1 Monday, 6 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 Good morning, everybody in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone.
11 May we have the appearances for today, please.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted and
13 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence
16 this afternoon. Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
18 Igor Pantelic, and Jason Antley for Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And if there are now housekeeping or
20 preliminary matters that need detain us, may the usher escort the witness
21 back to the stand, please.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, Mr. Kovacevic. Before
24 counsel --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
1 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... resumes
2 cross-examination, I remind you you're still on your oath.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 WITNESS: MARINKO KOVACEVIC [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Kovacevic.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. When my colleague Mr. Zecevic asked you about the powers and
11 jurisdiction of the Military Prosecutor's Office regarding crimes against
12 humanity, you gave a few very precise answers last Friday. I'd just
13 like to go through certain parts of the same document you discussed with
14 Mr. Zecevic, but it won't take long. I just want to put the position of
15 the Defence regarding jurisdiction.
16 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up P1284.10 in
17 e-court, please.
18 Q. Yes, that's the document you discussed with Mr. Zecevic. These
19 are guide-lines for identifying criteria for criminal prosecution.
20 A. Excuse me for a moment, please, I forgot my glasses. They are
21 back in that -- reading glasses, yes, in the little bag. I'm really
23 Q. We thank Mr. Cvijetic while we wait for your eyeglasses.
24 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Page 3 of this document, please,
25 in Serbian, and the same page in English. Page 3 in Serbian. One page
1 further. This page is number two. We need the next page in B/C/S.
2 That's right.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Kovacevic, in item 3, we see that that Military
4 Prosecutor's Office, in its instructive analysis of various types of
5 crimes that would be under their jurisdiction, lists, under number 3,
6 crime against humanity and international law from chapter 16 of the
7 Criminal Code. That's where these crimes are listed and numbered;
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On page 4 --
11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at page 4, please.
12 Q. In this instructive analysis, the Military Prosecutor's Office
13 describes certain circumstances that have been observed in the units of
14 the Army of Republika Srpska and explains how one should go about
16 On page 4, at the end of the last paragraph - I'll quote
17 it - they say:
18 "In view of that, concerning crimes that occur from the conduct
19 of persons in a situation of immediate threat of war, serious penalties,
20 including the death sentence, are envisaged."
21 You know that the state of immediate threat of war affects the
22 sanctioning policy and the -- the prosecution policy?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. We have to pause for a second between questions and answers so
25 that the interpreters can follow and that the record be clear.
1 As professionals, and, you, as a witness of that time, we know --
2 rather, I put it to you that regardless of whether the immediate threat
3 of war had been declared or not, and that has political implications as
4 well, de facto, from 1992 until 1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there was
5 a permanent armed conflict?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. We also see, slightly above this passage that I quoted, a
8 sentence where the Military Prosecutor's Office notes the following. It
9 begins with the words:
10 "Upon the proclamation of an imminent threat of war," and the
11 year is 1993 [as interpreted], a general mobilisation had been declared.
12 You know that all military conscripts had their wartime
13 assignment and a work obligation during the armed conflict --
14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Just one correction to the
15 transcript: Part of my question related to year "1992," not "1993," as
16 was recorded on page 4, line 6.
17 Can we move to page 12 of this document.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 Q. To my previous question recorded on page 4, line 3, the question
20 was: During that generally mobilisation in 1992, all military conscripts
21 had a certain wartime assignment and there was also a work obligation for
22 those who did not have a wartime assignment to be involved in combat
23 operations; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If we look at page 12 of this instruction from the Military
1 Prosecutor's Office, we see that they analyse certain elements of crimes,
2 and in paragraph 2, we see that they say - and the sentence begins:
3 "The greatest numbers of these crimes can be committed only in a
4 time of armed conflict or they are, in some other way, closely related to
5 armed struggle which requires that such crimes are committed as part of a
6 large-scale military operation and on the orders of superiors."
7 Now, I'm asking you as a former prosecutor, do you agree with
8 this qualification, this legal qualification, of this group of crimes?
