he reviewed for purposes of this project or what
17 he just saw on the screen, but just so the record reflects that.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the point was I
19 showed that page to the witness, and the witness confirmed that that was
20 not what he reviewed. This is what my request was, that the Prosecution
21 did not show the witness this part that was not shown to him in the
22 courtroom before. That was the point of showing it to the witness and
23 tendering the document.
24 That was the point of my cross-examination, that the complete
25 documentation was not shown to the witness. And that's why I asked for
1 that to be admitted. I had nothing against the Prosecutor showing in
2 redirect that list and again dealing with that particular part.
3 MR. OLMSTED: That's fine. That's -- but I just wanted to
4 clarify the point that what -- that what he saw on the screen is not
5 necessarily what he reviewed. He reviewed the whole log-book, and he was
6 just shown one page, and that in e-court it's really just that one page
7 that he was -- that's there. And if the entire log wants to come in, we
8 can file a motion separately on that issue and deal with it there. But I
9 just want the record to reflect --
10 JUDGE HALL: I'm thankful for your very last statement,
11 Mr. Olmsted, because what I was about to say is that I have heard what
12 each of you have said and I wasn't clear now as to what it was that the
13 Defence was seeking to exhibit. So do I understand the position now to
14 be that, for the sake of completeness, that really the entire log-book
15 should be the exhibit and that the -- and then what -- the point that
16 Mr. Krgovic has made about the part with which he specifically dealt with
17 will fall into a context. Is that where we are?
18 MR. OLMSTED: Precisely, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: I don't think so. I think we should have the
20 log-book as it has been examined by the witness and as it is reflected in
21 his statistics; that's it. And eventually, later, we can have the two or
22 the three or the one page extra from entry 229 to entry 250 that he
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I think we're saying the same thing.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Then ... okay.
1 MR. OLMSTED: So I propose what we do is we correct what's in
2 e-court. And we will download in e-court the entire log-book so it's
3 complete. And then that would become that exhibit. And we'll notify the
4 Registrar and the Court that we've done that.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
6 MR. OLMSTED: And that, of course, will include the page that
7 Mr. Krgovic had before the witness.
8 JUDGE HALL: That is what I meant by the -- his point then having
9 a context.
10 MR. OLMSTED: The second issue is, I spoke to Mr. Krgovic and he
11 believes that he might go into the third session today. I need --
12 currently I need about no more than a half an hour, I think, for
13 re-examination. This witness is obviously a very high-level RS official,
14 and I'm hoping that he can go home this weekend to attend to matters back
15 in the Republika Srpska. Would it be possible, if Mr. Krgovic does go
16 later than anticipated, that we go a little bit into the afternoon today
17 just so that he may go home?
18 From the internet site, it looked like there was courtrooms
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: As usual, Mr. Olmsted, going beyond the fixed
22 hours for the sessions requires extra services from the interpreters,
23 from the audio video booth, and from the security officers, and
24 everything else. So we're unable at this point to -- to see if we can
25 accommodate your request, but the Registrar is just making the inquiries.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL: And in terms of making these arrangements, while
3 you're on your feet Mr. Olmsted, it may be useful for you to say, so that
4 the Registry can hear you, A, I assume you're talking about a half-hour
5 break after we rise at 1.45; and B, how much extra time you would need.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I'll certainly know that once -- for certain
7 after Mr. Krgovic is done with his cross-examination, but like I said, as
8 of this point, I don't envision anything more than a half an hour. As
9 far as any break, I don't need a break. But I will, of course,
10 accommodate -- or we'd, of course, accommodate anything that's necessary
11 for practical reasons.
12 JUDGE HALL: Well, of course, the break is necessary both for the
13 technical reasons, as we explain to each witness about the tapes, but
14 also in terms of the interpreters and the convenience of everything. So
15 the question of sitting beyond just running past 1.45 is really not
16 practical. That is why I was asking you for your assistance so that the
17 Registry knows what we're looking at.
18 As -- as you now appreciate matters, if we did have to come back,
19 what it would mean in terms of extra time.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, again, I -- we wouldn't -- assuming that
21 Mr. Krgovic does complete before the end of the third session, I wouldn't
22 at this time need more than an additional session. It would certainly be
23 significantly less than that. So we're looking at a fairly limited
24 period of time.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course I will do
2 my best to shorten my cross and just to show examples of documents. I'm
3 not going to show all the documents that I planned. I will just show the
4 witness one or two examples perhaps. I used this break for planning, and
5 I think that I will manage to shorten my cross-examination and perhaps
6 the third session will not even be required. I really will do my best.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. While the witness is on his way back to
8 the stand, Mr. Zecevic, do I -- do we correctly infer that the exhumation
9 issue is off the table for today and we're going to have to deal with
10 that next week?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I guess so, Your Honours, because it is
12 our -- it was our assumption, Ms. Korner's and mine joint assumption that
13 it would take around two hours. So I'm not sure we will -- I'm positive
14 we will have no time today, so we can start on Monday or whatever is the
15 preference of the Trial Chamber. Maybe after we finish the next witness
16 or so.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thank you.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Vasic, let us continue. I'm not that fond of statistics
21 myself, but it seems that we need to deal with it.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the witness, please,
23 1D03-1313. That would be tab 30 in the Stanisic collection.
24 Q. Mr. Vasic, this is a similar document as the one before. It's
25 from an event from October 1992, setting of a facility on fire, and
1 houses of ethnic Croats were set on fire.
2 Since the perpetrator was discovered in 1994 [sic], this is in
3 the register for 1993; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I apologise. A correction to the transcript. The crime was
6 committed in 1992 and discovered in 1993, not 1994.
7 Mr. Vasic, precisely because of this entry it could not have been
8 included in your statistical data for 1992; isn't that right?
9 A. Yes, because it was not entered because the perpetrator was not
10 found. It was -- it first had to be solved. It was solved in 1993 when
11 the perpetrators were discovered. But the actual crime was committed in
13 Q. And this is part of that question that the Prosecutor put to you
14 about whether this is possibly a war crime, arson?
15 A. Yes, these are crimes of general endangerment, and they were not
16 shown in 1992 but in 1993, and that is why they could not be included in
17 the analysis of that period.
18 Q. And basically this is nothing unusual because sometimes much
19 longer passes before certain crimes solved. It is a rare police in any
20 country in the world who would immediately be able to find the
21 perpetrator and process them.
22 A. Well, what is important is a continuity, that crimes that were
23 committed before should not be forgotten but should be worked on until
24 they are resolved. So the police in this particular case managed to
25 resolve of the matter in a very short period of time.
1 Q. According to the laws in effect in the former Yugoslavia, war
2 crimes are never -- are never subject to the statute of limitations.
3 Can you please just repeat this answer that you gave?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
6 tender this document, please.
7 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D100, Your Honours.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can we now show the
10 witness 1D03-1311. This would be tab 31 in the Stanisic Defence binder.
11 Can we zoom in on the B/C/S version, please.
12 Q. Mr. Vasic, responding to a question by my learned friend
13 Mr. Zecevic yesterday, you mentioned the submission of oral criminal
14 reports. Mr. Zecevic showed you a certain number of such reports.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And this is one such report relating to Teslic; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes, because it says that this is a record of receipt of an oral
18 criminal report filed by the plaintiff.
19 Q. And was this not processed in your report, or am I perhaps wrong?
20 A. 29 December 1992. The register was closed on the
21 25th of December, so this was probably entered as item -- entry 66 in
23 Q. That's exactly what I meant.
24 A. Yeah. The registers are closed five days or so before the end of
25 the period to make possible a statistical analysis of crime trends and so
1 on and so forth. That was the usual practice in the MUP.
2 Q. And I repeat the same phrase: If we want to get insight into the
3 overall crime situation in the municipality of Teslic, then we would need
4 information about the events from 25 December till New Year's Day; right?
5 A. The crime was committed in 1992, and it would have to be included
6 in the statistics for 1992, but the war crime trends don't change
7 significantly if you close your register on the 25th of December, because
8 the last five days of the current year will be taken into consideration
9 in the following year. But talking about this particular crime, the
10 victim was a Muslim and it was committed in 1992.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, just one moment.
14 Mr. Witness, I see that this is about putting fire to four
15 haystacks. Is that the kind of crime, perhaps because of the
16 qualification as a crime of causing public danger, that would go into
17 your statistics if it would have been in the KU log-book on an earlier
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The crime of causing public
20 danger was considered in the -- the statistical analysis, so causing
21 public danger by setting something on fire. But if public danger were to
22 occur due to a spontaneous -- due to a spontaneous fire, it would not
23 have been considered. But in this case, yes, this was considered in the
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I please get an exhibit number
3 for this document.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE HALL: We would admit and have this document marked,
6 Mr. Krgovic, but we -- we're curious as to how many other examples you're
7 going to cite. You remember we would have walked this path yesterday
8 with Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no more from the
10 Teslic municipality. I wanted to show the witness some -- a dozen more
11 documents or so, but I will refrain from doing that. I will move on. So
12 this will be my last document from Teslic. I will continue showing the
13 witness documents that have already been mentioned in the indictment in
14 case they are not included in the statistics, but our -- but they -- but
15 our clients are charged with them.
16 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit will be -- the exhibit number will be
17 2D101, Your Honours.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Vasic, in your analysis in this annex but also in the
20 previous analysis, you also included SJB Banja Luka, CSB Banja Luka, and
21 Knezevo; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I noticed that in your statistical survey an important event is
24 missing. I mean a criminal report about the Koricanske Stijene incident.
25 A. Well, there was talk about this case, and the issue was where
1 that report was entered. It's actually the same as with the Mice in
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness
4 2D39. I apologise. This is 2D35. Obviously my Case Manager made a
6 Q. Mr. Vasic --
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us enlarge this a bit, please.