9 A. Yes, I agree.
10 Q. Further, the Military Prosecutor's Office, in their instructive
11 analysis, towards the bottom of page 12, list one by one which acts
12 constitute such crimes, and they qualify it as criminal and inhumane acts
13 against the civilian population and prisoners of war, killings, torture,
14 and inhumane treatment, rapes, establishment of camps, detentioning
15 camps, looting property, and forced transfer of population.
16 Unfortunately, very ugly things happened in Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina and perpetrators were to be found among all the three ethnic
18 groups. But what I'm interested in is this: A whole series of these
19 acts listed in this analysis made by the Military Prosecutor's Office, we
20 must say regrettably, although we learnt about it only later from the
21 documents of -- and judgements of this Tribunal, happened also in the
22 municipality of Prijedor?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. On page 14 of this instructive analysis, we see that the
25 prosecutor is issuing a warning to the military commands and their staff.
1 In paragraph 2, on page 14, the Military Prosecutor's Office
2 cautions the Military Command Staff of the VRS about the following. And
3 it all goes along the lines of well known rules from the times of the
4 JNA, and it's all in line with the international humanitarian law.
5 So, in paragraph 2, they say:
6 "The very knowledge in possession of the Command Staff that units
7 of the armed forces of the Army of Republika Srpska or their members
8 committed or are committing such acts without any measures taken to
9 redress the consequences or prevent the act, while subjecting the
10 perpetrators to criminal prosecution, constitute liability for some of
11 these criminal acts."
12 Is that written there?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, in the next paragraph, the last sentence, reflects another
15 instruction, namely, that military commands must inform the Military
16 Prosecutor's Office of such occurrences. Is that so?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And in conclusion, on pages 15 and 16, the Military Prosecutor's
19 Office gives a very precise order to unit commands related to detection
20 of war crimes. And towards the bottom of page 15, you see that the
21 command of the Main Staff demands precise reporting from all units on the
22 ground; and, in fact, the Military Prosecutor's Office instructs units on
23 the ground to work on detecting all cases of war crimes against humanity
24 and war crimes.
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And now let's look at page 16.
1 Q. This sentence is very important:
2 "In the area of their responsibility."
3 It is unequivocal here that a specific military commander, in the
4 area of responsibility of his unit, must work to detect war crimes.
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. In the lines that follow, the Military Prosecutor's Office very
7 precisely instructs military commanders in their areas of responsibility
8 to inform the nearest military authorities - military police, military
9 judicial organs, et cetera - they instruct them to secure the crime
10 scene, to ensure that evidence is collected by taking witness statements,
11 preparing documentation, et cetera, et cetera. And in point 4, the
12 military police and military judicial organs are instructed to give
13 priority to these crimes in their work.
14 Is that so?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, who are the addressees of this instruction? We see on the
17 next pages that it's made available to all the units, secretariats for
18 national defence in all municipalities.
19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And let's move to page 17; that's
20 the final part of the document.
21 Q. It's also sent to police stations, the military police, military
22 courts, et cetera.
23 So to conclude, Mr. Kovacevic, it was not in dispute at all that
24 the Military Prosecutor's Office had jurisdiction in 1992 and was in
25 charge of prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And it's not in dispute that all commanders of military units
3 were duty-bound, in keeping with this instruction, to work on detecting
4 and documenting any and all cases of violation of international
5 humanitarian law?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. I suppose that you and your superiors in the Military
8 Prosecutor's Office had contacts with the military judicial organs, where
9 you harmonised your positions as professionals and dealt with issues of
10 jurisdiction, if there were issues of jurisdiction between military
11 prosecutions and civilian prosecutions.
12 A. Yes, we had such meetings.
13 Q. To shed some more light on these activities, I'd like to call up
14 P1285. It's a Prosecution Exhibit that relates to the work of the
15 Military Prosecutor's Office. These are monthly reports, and we are not
16 going to waste time on all of them.