8 Q. Here you see that the criminal report was filed on 8 September
9 against an unidentified perpetrator. We see that the investigating judge
10 headed the team that conducted the on-site investigation, and the
11 criminal report was filed with some annexes, which means that criminal
12 proceedings were launched; right?
13 A. Yes. This is a letter which is not marked KU. I don't know
14 which KU could have been entered, perhaps the KU of the CSB or the
15 KU register of Knezevo.
16 Q. But -- but you know that an investigation was conducted pursuant
17 to this criminal report.
18 A. Yes. I learned about it in a later period because I was chief of
19 the forensic centre, and the crime techs who went to the on-site
20 investigation spoke to me about that, the problems they encountered, and
21 the threats that had come from Prijedor concerning this matter. I
22 believe that this Trial Chamber is familiar with these things.
23 Q. So the officials who were processing this crime received threats
24 from Prijedor; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us show the witness the second
2 page, please.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, I would alert you that you have seven
4 minutes of your one hour remaining.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on the
6 23rd of August, I sent an e-mail requesting two and a half hours for this
7 examination with regard to the documents that were received, that is, the
8 witness's statement and the annexes. I will do my best to finish as
9 early as possible, but I really can't --
10 JUDGE HALL: Please continue.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. So all this refers to the municipality of Knezevo, the event that
13 happened there; right?
14 A. The municipality of Knezevo borders on the municipality of
15 Travnik, and I'm not sure whether that was a safe zone for conducting an
16 on-site investigation because the separation line was near.
17 Q. Here we can see the list of annexes to this criminal report, that
18 is, official notes of interviews and, what matters most to me, the list
19 of people who were assumed to have been killed.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And let us please show the witness
21 65 ter 1385. That is tab 24 of the Zupljanin Defence set.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that this is the list of
23 persons who were assumed to have been killed at Koricanske Stijene.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. To be used for identification, and it refers to the event near
1 Skender Vakuf, a list of 44 persons on page 1.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us turn to page 2, please.
3 Q. You can see here that a total of 52 plus 80, that is 132, persons
4 were identified as victims.
5 A. No. This is a total of 80.
6 Q. I apologise. My mistake.
7 A. It's only strange that the English version has 81.
8 Q. Yes. I'm amazed too. And please read the remark at the bottom
9 of the page.
10 "The list is made according to the recollection of persons who
11 survived the event near Skender Vakuf, namely those who were with them
12 and taken off the buses."
13 A. Later on I learned that some persons survived the incident. I
14 believe that some returned to the territory controlled by the VRS, and
15 they were placed in Banja Luka hospital, whereas some turned up in
16 Travnik, and the media reported about it, so that it was public knowledge
17 that they had survived, because they went over to the other side. But I
18 didn't know of the crime at the time it was committed.
19 Q. You see here under 49 a person from Kotor Varos by the name of
20 Anto Draguljic?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the
23 Anto Draguljic whom I confused with that other man.
24 Q. Mr. Vasic, this incident, too, that is, this criminal report, and
25 the number of victims, 80 in all, or 81 depending on which version you're
1 relying on, if you -- if it had been entered in the crime register, it
2 would have been taken into account in your statistical survey, and it
3 would have changed the results substantially; right?
4 A. Yes, probably. But then all victims would have been included,
5 because here the actual number of victims is probably much higher, twice
6 as high as mentioned here, because the list is complete, but I
7 wouldn't -- don't want to mention the precise number now because I would
8 have to rely on my memory.
9 Q. But if you look at the criminal report, the initial assumption
10 was that a total of 140 had been killed. That was mentioned in the
11 criminal report. Do you remember?
12 A. Yes. That was the initial assumption, but the -- that changed.
13 So if even five years later it was eventually established that they were
14 500 -- there were actually 500, then that would be the figure in our
16 Q. And proceedings are pending before BH courts for this crime;
18 A. Yes. I believe that some persons have already been convicted,
19 and proceedings are pending against a number of others. I believe that
20 all perpetrators have been identified, and those who are alive are either
21 being tried or their trial has already finished.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document.
23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D102, Your Honours.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Vasic, I have general question for you: You have discussed
2 the topic with Mr. Zecevic and the Prosecutor already. When a crime or a
3 potential crime and incident is reported and it is entered in the
4 register and the police goes to the site and finds out that a crime has
5 been committed and possibly identifies the perpetrator, if the police has
6 the authority for investigation for this crime, then a criminal report is
7 filed, it's entered into -- in the KU register, and this is considered in
8 all registers and log-books; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If the police notes that, as it happened during the war, that the
11 perpetrators are military personnel or it's a crime that is not
12 automatically prosecuted, then the report is sent to the authorised
13 military police or Military Prosecutor's Office, depending on the level
14 of the work; isn't that correct?
15 A. In principle, the civilian police immediately gets in touch with
16 the military police, and on that basis they agree on how to proceed.
17 Most frequently, it was necessary for us to assist the military police
18 because they had a shortage of crime technicians and equipment for them.
19 So we always had to assist in the investigation on the scene and possibly
20 regarding ballistics expertise and so on. Sometimes we also had to
21 provide forensic experts to carry out the autopsies.
22 So usually when a report was written we would monitor if they
23 would take steps or not. If they did not take steps, then we would have
24 to conduct the on-site investigation, and then later perhaps we would see
25 who would actually be conducting the investigation.
1 Q. In any event, when a note from the investigation was sent, it did
2 not go through the KU register but through the general log-book?
3 A. No, it went through the regular logs of the public security
4 station. It was processed along with all the other general mail that was
6 Q. Let me give you an example. For example, there would be a
7 shooting causing general danger; a person then, perhaps the police or the
8 investigating judge, would go to the scene; information would be received
9 that members of such and such a brigade, for example, in military uniform
10 did the shooting; then the policemen on duty, whichever operative, would
11 make an official note and send it to the military police or the military
12 prosecutor. Isn't that correct?
13 A. The note would be sent later, but this would not be done so
14 quickly on the scene without making sure perhaps that a representative of
15 the military police was present, either from the prosecutor's office or
16 the police, because they would have to be present during the
17 investigative work. It would never be an urgent matter that the police
18 then would deal with the on-site investigation and only later merely
19 inform the military organs about the investigation.
20 Q. Especially if the combat zone was close, and for certain reasons
21 you couldn't wait for the military police?
22 A. Well, there would be many reasons why the military police
23 couldn't come. Very often we would have to, without the presence of a
24 prosecutor or investigative judge, carry out the on-site investigation,
25 because they would inform us they couldn't be there. So we would have to
1 do it without them. The same thing would apply for the military
2 representatives. They would then authorise us to do the investigation
3 without them. But the communication had to be quick enough so that
4 immediately it would be quite clear under whose jurisdiction that
5 particular matter fell.
6 Q. So once the authority or jurisdiction of the military organs was
7 established, a criminal report would not be submitted, and that event
8 would not be entered into the KU register; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Sometimes it would also happen that the police would submit a
11 criminal report against an unidentified perpetrator and then send that
12 note to the military police for further processing?
13 A. Yes. That would be the best way to go about it because then you
14 would have the best overall picture of overall crimes. But as I said,
15 the practice varied depending on the agreement between the prosecutor's
16 offices and the military and the civilian police. Sometimes it would be
17 entered into the register and most often it wouldn't.
18 Q. I'm going to show you something now. This is 1D352. And this is
19 actually what caused all the confusion in the first place.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please zoom in on the
22 Q. Mr. Vasic, the criminal report yesterday for this Anto Draguljic,
23 about his death.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you now look at the paragraph -- one paragraph but last - if
1 we can zoom in on there - where it says -- one paragraph but last where
2 it states:
3 "Considering that the area where the murder was committed was
4 under the control of the army and in order to solve of this case we have
5 also forwarded the official note to the command of the Light Infantry
6 Brigade, the military police of Kotor Varos."
7 A. This was the usual procedure. Work was being done here as if the
8 person entered some kind of military facility where the murder took place
9 and the civilian organs were unable to conduct an investigation there.
10 They couldn't conduct a comprehensive investigation. They sent the
11 criminal report to the basic prosecutor's office, but this kind of
12 property was immediately being sent to the Military Prosecutor's Office
13 from there, and that was part of the co-operation among the prosecutors'
15 In the course of the investigation, they would be able to decide
16 whether they would be in charge of a certain criminal prosecution,
17 whether the civilian or the military prosecution would be dealing with
18 that particular case.
19 Incidents of a type where a person, especially at night when the
20 visibility was low, would come to the guard post of a military post and
21 would be killed was something that did happen during the war in Bosnia
22 and Herzegovina. So this was nothing strange and unusual. The only
23 thing was to investigate the matters and to show whether it was an
24 accidental or whether it was a killing with a certain design or
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 3 of this
2 document now, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is a note from
4 the Infantry Brigade command.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. And what is being asked is that since this was under the control
7 of the army it should be the one to gather all the information regarding
8 this particular crime.
9 A. [No interpretation]
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And can we now show the witness
11 exhibit 65 ter --
12 Q. I'm sorry, your answer was not recorded to my last question. The
13 last question, this was when I asked you if the brigade was being asked
14 to resolve this crime in view of the fact that this was -- let me put it
15 that way, that this area was under their jurisdiction.
16 A. Yes, precisely.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 65 ter 10409,
18 please. Can we look at page 113 in the e-court, please.
19 Q. This is the record for Kotor Varos that you had the opportunity
20 to look at, and now we will focus on this particular page.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in on the third column
22 from the top, please.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a record of all those cases
24 that were in the course of being processed. This is not the official
25 KU register. I have the wrong number, actually.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Which case are you seeking to deal with?
3 A. I just wanted to show that that particular case was not recorded
4 in the KU register. I think I've got the wrong number that I entered for
6 MR. OLMSTED: Perhaps I can resolve this confusion. The document
7 you just showed involving the victim Anto Draguljic had a KU number --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Murder 83 has been put in the
9 KU register.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Yes, but I just wanted to look at the notes on further work. I
12 wanted to show that the note was not presented through the register.
13 Otherwise, you would have noted that.
14 A. The criminal report was sent to the basic prosecutor's office --
15 all right. Oh, excuse me.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, what is the purpose of pursuing this
17 matter of Mr. Anto Draguljic?
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just asked the
19 witness if these notes where the police, the military police, the
20 military organs, were asked to work on a case were not processed through
21 the register, and I wanted to show a specific example indicating this.
22 This has to do with my previous question to the witness. I just wanted
23 to confirm what the witness replied before to -- to this question. I
24 wanted to show a specific example of this.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But I thought that it has long
1 since been established that the log-books -- or the cases treated by the
2 military police would be recorded in the military police's log-books and
3 not in the civilian police's log-books. And I don't think that this is
4 even a contested issue. I mean, it's clear that what the military police
5 did was record it in their log-books, and what the civilian police did
6 was, in turn, recorded in their log-books and their registers.
7 So what is the purpose of repeating, once again, that there were
8 a difference between the two sets of log-books, between the military and
9 the civilian police?
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I actually wanted to
11 finish with this question of yours because I think we did not clarify
12 that with this particular witness regarding the records in terms of the
13 military police. He was not asked about this. And that actually leads
14 me to my next question that I wanted to put and which you have just
15 pointed out.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if I just may raise an issue because
17 I think there is some confusion here and it's a little bit misleading.
18 This particular case is in the SJB Kotor Varos Crime Register under
19 KU entry 83/92. This witness has identified that entry in his report.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, but since the case
21 was archived, which we can see from the register, we cannot see the work
22 that followed on this case because a note was sent to the military police
23 that they should continue to resolve this case. But then this could lead
24 to the conclusion that nothing more was done regarding this case, and
25 this is why I'm putting this question to the witness.
1 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, he cannot put that question to
2 this witness without putting on the screen entry 83/92 from the crime
3 register so the witness can look at the column where it shows where the
4 crime report was submitted to and confirm that there is no information as
5 to where it was submitted to. But he -- without the register in front of
6 him, he can't answer that question.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I was looking for that
8 document. This is actually the third entry from the bottom.
9 MR. OLMSTED: And just to clarify, what we have in front of us is
10 the open cases log-book. It's not the crime register. We'll give you
11 the ERN -- or the 65 ter number -- or P number for the crime register in
12 a minute.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] In the meantime, perhaps this thing
14 of mine, the witness can look at the second column and we can see that
15 this case was archived. If we can look at the other page on the other
16 side, the third entry from the bottom.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there is a case number 83/92.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And you can see "AA," that it was archived?
20 A. But there is the KU number that is written there, too.
21 MR. OLMSTED: And to assist Defence counsel, the 65 ter number
22 for the Kotor Varos SJB Crime Register is 10409.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Eight. Not 9. Nine is the open case log-book.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. You're correct. I'm confusing
25 myself now.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: For the record, what I said was not 8, but 9 --
2 no, I'm sorry. Not 9, but 8. Sorry about that. Not 9, but 8.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: So may I have assistance from the Prosecution, what
4 page is this entry? [Interpretation] Since the Prosecutor asked.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Eight. Eight.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can you please show us page 8 in
7 the e-court, please.
8 Q. Entry number 5; correct?
9 A. Number 5.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No. This is page 5. So we need
11 page 8.
12 MR. OLMSTED: The entry 83 is located on page 12, if that's the
13 one you're looking for.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The number of the investigation
16 that the public prosecutor's offices launched can also be seen from this
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And there is no evidence that the public prosecutor's office
20 requested anything from the police?
21 A. Well, in this case they could only have requested something from
22 the military police.
23 Q. And to get a complete picture of the situation regarding crime
24 and victims, we would have to take a look at the log-book of the military
25 police, too, right, if we wanted to make a comprehensive analysis of the
1 perpetrators of victims and the work of the official bodies involved in
2 investigating crime; correct?
3 A. Well, the picture would certainly be more complete then.
4 Q. I will no longer ask questions about Kotor Varos.
5 You also dealt with Prijedor in your report. You remember? You
6 didn't use any ancillary registers. You only analysed the KU register;
8 A. Yes. For Prijedor, I only analysed the KU register.
9 Q. When you say ancillary, you mean the log-book of on-site
10 investigations and the log-book of events?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us show the witness
13 1D03-3006 [sic]. That's tab 3 in the Zupljanin Defence binder.
14 Actually, the reference is 1D00-3006.
15 Q. Mr. Vasic, this is a report drafted by the SJB of Prijedor from
16 1993, but it's about something that happened in 1992. Perpetrators of
17 some crimes are mentioned here, registered with the SJB, and the
18 perpetrators are military personnel. That's what we can see stated in
19 this document; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We also see here, under item 1:
22 Drasko Stakic, member of the VRS, committed murder and was handed
23 over to the military police. On-site investigation conducted by the
24 commission of the SJB of Prijedor.
25 This incident is not entered in the register. It should be an
1 ancillary register; correct?
2 A. In the log-book of on-site investigations, this case must have
3 been entered, and this applies to all cases no matter whether they were
4 processed before the first instance civilian court or the military court.
5 It is characteristic of Prijedor that out of the 156 offences registered
6 for 1992, most were in 1991 and the first three months of 1992. So only
7 one-quarter of the crimes were actually committed in 1992.
8 So we can conclude that many offences committed there were
9 processed later, but now it wasn't possible to go through all log-books
10 and registers to see when any particular case was processed or entered in
11 the KU register. There may have been many incidents that were discovered
12 later and reported later, but they cannot be found in the register for
14 Q. Under item 4, the incident that happened on 2 May 1992 in the
15 village of Jelovac where a member of the VRS killed some people. The
16 Trial Chamber will remember the witness who spoke about that incident and
17 the perpetrators. We can see that the perpetrator was a VRS member.
18 A. But this case was obviously transferred to the military
19 authorities right away, and the civilian police never acted upon it.
20 This is only a note about this incident. Similarly, there is a note for
21 the -- for the Banja Luka SJB about a crime committed by a number of
22 VRS members at the detriment of both Serbs and non-Serbs in and around
23 Banja Luka.
24 Q. Did you say CSB Banja Luka or SJB?
25 A. I said SJB because the chief of the crime police department of
1 the station actually drafted that note; it was Mr. Josic.
2 Q. Please take a look at page 5 of this document, which is about
4 A. This one from Prijedor?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. All these are crimes committed by members of the VRS, and
7 military security acted upon them. This is not entered in the register
8 and was not considered in the statistical survey.
9 Q. But the police did have some sort of register, that is, they were
10 entered in -- in a register or log-book, and based on that, this -- all
11 that is based on this report?
12 A. I suppose.
13 MR. OLMSTED: That, I think, calls for speculation on the part of
14 the witness who was never in Prijedor in 1992. How is he going to know
15 where, if anywhere, these crimes are recorded at the SJB?
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked the witness,
17 and he was testifying based on his experience and his knowledge of police
18 procedures as well as on the practice of keeping log-books, and he
19 replied to my question whether he can infer, based on his experience,
20 based on which this note was -- information was passed on.
21 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Krgovic.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Vasic, please answer my question.
24 A. Well, such reports can be made based on the assistance where the
25 police assisted the military police. If a forensic technician was -- was
1 sent out to do something or from the log-book of events kept at the
2 police station, but we see that this case was processed by military
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document into
6 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D103, Your Honours.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. I apologise. A part of your answer was not recorded. You said
10 that these events were processed by the military security and the
11 military police from the outset; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Speaking about Prijedor, let us
14 show the witness Exhibit 1D00-2802. That is tab 17. Could you please
15 rotate the document so the witness can read it.
16 Q. This is a letter sent from the SJB to the prison administration
17 or the management of the prison where Zoran Zigic was detained, placed in
18 detention, and there is also a reference to the entry and the registrar,
19 and that is 218/92.
20 A. Yes. This is the crime of accepting bribes. I don't know what
21 this is about, but this is white-collar crime, and a three-day detention
22 was ordered, within which period the case is to be returned to the public
23 prosecutor's office.
24 Q. At first site, this case should not be included in your
25 statistical survey?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Please take a look at Exhibit 1D00-0201. That is tab 18.
3 Mr. Vasic, please read this introduction carefully, where it says
4 regarding the acceptance of money and releasing prisoners, the state --
5 give the following statement.
6 This is a person who at the Keraterm prison extorted people to
7 release them in return for money, if we look at the description of what
8 he's being charged with.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And basically, considering the qualification in the report, I see
11 that you did not include this crime, although it actually should have
12 been included.
13 A. Yeah, but this type of crime was not included because this was
14 considered white-collar crime, and there was no link to a war crime. So
15 it was not included in the statistical survey.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us show Exhibit 1D00 --
17 JUDGE HALL: Can we take the break at this point, Mr. Krgovic.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honours.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.36 p.m.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, very briefly before the witness comes
23 in. I'm not here to cause chaos and ask for the tapes to be changed
24 today, but could I mention two matters: Firstly, the question of the
25 exhumations discussion. I've had a further talk to Mr. Zecevic about
1 this, and it may be that we will be able to reach an agreement without
2 troubling Your Honours.
3 Next week is not, I'm afraid, possible. A, we've got witnesses
4 lined up literally to fill every day just about; and B, Your Honours, I'm
5 not going to be available from Wednesday of next week.
6 Secondly, Your Honours, yesterday, ruled on the 92 ter matters
7 relating to Monday's witness, gave me one hour. Your Honours, can I
8 explain that apart from the video, which as Your Honours noted, is
9 something in the region of 25 minutes, there are a number of documents to
10 which he can speak, not as many as were on my original list, but
11 documents which haven't yet come into evidence. And, Your Honours, it
12 goes back to this -- this question of, If Your Honours want documents
13 only admitted through witnesses if possible, then I need to put them to
14 the witness.