17 I'd just like to look at the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps because
18 they cover the area of Banja Luka.
19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] If we could look at page 3 of this
20 document, although it's marked 2.
21 Q. It's a monthly report, and the soldiers are very precise in their
22 reporting. These are the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps.
23 We see that the army filed one criminal report against a civilian
24 for crimes against international humanitarian law. Can you see that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You cannot know, of course, why -- why this criminal complaint
2 was filed against a civilian, but we will see on page 13 of this monthly
3 report what it was about. Let's just wait for that page to come up.
4 So acting precisely with the instructions and the positions
5 taken, the Military Prosecutor Office attached to the 1st and
6 2nd Krajina Corps Command, the prosecutor is submitting, on page 13 - we
7 can see this is under 8 - crimes against humanity, and we see that the
8 Military Prosecutor Office has filed a criminal report against a certain
9 Jozo Baric, pursuant to Article 142, for the massacre committed against
10 members of the Serbian ethnic group on 17th of September in the village
11 of Serdari.
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. I suppose that you remember these events. These were turbulent
15 times in September. You remember this event in which Serbs from the
16 village of Serdari were killed, among them were even children and some
17 elderly people as well?
18 A. Yes, I remember that incident. There were, in fact, several
19 similar incidents in which there was mass killing of the Serbian
20 population in Kotor Varos municipality. And I remember this particular
21 incident because this involved an extremely large number of victims and
22 that among them were really small children.
23 And I would just like to say one thing more and that is that in
24 Kotor Varos, as a boarding municipality compared to Banja Luka
25 municipality, in 1992 there were really many incidents of this nature,
1 but I believe that this one involved the highest number of civilians
2 killed by members of the Croatian -- or, rather, Muslim army. And for
3 that reason it remained etched in my memory, and I remember it quite well
4 at the moment.
5 Q. Further on, on page 14, the Military Prosecutor's Office of the
6 1st and 2nd Corps, under chapter 4, it says that meetings were held with
7 civilian organs in --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the names of
9 the places slowly.
10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Derventa, Teslic, Knezevo,
11 Laktasi, and Banja Luka.
12 Considering the activities of the prosecutor's office, we are
13 particularly interested in the fact that, among other things, in
14 paragraph 3 of this chapter 4, it is focussed on contact with the
15 judiciary, as we can see, in Derventa, Teslic, Knezevo - and Knezevo is,
16 in fact, Skender Vakuf - and finally Laktasi and Banja Luka.
17 In your contacts with your counterparts, did you acquire
18 information that such communication existed between the Military
19 Prosecutor's Office and members of the civilian judiciary in these area?
20 Was there any exchange of information?
21 A. Yes, there were such meetings in 1992 and in later years, in
22 1993, for example. Yes, we had meetings.
23 Q. Further on, the Military Prosecutor's Office, as we can see,
24 plans to establish active contacts with other civilian judiciary organs.
25 And on page 19 - and then we shall finish with this document - we see
1 that this report -- we are waiting for page 17 to come up on our screens.
2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Page 17, please.
3 Q. We can see that this report was also submitted to the high
4 prosecutor's office in Banja Luka. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, at that
5 time, I presume that that refers to the district court -- or, rather, the
6 district prosecutor's office.
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. We do understand each other, but I'm asking you for the sake of
9 the correction in the English transcript, where, under item 6, there is a
10 question mark. So we want this to be clarified in the English version.
11 So we are talking here about the district prosecutor's office who had
12 jurisdiction at the time; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, let's wrap up this subject and finalise the issue regarding
15 the jurisdiction of the Military Prosecutor's Office, although our
16 learned friends from the OTP are trying to fight very hard to prove
17 otherwise --
18 MR. OLMSTED: Sorry. Yes, Your Honours, that's not really
19 necessary. It's argumentative.