15 And secondly, Your Honours, there are matters -- a couple of
16 matters contained in the witness's testimony in one of the -- in -- I'm
17 just hesitating for a moment whether we should just quickly go into
18 private session for this, just quickly.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we go into private session.
20 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Vasic, well, let's continue. I'm not going to be bothering
25 you for that much longer.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D00-0192 now,
2 please. Can we just zoom in this document, please.
3 Q. This is the result of the further work on the case of
4 Zoran Zigic, where a uniformed officer - we don't know to which unit he
5 belonged - came to the Keraterm centre and beat prisoners on several
6 occasions, causing the death of a prisoner. And it also -- a suggestion
7 is made that the military command should be informed in order that this
8 is prevented.
9 This would be in the category that should be included in your
10 statistics, but because initially it was in the category of receiving
11 bribes, all of these other acts were not recorded in the register, and
12 for that reason you were not able to recognise this particular event as
13 one that you should include in your statistics?
14 A. Yes, that is so. This should evidently have been passed on to
15 the military authorities for them to conclude the investigation.
16 Q. I was waiting because of the transcript.
17 I am not going to show you other documents about crimes of this
18 particular person. There are a few more. I'm just going to stick to
19 this one.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
21 tender all of the documents that were shown to the witness now, please.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure I understand you, Mr. Krgovic. Most
23 of the documents that you have shown to the witness have been admitted.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This document, 1D2802, 1D00-0201,
25 and this document, 1D00-0192, because they're all connected. They can
1 just be given one exhibit number if that would be easier for the
2 registry, or they can each have a number.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, the two documents you showed before
4 the break, why -- why would they be admitted into evidence?
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the proceedings
6 against Zigic were initiated as KU 218 initially for taking bribes. This
7 is the number that is in the register. But when you look at the register
8 and when you look at the description of the crime, it would not be
9 included in the statistical report of this witness. However, when you
10 look at the accompanying documents, these other documents, then you can
11 see that in essence these are crimes committed by the soldier Zigic
12 against Muslims in the reception centres of Keraterm and Omarska, as they
13 are being referred to here. And they should have been included in the
14 statistics as requested by the Prosecutor had they been properly recorded
15 in the KU register.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I, of course, disagree with my learned
17 friend's assessment of the value of these documents, but the Prosecution
18 does not object to their admission. We think they are relevant to this
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, you say they should have been. Did
21 the witness say they should have been?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. The witness said that
23 they were recorded initially as receiving bribes. But after they had
24 been handed over to the military authorities, because this was a military
25 person, we're not able to see how this case was further processed.
1 Perhaps the witness can -- can confirm this for us. The crime was not
2 correctly qualified. That seems to be the --
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: But didn't he say that by no means this crime of
4 bribe should have been taken into account in the statistics? I think I
5 remember that. So what's the problem?
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps I misunderstood the
7 witness. I apologise. Can you please repeat what you said, sir?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Receiving a bribe is an economic
9 crime, should not have been in the statistics. This is an additional
10 document that speaks about the mistreatment of detainees, but that is
11 something that you cannot see in the register and could not have been
12 taken into account for the statistical analysis at that stage.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And that is precisely what I
14 wanted, Your Honour. You don't see it from the register, but if you look
15 at the document, then it becomes clear that it should have been part of
16 the register; isn't that so?
17 JUDGE HALL: The statement that you just made, this comes back to
18 the question that Judge Delvoie raised. When you say "it should have
19 been part of the register," I'm not sure that the witness, unless I
20 misunderstand, accepts that. That's an argument that you're making.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I can ask the witness if you wish.
22 Q. Mr. Vasic, the crime committed by a Serbian soldier of beating
23 prisoners in camps, extorting money from them in order to release them
24 from detention, of course these are crimes which are war crimes and
25 should have been included in the statistics?
1 A. Yes, except I as analyst could not have seen that from the
3 MR. OLMSTED: I object to that question. It assumes facts not in
4 evidence. There's nothing in this -- these documents that he's shown to
5 this witness that establishes that this perpetrator was a member of the
6 military. The question should be posed, If he's a police officer or a
7 military officer ...
8 That's not established here by these documents alone.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] In the second document it says --
10 the last one that I have shown to the witness, it says "... a uniformed
11 person. I do not know which unit he belongs to ..."
12 If we wanted to avoid that, there is a decision of the military
13 court, a decision on the detention of this Zigic where you can see that
14 he was a military officer. So he was convicted also by this Tribunal as
15 a member of the army. I think this should be an indisputable fact.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Krgovic, could I then just ask you to
17 clarify under which conditions would an investigation made against a
18 member of the armed forces for having committed, allegedly, a war crime,
19 under which conditions would that be registered in the civilian police's
20 log-books? Wouldn't that be referred to the military police's registers
21 and could be traced there rather than in the civilian log-books?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is precisely why
23 I'm asking the witness. There is a note here, initial information that a
24 certain person had committed a crime. Since the person who drafted the
25 Official Note noted that this was a member of the armed forces, he is
1 informing the military command and requesting that they take further
2 steps in regard to this. Then for the later course we would need to look
3 at the register of the military police. There is nothing in the records
4 of the civilian police on this matter because it's being transferred to
5 the military organs.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. That was
7 transferred to the military register, and we would need to look at them
8 to find out exactly what happened later. Precisely, this should be
9 something that would be part of the statistics of the military organs.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe I misunderstood you, Mr. Krgovic, but I
11 thought that you were alleging that the registration should have been
12 made in these log-books, in the civilian log-books.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, initially when the
14 proceedings were launched, it was recorded in the civilian register for
15 the crime of receiving a bribe in the initial phase when this was
16 discovered that this was a member of the armed forces. Everything that
17 followed was handed over to the military command and nothing more was
18 done. So the KU register has just this initial crime of receiving a
19 bribe, we see the perpetrator, and you do not see anything more than
20 that. In order to see that this was a crime that should have been
21 included in the statistical analysis, you would need to include these
22 other documents. The witness didn't have an opportunity to look at them,
23 and that is why in this specific case he did not include it in his
25 This is the point of my questioning on this matter.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, and I ask that my learned friend
2 direct us to where in the ICTY judgement it indicates that this
3 individual was a member of the military. In fact, we just did a quick
4 check and it looks like there was a finding that he was a member of the
5 reserve police. He was a civilian. So again this goes back to the issue
6 that Mr. Hannis raised at the beginning of the hearing today, is that it
7 is very important that when Defence counsel makes representations to this
8 Trial Chamber that they double-check to make sure that they're accurate.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have time to
10 check this during my cross-examination, but I'm going to show the next
11 document. I wanted to shorten my questioning. I had the best possible
12 intention, but I'm going to show the next document, which will show the
13 membership of this person and the course of the proceedings against him.
14 So I kindly ask that the witness be shown -- what? Could we
15 please admit these documents now, and then I will continue.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, it is our view that the document that
18 is at present displayed would be sufficient and the -- any connection
19 which you seek to make with the extortion document would be a matter for
20 argument at a later stage, but we don't see how that document by -- is
21 admissible under grounds of relevance.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, we'd actually argue with the
23 Defence on this because it establishes what this perpetrator was charged
24 with was extortion, which is an economic crime. He wasn't charged with
25 the crimes that we're looking at right now, and I think that is at issue
1 here. So I think it's very important to realise that this is just an
2 Official Note, a statement by someone. What's being charged is a
3 different -- is a crime, a particular time. In this case it's extortion.
4 And that distinction is important.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Olmsted, if you're only speaking about
6 the first registration of investigations raised against Mr. Zigic, then
7 it follows that this would be an incomplete impression that we would have
8 from this. So if you want to follow up on your allegation or your
9 intervention, then we should see the final judgement of Mr. Zigic and to
10 see what he was eventually convicted for. That's the only thing that
11 would make sense.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. I agree with that point.
13 However, this is the police's role in this investigation, and they're the
14 ones who submit a criminal report for extortion.
15 JUDGE HALL: We've heard you, Mr. Olmsted, but we stand by the
16 ruling that we have given.
17 Let's move on, please.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number for the current exhibit
19 on the screen would be 2D104.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted to answer the
21 Prosecutor's question. 2D03-1085, if we can show that exhibit to the
23 Q. Mr. Vasic, we can see here that the military court in Banja Luka
24 established that Zigic, Zoran, from Prijedor, was in detention. The
25 detention period was extended. And if you look at the last paragraph,
1 you can see that in the meantime the military prosecutor --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please be asked to read
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. -- meaning that they are including what you spoke about,
6 confirming that the military court and the military organs continue to
7 process in this case and to complete the charges and the indictment
8 against Zoran Zigic. Isn't that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether
11 this document can assist the Trial Chamber to complete the picture, but I
12 think that the picture is incomplete without this document, so that I
13 propose that this document be admitted.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic, admitted and marked.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D105, Your Honours.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Vasic -- well, let's finish with Prijedor. I would have a
18 lot of documents more to show you, but I'm not going to torture you any
19 more. Let's go back to Banja Luka.
20 When you were processing the KU register for Banja Luka, there
21 were certain -- if I understood well your testimony, there were certain
22 crimes which certain persons committed both against Muslims, Croats, and
23 against Serbs. So one criminal report with the sub-numbers would include
24 crimes committed by two or more persons against a number of persons.
25 Did you take such crimes into account and put them into your
2 A. Yes, because the idea was to include in the statistics every
3 crime where at least one of the victims was a non-Serb and the
4 perpetrators were either one or a group, Serbs.
5 Q. I'm now going to ask you -- I've left out a lot of documents that
6 I was planning to use. I'm going to ask you now about a specific case.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
8 Exhibit 2D57 now, please.
9 Q. Mr. Vasic, this is a report submitted to the Prosecutor, and it
10 has to do with some persons in Banja Luka who attacked the police station
11 there and were killed on that occasion. It was established that they had
12 committed a certain number of crimes against a number of persons, and
13 this is a report submitted to the prosecutor's office.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Now can we show the witness page 14
15 in the English and -- and it's 14 in the Serbian version too. Yes,
16 that's it.
17 Q. Mr. Vasic, you see here there is a note, and there the document
18 is signed by Mr. Josic, and we can zoom in on the part where it says all
19 of the crimes mentioned here, all nine of them, should be record in
20 separate registers. Actually, "... should be entered into our
21 KU register," meaning the one in Banja Luka?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And then in the handwriting you have, where it says, under 1,
24 "Sehitluci facility, owned by Vehbija Dzemaili." And I think there is a
25 number that is given here; it's 177 or 177/1. And then there is a crime
1 against Emina Kurcukovic, a Muslim, and then Franjo Gagula, a Croat, and
2 then I don't need to mention any more of these exhibits.
3 Can you please tell me whether all this is included in your
4 register, because I'm not sure myself, to tell you the truth.
5 A. Since Banja Luka is rather big, it isn't easy to tell
6 immediately. If we had the KU entry number, we could check.
7 Q. I didn't find it, that's why.
8 A. I'm not sure, but all such cases were considered in the summary
9 which was made by analyses service of the CSB of Banja Luka.
10 Q. In that summary I found some things, but I didn't find some of
11 these because the perpetrators were dead then.
12 A. I cannot comment these circumstances, but what I can do is check
13 the KU entry number, because in Banja Luka it's difficult to find a
14 particular case without reference to the KU entry number. But certainly
15 this is something that should have been included in this analysis.
16 Q. So you're saying it should have been included in this analysis.
17 And the KU register at the CSB Banja Luka, I think you said they
18 stopped keeping that register and instead they were kept at the SJBs.
19 A. It was practice to enter a crime in the KU register based on
20 territorial jurisdiction. That is where the crime was committed, in the
21 municipalities. The CSB of Banja Luka had a KU register, mostly for
22 white-collar crime, but general crime was mostly registered with -- or in
23 the municipal KU registers.
24 For a while, the register at the CSB was kept, and mostly acts of
25 white-collar crime were entered, but at a certain time - I think it was
1 at sometime in 1992 - all the registers were transferred to the lower
2 level, the municipal level.
3 Q. Okay. I'll move on to a general question. To get a better
4 insight in the statistical data, namely, for every SJB and the CSB to
5 know about the crime trends and -- in their territory, there were also
6 some statistical forms, as far as I remember, the Crim 1 form and the
7 Crim 2 form.
8 A. Yes. In the SFRY -- or -- and the Socialist Republic of BH,
9 there was a centralised information system, an integral system, for
10 crime-related information. Information about crimes committed were
11 entered by all stations by means of the Crim 1 form and all information
12 about the perpetrators on the Crim 2 form. That was -- those were
13 excellent statistics for monitoring crime trends. But in the RS, and as
14 far as I know even in the federation, too, they stopped -- that practice
15 was stopped. The system was initiated by the MUP in Sarajevo.
16 Q. Basically, this crime register was meant to be an ancillary tool
17 for entering data in those forms to get a complete picture about the
18 types of crimes, the perpetrators, the victims; right?
19 A. Yes. While that information was functional, it was possible to
20 make analyses of various areas of crime, the perpetrators, their
21 affiliation, their age, et cetera. You could also make analyses by
22 police stations or by centres, and within minutes you would have
23 excellent statistics. But once that was stopped, we had to rely on the
24 KU registers, that is, paper registers.
25 Q. And in their work, the SJBs, if they wanted to report on crime
1 trends, they would state the number of crimes, the types of crime, the
2 perpetrators, and so on; they would draft annual reports and submit them
3 to the centre; and then the centre would merge all such reports to a
4 summary report and forward it to -- to the ministry?
5 A. Yes. Before that information system was introduced, until a
6 certain date of -- of every month, the SJBs would submit their reports to
7 the centres, and the centres to the ministry in Sarajevo. But once the
8 system was introduced and its implementation began, it was possible to
9 get statistics much faster, and they were much more reliable, depending
10 on the level that was the subject of interest.
11 Apart from such information, there was also daily information.
12 The centre and the MUP were informed by daily dispatches about
13 significant events, starting from serious traffic accidents and certainly
14 also all criminal offences.
15 Q. And this register, including the number of crimes, would be
16 included in the annual report of the centre, and there you would see the
17 exact number of reports filed and the number of perpetrators, et cetera.
18 So I will show you such a report, and you can comment on it.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. On page 68, line 20,
20 that was actually -- what's recorded there is the witness's answer,
21 rather than my question.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, while you're looking for your
23 document, could I just throw in a small question to the witness, because
24 I'm a bit unclear about the structure in which the log-books were
25 produced, because I thought you said that some -- at some point in 1992
1 all the registration of the crimes were transferred to the SJBs from the
2 CSBs, and that would include even the registration of white-collar
3 crimes. So my question is: Does that mean that after that point, the
4 CSBs themselves had no registration, primary registration, of the crimes,
5 because all of that was now transferred down to the SJBs? Is that what
6 you're saying?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The centres did conduct
8 investigations. But once that work is finished and a criminal report is
9 filed with the public prosecutor's office, then it would be entered in
10 the register. So if there was a case in Laktasi --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down and repeat.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: You're asked to repeat because you were speaking
13 too fast. The interpreters did not get you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the CSB works on a case which
15 territorially speaking belongs to Laktasi, after completing the
16 investigation and submitting a criminal report with the public
17 prosecutor's office the case is entered in the K register of Laktasi and
18 one copy is forwarded for the operative register.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe this is not of any great significance, but
20 I'm still a bit confused about whether the CSB itself would conduct, on
21 its own, criminal investigations or whether all criminal investigations
22 would at a certain point be handed down to the SJBs, to the police
23 stations within the area of the CSB.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The CSBs did conduct investigations
25 into serious crimes. The earlier approach was that the CSBs would
1 conduct investigations of crimes that come under the jurisdiction of the
2 district courts, but after the amendments of the law in early 1992, all
3 crimes in the first instance were transferred into the jurisdiction of
4 first instance courts. After that, the centres still continued working
5 on serious cases, but they also filed criminal reports with first
6 instance courts.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
8 Back to you, Mr. Krgovic.
9 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, before you continue, Mr. Krgovic, I have been
10 alerted that we need to make a ruling immediately on the matter of an
11 extended sitting today, especially for the benefit of the transport
13 So, Mr. Krgovic, I think your two and a half hours have been
14 exhausted, but between you and Mr. Olmsted, could I know where we're
15 going? Before you answer, we have a maximum of an hour and 15 minutes
16 available to us. What are -- were we to resume at 2.15?
17 MR. OLMSTED: That would -- Your Honours, that would work for me.
18 I think I have maybe at most 40 minutes. I think it will be less because
19 my questions are quite direct for this witness on re-examination, but it
20 seems like we're not going to make it before the next break.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only have one more
22 question about this document and the statistics contained therein, and
23 that was actually my intention, too. So if I can just show this document
24 to the witness, and I believe my final question will actually assist the
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. But before you do that, I need to -- I
2 need to formally say that we will resume at 2.15 for an extended sitting
3 which should last about an hour. No more than an hour.
4 MR. OLMSTED: I'm in a bit of predicament because it's possible
5 that I could finish this session, but I think in an abundance of caution
6 we should arrange for the extended sitting and there will be absolutely
7 no problem finishing by then.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's show the witness P624,
11 Q. Mr. Vasic, this is a report on the work of the Banja Luka CSB
12 from the 4th of April, basically from the day of the establishment of the
13 MUP of RS, until 31 December 1992.
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us please see page 8 in Serbian
16 and page 6 in English. Page -- page 8 in Serbian.
17 Q. Mr. Vasic, as an experienced police officer, you had the
18 opportunity of seeing such reports often about crime prevention and
19 detection for the sake of statistics. Please look at the last paragraph
20 where the Banja Luka centre says that a total of 8799 criminal offence
21 were is recorded, of which 302 were economic crimes perpetrated by
22 110 persons, and 8596 were general crime and were perpetrated by a total
23 of 5.065 persons.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the following
25 page in Serbian but stay on the same page in English. It's page 9 in
2 Q. It goes on to say 6802 criminal reports against 3887 persons were
3 filed with the competent prosecutor's offices.
4 And then there's the breakdown of crimes committed by minors.
5 And then what I'm interested in: 7680 criminal offences were
6 registered as committed by unknown perpetrators, but 3512 were
7 subsequently identified. 4166 crimes have remained unsolved?
8 Mr. Vasic, you would agree with me, won't you, that if we want to
9 speak about the situation with crime and the work of the police and so
10 on, this data is actually the best indicator.
11 A. That is right. The crimes are represented through the number of
12 criminal acts, those by unidentified persons and the percentage that were
13 solved. The percentage of 48.7 per cent of resolved crimes, I think, is
14 more than enough. I remember a report before the war where only
15 35 per cent of crimes by unidentified perpetrators were resolved. We can
16 also see that a lot of perpetrators were free; they were not in prisons.
17 And we can see that after a crime was perpetrated it was possible very
18 quickly to see who had actually perpetrated them.
19 Q. And it says that it's characteristic that among those who
20 committed general crimes, a number of members of the armed forces were
21 involved, which is the main reason why there is a smaller number or -- of
22 people against whom criminal reports were submitted than before. And
23 this is actually what I was asking you before. This is the true picture
24 of the situation as it was.
25 A. I believe that this report also covers the relationship of the
1 police towards their work and also towards crime in the sense that the
2 report also deals with the number of members of the police who were
3 removed from service because they were perpetrating crimes. These are
4 always things that have to be analysed and which we always try to analyse
5 in our stations and centres.
6 Q. And in the last -- in the one paragraph but last, crimes against
7 humanity are also being referred to. So in a later period, towards 1992,
8 this is how certain crimes began to be qualified, which -- for which it
9 was not known whether they should be qualified as war crimes or just
10 regular crimes if they were not committed in the combat zone.
11 A. The analysis of crimes was done in all areas, general crimes,
12 economic crimes, drug-related crimes. Of course, in some -- war was
13 going on. There was some crimes that were also connected to, let us say,
14 war crimes. And the objective of those analyses was to discover
15 shortcomings in the work and to uncover as much as possible. I think
16 even in this information, and I have perhaps read something from the
17 public security station in Banja Luka, speaks about the structure of the
18 crimes against the non-Serbian population.
19 I think that such information was also drafted in that period,
20 1992, 1993, but I'm not sure about that because I don't see the whole
21 information on the basis of this.
22 Q. I don't have time to show you this information. My time is
23 brief. But you will agree that in order to get the whole picture about
24 the crimes it's necessary to review this report and this other report
25 that you referred to earlier; isn't that right?
1 A. Each information that speaks about the situation in the field and
2 that the Trial Chamber feels it requires, I think, is -- should be
3 recommended and provided for the Court's review, because the objective is
4 to have an as-fair-as-possible trial, so ...
5 Q. And this report and this information that you talked about when
6 you wanted to analyse the work with the Prosecution, I mean, you did not
7 do your work on the basis of those?
8 A. I did have that information, but there are no specific crimes
9 mentioned in these types of information. These are just general
10 statistics. I do have this information, and I think all of that
11 information is also available to the Prosecutor.
12 Q. Your tasks was not -- your task was not also to check the data
13 from the reports?
14 A. No. It is too voluminous, and it includes all the stations that
15 belong to a centre.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vasic. I have no further questions.
17 A. Thank you.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yell, Mr. Olmsted.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Let's first have up on the screen 65 ter 10410. And this is the
21 Prijedor Crime Register. And when we get it up on the screen, if we can
22 turn to page 65.
23 Why don't we just leave the -- let's just do the B/C/S, because I
24 do not believe this particular entry has been translated yet.
25 If we can zoom in on the first entry, entry 218.
1 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
2 Q. Mr. Vasic, is this the Zoran Zigic case that we were -- or you
3 were being cross-examined about a moment ago?
4 A. Zoran Zigic, for the crime 230, meaning economic crime.
5 Q. Let's turn to the next page.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, can we see the entry number? Is
7 that entry number 83?
8 MR. OLMSTED: Can we scroll over to the left.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 218.
10 MR. OLMSTED: We see in the first column it's written 218.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: 218. Thank you.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Now if we can turn to the next page, which is
13 simply a continuation of this entry. If we can zoom in on the first
14 entry again.
15 Q. And if you can tell us, Mr. Vasic, under column 13, where was
16 this --
17 MR. OLMSTED: Please stop there. Don't scroll over any further.
18 Q. Under column 13, where -- to whom was this criminal report
20 A. OJT, the basic public prosecutor's office of Prijedor, on the
21 16th of July, 1992.
22 Q. And if you could look at column 28, the last column, can you see
23 there's a KT 207/92 in it? What would that be a reference number to?
24 A. The KT number, it means that the prosecutor sent back a document
25 assigning the number 207/92. Underneath that, it says "DL," which means
1 the person's dossier, and that was given the number 1203.
2 Q. And the KT, would that be the KT log-book that's maintained by
3 the Prosecution's office?
4 A. I think that that is the prosecution number, yes.
5 Q. If we can just turn back to the --
6 A. Because underneath that it says "Indictment." I don't have to
7 think. That's what it is. It says KT 207/92, Indictment. It's a little
8 bit hard to read, but that's what it is. That is the return document.
9 That came from the prosecutor saying an indictment had been issued
10 against this person.
11 Q. Now, on your first day of cross-examination you were asked a few
12 questions about the daily events log-book. Besides potential crimes that
13 come to the attention of the SJB, what other kind of information goes
14 into the daily events log-book that do not relate to crimes?
15 A. You mean the daily events log-book. That records all reports by
16 citizens. It doesn't -- it can be an event that does not have the
17 characteristics of a crime or a violation and all the crimes and such
18 related events that are reported to the police station on duty.
19 Q. Would it also include notations regarding administrative matters
20 that were brought to the attention of the SJB? Say someone comes in for
21 a passport or some other kind of administrative matter.
22 A. No. Issuance of personal documents, submission of requests that
23 have nothing to do with police work or criminal police work would not be
24 recorded into the events log-book.
25 Q. What is the RS MUP's retention policy for daily events log-books?
1 How long do they keep them for?
2 A. The daily events log-books are kept in perpetuity. KU records
3 also, operations records also, sentencing records also. But certain
4 documents, like official notes which did not contain elements of crimes
5 or violations, would be archived at the station and kept for one to three
6 years. So in terms of crimes, such documents would be kept for a year,
7 after which they could be destroyed.
8 Q. Can you explain why so many of the daily events log-books from
9 1992 are missing, that they cannot be located at the SJBs?
10 MR. KRGOVIC: I'm objecting to, first, that he must establish did
11 he know that these are missing, because it's not mentioned during the
12 testimony or in his statement.
13 JUDGE HALL: Foundation, Mr. Olmsted. Then you may ask your
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. Are you aware -- obviously we turned over everything we had to
17 you to review, but are you aware that daily events log-books from 1992
18 are hard to come by, that they're not available at the SJBs?
19 A. As far as I know, records of police stations that were under,
20 let's say, one jurisdiction and then another jurisdiction, it could be
21 the case there of documents being lost or being destroyed. There were
22 even stations that had burned down completely, including all of their
23 documents. So I believe that most of the police stations have completely
24 preserved these records that have to do with the daily events logs, the
25 KU records, operations and sentencing records, and that is something
1 without which it would be very hard to carry on with the police work.
2 MR. OLMSTED: May we have on the screen 1D353.
3 Q. Now, during cross-examination, you had an opportunity to review
4 this document. It's an Official Note, dated 22 June, 1992, and we can
5 tell from the first paragraph that it was composed by a basic court judge
6 in Zvornik, and it's with regard to an on-site investigation.
7 Mr. Vasic, was it standard practice back in 1992 for the judge --
8 the judge from the basic court to compose an on-site investigation
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, if you allow me, for those who, like
11 yourself, find it very helpful to have the tab number for a document,
12 this is Stanisic list tab 38.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. I didn't have that written
14 down here.
15 Q. Mr. Vasic, was it the standard practice for the judge to -- who
16 attended the on-site investigation to compose the report?
17 A. According to the law, an investigative judge should have been
18 carrying out investigations on scene and to draft the report for all
19 crimes. The practice wasn't such that judges and prosecutors would go on
20 scene for any criminal case, but grave crimes, where there were human
21 victims, did require that. This included traffic accidents with several
22 victims and, in particular, cases of murder. We had, for example,
23 examples that accidental deaths and suicides were not something that
24 judges and prosecutors did go to conduct the on-site investigations, so
25 they would ask the police to do that alone. And then when the
1 investigation was completed, from the point in time when they were
2 informed that a crime had been committed, practically nothing else would
3 be done without informing them first.
4 Q. Now, we can see from this report that it was compiled on the same
5 day that the bodies of the two persons were found. After compiling this
6 note, isn't it correct that the judge will send it to both the prosecutor
7 and to the police, a copy of the report?
8 A. Yes. After the document was typed and certified, the judge would
9 send copies to the police and to the Prosecutor for further processing,
10 for discovering the perpetrators, and for further investigative action.
11 Q. And after the police receive an on-site investigation report,
12 that's when they do their preliminary investigation; they conduct
13 interviews of witnesses and suspects and conduct other activities. Is
14 that correct?
15 A. No. Police activities on the scene would begin at the time of
16 the investigation. The division of work was such that the judge would
17 document the on-scene investigation, the crime technician would do his
18 part of the work, and the operatives were already talking with persons
19 who would be in a position to provide useful information or had some
20 connection with the perpetration of the crime. The police activity is
21 not postponed at any point in time in order to wait for the record of the
22 on-scene investigation drafted by the investigative judge.
23 Q. And after the police have engaged in these activities, they file
24 a criminal report with the prosecutor; is that right?
25 A. Yes. If it did not find out who the perpetrator was in the
1 meantime and did report -- receive an investigation report from the
2 judge, it would treat the act as committed by an unidentified perpetrator
3 and would pass that on for further processing. If the perpetrator was
4 discovered, he would be detained. And the criminal report would be sent
5 to the prosecutor. And the court, without waiting for the report of the
6 on-scene investigation to be completed, it would just be passed on to the
7 proper authorities, accompanied by photographs made at the scene and
8 other types of evidence that had been compiled.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness said that these acts would be
10 treated as committed by an unknown perpetrator, and the criminal
11 complaint against the unknown perpetrator would be passed on to the -- to
12 the prosecutor's office, but maybe you can clarify that with the witness.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Just to -- I think that's exactly what I heard, and
14 maybe it will clean up with the record, but just to confirm:
15 Q. If the perpetrator's unknown, then the police would file an
16 unknown perpetrator report with the prosecutor; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if I can just ask one more question before the break so I can
19 finish with this document. From this on-site investigation report alone,
20 can we determine whether the police ever filed a criminal report in this
22 A. No, but there is a KRA -- KRI number assigned, and probably the
23 judges will insist that the evidence collected be submitted.
24 MR. OLMSTED: This would be a good time to break, Your Honours.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE HALL: So we resume in 30 minutes.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 --- Recess taken at 1.45 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 2.22 p.m.
5 JUDGE HALL: For the record, we reconvene for this final session
6 under Rule 15 bis, Judge Delvoie being absent.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 MR. OLMSTED: May we have on the screen 2D -- Exhibit 2D105.
9 Q. Mr. Vasic, we see here in the first paragraph that the crime that
10 the accused Zoran Zigic is accused of committing --
11 MR. OLMSTED: We had the right document up there first, but then
12 we switched to a different one. Could we have the one you originally had
13 on there. It's 2D105. And I'm not sure if the one -- yes, I think this
14 is -- they're both the same.
15 Q. We see that he's charged under Articles 150 and 225 of the
16 BiH Criminal Code. I know this is not a memory test, but do you know
17 what those crimes were?
18 A. Article 150 is robbery, and Article 225 is economic crime, but I
19 can't be more specific than that.
20 Q. Is it -- is it grave robbing, or robbing a corpse? Do you
22 A. I cannot tell. It says the crime of robbery, which means taking
23 away of another person's movable property. Maybe there is some --
24 something in the text that can tell us more.
25 Q. That's all right. We have the Criminal Code in evidence, so we
1 can look that up ourselves. I was just wondering if you knew off your
2 head -- top of your head.
3 MR. OLMSTED: May we have up on the screen 1D355. And this is
4 tab 45. I see Judge Delvoie is not here, but in his honour.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we were looking at this
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. Yes. And this is -- and this is the document that appears,
9 though we have the missing page issue, but it appears in the
10 CSB Doboj Crime Register under KU 7/92, and it's a little bit unclear
11 from the record, but can you clarify for us now the victim of this
12 criminal report is a person by the name of Milos Savic? Would that be a
13 Serb or a non-Serb?
14 A. Judging by the first and the last name, he should be a Serb.
15 Q. So even if you had this page from the CSB Doboj Crime Register,
16 this would not have figured into your statistics; is that correct?
17 A. You mean this isolated incident? A Serb kills a Serb. No, that
18 wouldn't have been included in the report, but since this person is also
19 linked with that double murder of non-Serbs, he would have been included
20 in that as aiding and abetting the other crime.
21 Q. And let's look at 65 ter 10406. And this is your statement from
22 April of 2010.
23 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 41 of the B/C/S and
24 page 44 of the English.
25 Q. And what we have in front of us is the Annex 15 from your
1 statement, which covers the 1992 crime register for Doboj. And I just
2 want to clarify something that came up --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I want to clarify something that came up during Mr. Krgovic's
5 cross-examination. If you look under the first column, under the item
6 number 3, the question that's being presented to you, it says:
7 "The total number of criminal reports in the KU for 1992 in
8 which at least one of the perpetrators is a Serb and the victims are all
10 A. I don't understand the question. The total number of crimes in
11 the KU --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, we didn't understand this last sentence
13 of the witness.
14 MR. OLMSTED:
15 Q. Well, let me just see if I can just clarify what I'm getting at.
16 The focus of your analysis was instances where the victims were all
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: For the record, for some time we already don't have
20 the LiveNote, Your Honours.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 MR. OLMSTED: May I continue?
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Before we leave this document, if -- just confirm for us: For
1 the purposes of Doboj, you actually reviewed two crime registers; is that
2 correct? Both the CSB Crime Register and the SJB Crime Register?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. OLMSTED: May we have on the screen 2D57.
5 Q. Now, this is the criminal report against Vedran Mandic and others
6 that you were shown by Mr. Krgovic. And if we can see in the paragraph
7 that follows the listing of the perpetrators, they are alleged to have
8 committed a crime against Milutin Cosic and Mile Tadic. Based on the
9 names, would you say those are Serbs or non-Serbs?
10 A. Milutin Cosic would be a Serb; and the other, Mile Tadic, well,
11 Tadic can be either.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Let's now turn to page of -- page 14 of the B/C/S
13 and page 14 of the English in this document.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I compare the dates, because it
15 says 22nd September, and what was the date of the previous document?
16 MR. OLMSTED:
17 Q. This is -- the previous document was dated 25 August 1992. So
18 this is a subsequent criminal report --
19 A. A month earlier, yes.
20 Q. Charging the same individuals for various crimes.
21 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn now to page 17 of the English,
22 page 16 of the B/C/S.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but here the victims are
24 non-Serbs, that is, Muslims.
25 MR. OLMSTED: If we can look at page 17 -- or page 16 of the
1 B/C/S, page 17 of the English.
2 Q. We see that the crimes include allegations against Milan Dzunic.
3 Would that be a non-Serb or a Serb?
4 A. On page 1, a Bosniak is mentioned. Here on -- on this page, it
5 says Dzunic. It should probably be Djuric. I don't know the -- the name
6 of Dzunic. But the first name Milan can belong either to a Serb or to a
8 Q. And Radojka Granic, could that also be either a Serb or a Croat?
9 A. I'm not sure.
10 Q. Let's look at 2D99.
11 A. But next to this name the cafe Kusmo is mentioned. It belongs to
12 a football player by the name of Kusmic who was a Muslim, a Bosniak.
13 Q. Now, this is criminal report that -- this is a criminal report
14 that you also took a look at during, I believe, Mr. Krgovic's
15 cross-examination, and it's dated 6 March 1993. If we look at the
16 paragraph -- if we look at the paragraph following the listing of the
17 alleged perpetrators, we see that the crimes occur between July 1992 all
18 the way through the end of January 1993.
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn the page.
21 Q. We see that there's nothing on the first page that particularly
22 mentions who the victims of the crimes were, but we see where it presents
23 the evidence it lists a bunch of reports regarding the crimes.
24 Can you confirm whether these reports include statements by both
25 non-Serbs and Serbs?
1 A. Certainly. Ilija Cosic is a Serb. Omer Rosic -- I'm reading
2 from the end - is a Muslim. Mehmed Ramic is a Muslim. Marica Ilic can
3 be either --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, Mr. Witness.
5 I'm just wondering about the usefulness of this exercise. I
6 mean, the level of detail is such that there is very little useful
7 information contained in it. I mean, these -- the evidence is based on
8 the statements from a number of persons, and whether these persons would
9 be Muslims or Serbs or Croats, really, I don't see the big purpose of
10 this exercise, Mr. Olmsted.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honour. As I understand it, the reason
12 this document, this report, was tendered into evidence is it establishes
13 something that should have been included in this witness's statistics but
14 was left out, and I'm establishing that because the report includes Serb
15 victims as well, that it wasn't encompassed by his statistical analysis.
16 But having established that, I can move on. That's fine.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. And, Mr. Olmsted, since you will be soon
18 winding up your redirect, I would suggest that you focus on the -- on the
19 bigger picture that we are to get out of this, because it's -- the
20 picture at this moment is somewhat, you know, blurred.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 1D360.
22 Q. And, Mr. Vasic, you saw this criminal report, I think, during
23 Mr. Zecevic's cross-examination, and we see in the last paragraph it's
25 "Operative action and measures taken so far have not resulted in
1 establishing the identity of the perpetrator or perpetrators. If found,
2 we will send you a separate report."
3 Now, from this document alone we can't tell what, if any,
4 operative measures the police took with regard to this case; is that
6 A. In this phase, the police was duty-bound to file a criminal
7 report to the public prosecutor's office against an unknown perpetrator,
8 and after that it should have continued investigative activities. But we
9 cannot say more based on this because we would have to follow the
10 development of the case.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have on the screen 65 ter 10492.
12 Q. And what we have in front of us is the Brcko open cases log-book
13 from 1992, which is the one that you reviewed. And if we could turn --
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I don't see how this comes out of the
15 cross-examination. We never mentioned Brcko, neither myself nor
16 Mr. Krgovic.
17 MR. OLMSTED: And I apologise. I should have laid foundation.
18 Q. During the first day of cross-examination, you were asked a
19 number of questions regarding investigations of war crimes, and I just
20 want to draw your attention to a few entries in this book. If we can
21 turn to page 23. And if you can start looking at -- from item 35, as
22 well as 36. If you can just take a quick look at those.
23 MR. OLMSTED: They're at the bottom of the page, so please scroll
24 down to the bottom.
25 Q. Can you tell us, Are these war crimes cases?
1 A. Yes, but -- these are war crimes, but it says that they were
2 entered in KU as entry 2/93, and this following number is 3/93, which
3 means that incidents were reported on the 18th of January, 1992, both of
4 them, and the date of the incident itself or the report of the incident
5 was in December 1992.
6 Q. Can you --
7 A. Although, this is insufficient information. We cannot establish
8 who the victims are and against whom the criminal reports are filed.
9 This is a nonstandard log-book. It says that a certain Muslim was
10 reported and another for war crimes against civilian population. This
11 could easily be a war crime committed against Serbs. So based on this, I
12 cannot establish who the victims were and who was reported as a
13 perpetrator, because in my statement I point out that this log-book is
14 nonstandard and contains insufficient information for -- to ascertain
15 with certainty what it's about.
16 By the way, in Brcko, many documents are missing, and that's why
17 the statistics are what they're like.
18 MR. OLMSTED: May this log-book be admitted into evidence?
19 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] ... on what basis,
20 Mr. Olmsted? Having regard to the witness's clear answer that it is
21 non --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 JUDGE HALL: -- the information is -- sorry, I didn't realise my
24 microphone wasn't on. On what basis are you seeking for this to be
25 admitted? The witness's testimony is that it's a nonstandard log-book
1 and the information's so incomplete as to be wholly unhelpful. So on
2 what basis would we admit it?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: And if I may add, Your Honours, the 92 ter package
4 consists of the statement of this witness where he actually says that the
5 documents in Brcko are of no use whatsoever because they're nonstandard
6 and so and so on.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this log-book contains entries of the
9 investigation of war crimes in 1992 in which the perpetrators are Muslim,
10 and that is why we are tendering it into evidence.
11 I think Your Honours are aware of the issue that's been debated
12 between the Defence and the Prosecution on this very issue.
13 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry, I don't see it.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE HALL: No, Mr. Olmsted. We will not admit this document.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. OLMSTED: May we look at 1D354.
18 Q. This is the Zvornik Crime Register from 1992 which you had a look
20 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 16.
21 Q. If you could look at entry 51. Can you tell us, Is this a --
22 what crime was involved in this criminal report?
23 A. War crime against wounded and the sick. Victims Eric Slavko,
24 Vujic Vlado, Jovanovic Nikola against identified perpetrators.
25 Q. And those victims, they are Serbs?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If we can follow this entry to the next page.
3 MR. OLMSTED: If you could turn the page.
4 Q. If you can look under column 13, to whom was this criminal report
6 A. The basic public prosecutor's office.
7 Q. I just have a couple more questions. First of all, during
8 cross-examination today, you mentioned that the initial assumption was
9 that 140 persons were killed at Koricanske Stijene in 1992 but that that
10 number changed. Could you clarify what you meant by that? Did it
11 increase or decrease according to your information?
12 A. According to the information that I had regarding the
13 investigations conducted by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Prosecutor's
14 Office and our investigators who were working on that case, I think that
15 the number is higher, and I'm not sure whether perhaps the figure could
16 be at a -- about 190. In any event, the B&H Prosecutor's Office is
17 conducting these proceedings, and there are already a number of convicted
18 persons. So I think that part is not undefined. It has been defined.
19 So there is no need for me to make any assumptions.
20 Q. And just one final question with regard to Laktasi. Can you tell
21 us what the ethnic breakdown was in Laktasi before the conflict, so
22 before 1992?
23 A. I think that the census from 1991 indicates that there -- Laktasi
24 had a population of 87 per cent Serbs, and the other remaining
25 percentages were some Croats and some Muslims, and the rest were
1 Yugoslavs, because a lot of the population at the time declared
2 themselves as Yugoslavs, regardless of whether they were Serbs, Croats,
3 or Muslims.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, at this time I would like to move to
5 admit this witness's 92 ter package, including the revised annexes and
6 the four crime registers into evidence. And I ask that at this point
7 they be admitted under seal, just because one of the annexes mentions the
8 names of some victims of rape. What we'll do is we can redact those
9 names out of the annex and then the whole thing can become public.
10 JUDGE HALL: So ordered.
11 THE REGISTRAR: The Registry will assign exhibit numbers in due
12 course, Your Honours.
13 MR. OLMSTED: And with that, Your Honours, I have no further
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
17 Mr. Witness, before we close, I have a couple of questions to you
18 which I am putting to you in order to see if we can have from you while
19 you're here a better impression of the overall picture.
20 You have been asked to study the KU log-books of a number of SJBs
21 on crimes committed in 1992, and you have been very helpful in providing
22 your analysis of it. But you have also testified - and please correct me
23 if I'm wrong - that the picture that emerges from studying the
24 KU log-books alone is incomplete because crimes were also registered in a
25 number of other log-books such as the open crimes log-book and other
1 log-books. So in order to get a full picture of the crimes that were
2 investigated and prosecuted by the civil police, one would have to
3 consult all of these log-books. And on top of that, you would still have
4 the military police's log-books and the registers belonging to the
5 military organs.
6 Now, if we look at the evidence which has been offered to us
7 during this trial - and I am fully aware of the fact that, of course, you
8 have no knowledge of the evidence because you have not been here - and if
9 we look at the information which you have given to us during your
10 testimony here in the last couple of days, there seems to me to be two
11 perspectives which I would like to raise with you. One is what I would
12 call the personal perspective. That is to say, who committed crimes
13 against who? So this would be a perspective that deals with the
14 ethnicity of perpetrators and victims.
15 The other perspective is a purely numerical perspective. That is
16 to say, how many crimes were actually committed, and how many of them
17 were registered and investigated and eventually prosecuted? And I don't
18 know if you can help us with giving your impression, if you can, of the
19 proportions here.
20 Now, if you are unable to provide your impressions of the
21 questions that I'm putting to you, then please just say so. It's better
22 that you say that you don't know, rather than trying to -- to speculate.
23 But I want to first put a question to you regarding the personal
24 perspective. And I would be curious to know if you can give us, as I
25 said, an impression of the proportions of crimes committed in 1992 by
1 Muslim -- Muslims or Croats against Serbs, or the reverse, by Serbs
2 against Muslims or Croats.
3 So my question to you: Can you give us an impression of the
4 number of crimes, very generally, committed by Muslims against Serbs
5 or -- and Serbs against Muslims? That's my first question to you.
6 A. It's difficult to answer this question in an argumented way, but
7 by doing this analysis, at first I compiled data from public security
8 stations about all crimes, serious crimes, where it was clear that a
9 considerable number of the crimes were committed within the same ethnic
10 group. Percentage-wise, in this period, the percentage of a certain
11 ethnic group in that area accounted for the same number of crimes
12 percentage-wise. And all of this reflects a situation that preceded the
13 war, as far as killings of the majority people by the minority people,
14 meaning crimes committed by Serbs against Muslims, is greater in the area
15 of the RS, and the opposite can apply in the territory of the federation.
16 It's difficult to give percentages, but out of the total number
17 of killings, I think that in the area of the RS perhaps 20 to 25 per cent
18 of murders remain unsolved. The majority were solved, though, and I can
19 say that the bulk of them were within the ethnic group to a considerable
20 part. And we can provide this data either through the defence or some
21 other way for you to see.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just clarify here, because I'm not sure I
23 understand your answer. You say that the bulk of the crimes were
24 committed within the ethnic group to a considerable part. Is that --
25 does that mean that the majority of the crimes of those that were solved
1 were committed either by Serbs against Serbs and Muslims against Muslims?
2 So a minority of the crimes in your testimony --
3 A. Were multi-ethnic.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. Right. Then is -- is this impression
5 well reflected in the log-books that you have analysed for us? In other
6 words, does the picture that you have been able to read out of the
7 log-books correspond to your general estimation of the number of crimes?
8 Is the picture that we can elicit from all of these log-books -- is that
9 fairly realistic or does it come close to what you perceive as the
11 A. I said that I compiled data from all police stations, our police
12 stations, and that picture was created on the basis of that information.
13 All the murders that were carried out, that were solved, and the ethnic
14 characteristics of the perpetrator indicate that the bulk of the killings
15 were carried out against Serbs in the area of Republika Srpska. And the
16 mass crimes, of course, were something we did not take into account
17 because this particular statistical study did not encompass that
18 information. For example, Koricanske Stijene cases where there were
19 killings that were processed by military courts, and the military
20 prosecutor's office were not taken into account. This is purely an
21 analysis of police statistical data where an act was reported and was
22 being investigated by police authorities.
23 I think when we looked at the records the basic prosecutor's
24 office and the military prosecutor's office were merged, then we would
25 come to a complete overview.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this answer. This is very useful
2 to us.
3 My second question then goes to the numerical perspective. And
4 what I wish to question you about is, Is the proportion, again in your
5 assessment, of the total number of crimes committed in the RS in 1992
6 compared to the number of crimes which were registered in the log-books?
7 In other words, is there any significant amount of crimes, number of
8 crimes, that simply weren't registered at all, or is it your impression
9 that almost all of the crimes that were, in fact, committed were also
10 registered somewhere, some-when?
11 A. You can get a true picture of this if you were compared to -- if
12 you were to compare the diaries of events with the KUs. The daily
13 log-books contain, in a chronological order, all the events that are
14 reported, so there is no adjustment of results or interference in any
15 way. On the other hand, the KU records can serve -- can provide
16 incorrect data only because of subsequent reports. By analysing and
17 comparing the KU and the daily event log-books, we would then see if
18 there were any cases that had been insufficiently investigated or
19 insufficiently acted upon.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure I find a real answer to the question
21 I was putting.
22 A. You know what the problem is, some cases that were reported in
23 1992 and entered in the KU register in 1993 do not figure in this
24 analysis. But from the point of view of the conduct of the police, it is
25 very important whether they were completed or whether the police acted
1 upon them. The number of reports filed is much greater than one year
2 earlier. And now the question is how successful the police could have
4 I'm not saying -- or, rather, not going now to the issue whether
5 they acted or didn't act, but the question is how successful they could
6 have been, because there were five times more murders than before, and
7 crimes of causing public danger multiplied 50-fold. But it is important
8 to know whether the police acted and how it acted, what it did.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: You have already explained this, and the Court is
10 appreciative of the enormous difficulties that the police were faced with
11 at the time. It must have been insurmountable.
12 But let me get back to my question. And the question really is
13 if in your impression there was a large number or any significant number
14 of crimes that simply were not registered for one or another reason. Or,
15 in the alternative, is it your impression that, in fact, and in the end,
16 most of those -- of the crimes relating to the war that were committed
17 were also registered at some point in some log-book?
18 A. I'm convinced that all crimes that were reported were entered in
19 the log-book of events.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let me just hold you here. You say "that all
21 crimes that were reported," and my question then goes to: Well, were all
22 crimes reported, or were there, in fact, a number -- a significant number
23 of crimes which were never reported?
24 A. I'm talking about crimes that were reported to the police. I
25 didn't go any further than the police.
1 I believe that a certain number of crimes was not reported
2 because the victims were inaccessible, but those are mostly crimes
3 against property such as in the case of abandoned houses or apartments.
4 There were many such crimes, but there was nobody to report them. Even
5 causing general danger, where property was destroyed by fire or in any
6 other way, they often weren't reported. But if any acquaintance or the
7 neighbour reported such offences to the police, the police certainly
8 would enter them into their log-books.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir. I have no more questions.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if I just may ask one follow-up
11 question leading from, I think, the premise that Judge Harhoff started
12 with, with regard to his questions. It's quite a very basic question, if
13 I may.
14 Further Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
15 Q. Mr. Vasic, just so we're clear on this, if a criminal report was
16 issued by the police, was it required under the regulations of the police
17 to register it in the KU, in the crime register?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE HALL: Well, Mr. Vasic, we thank you for your immense
21 assistance to this Tribunal for the past several days, and your testimony
22 is at an end. You're now released as a witness, and we wish you a safe
23 journey back to your home.
24 And we now adjourn these proceedings until Monday in the
25 afternoon at 2.15 in this courtroom. I trust everyone has a safe
1 weekend. Thank you.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.10 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Monday, the 30th day
5 of August, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.