20 MR. PANTELIC: If -- I do apologise. If you think that it's not
21 at issue that military authority -- military judicial authorities were --
22 were under the -- the road to persecute war crimes committed by
23 civilians, then I will not really -- if it's not in dispute between us.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the issue is with regard to the form
25 of the question. I don't think it's appropriate for Defence counsel to
1 be putting to the witness what or what isn't the Prosecution's position
2 on a particular issue. He should just simply ask a question and get an
4 MR. PANTELIC: I'll do that. I do apologise.
5 Q. [Interpretation] So let us look and analyse document
6 65 ter 10293. And with this, we shall conclude this subject. However,
7 we have to go through this document because that's also an integral part
8 of the Prosecution case.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic. Mr. Pantelic.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we leave this subject, I have a couple of
12 questions that I might as well pose now in order to get the context
14 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, certainly. I do apologise. I just
15 have one question in relation to that and then you will have the floor,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Go ahead.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Kovacevic, what we see here is a report
20 by the prosecutor attached to the Main Staff of the army. I'm not going
21 to speculate, but I think that this is a historic document issued by the
22 prosecutor office because we heard from several testimonies that this was
23 in the process of being established, but based on the number in the top
24 right corner, which is number 1, and the date is the
25 9th of September, 1992, I conclude - and the author is Supic, the place
1 is Han Pijesak, the date is 9 September 1992, where the prosecutor's
2 office --
3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] If we can move to page 3 of this
5 Q. This particular prosecutor's office, on the 26th of August, 1992,
6 is instructing all the subordinate military prosecutor's office to give
7 priority to prosecutions of crimes; for example, under bullet 3, where it
8 says "against humanity and international law."
9 So, Mr. Kovacevic, after all these documents, one can see the
10 very clear responsibility and obligation on the part of military
11 structures that whenever they learned that a crime against humanity was
12 committed, they were duty-bound to prosecute, to collect evidence, and to
13 carry out all other activities?
14 A. Correct.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I've finished with this line and with
16 this topic, so if you have questions, of course, for ...
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, I do apologise. Because it's 65 ter, I
19 would like to ask to tender this document.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: 65 ter number what?
21 MR. PANTELIC: 65 ter 10293.
22 MR. OLMSTED: No objections, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D107, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
1 Mr. Kovacevic, I have a question that relates to the answer you
2 gave to Counsel Pantelic when he was asking you whether you, as the
3 public prosecutor, co-ordinated the efforts to investigate crimes with
4 the military prosecutor on. On the rolling text on the screens in front
5 of us, it's just at the turn between page 7 and page 8, and the question
6 put to you was the following:
7 "I suppose that you and your superiors in the Military
8 Prosecutor's Office had contacts with the military judiciary organs,
9 where you harmonised your positions as professionals and dealt with
10 issues of jurisdiction ..."
11 And then your answer was:
12 "Yes, we had such meetings."
13 My question to you goes to the nature of these meetings because,
14 you see, the Chamber sits back with information provided to us by a
15 number of witnesses that, in fact, a number of crimes were committed
16 during the armed conflicts, as Counsel Pantelic says, by all three
17 parties. Yet there has been, throughout this trial, an issue of which
18 prosecutor should take the responsibility to have these crimes
19 investigated and prosecuted; should it be the military prosecutor, or
20 should it be the public prosecutor?
21 And I think it is probably safe to say that a number of crimes
22 that were in fact committed were never investigated or prosecuted by any
23 of the two authorities of prosecution.
24 So that brings me back to your answer. When you said that you
25 had such meetings in which the public prosecutor and the military
1 prosecutor would meet up and coordinate issues of jurisdiction, can you
2 tell us about these meetings? How frequent did they take place? What
3 were they about? And what were the actions taken, facing the reports
4 that you received about the commission of crimes?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in response to your
6 question, I can give you the following answer:
7 The public prosecutor represents the prosecutor's office. In
8 other words, Nebojsa Pantic, the public prosecutor, represented the
9 prosecutor's office in these and similar meetings. Just like, in such
10 meetings, the district prosecutor's office of Banja Luka was represented
11 by Milan Puvacic, the district prosecutor.
12 I had an opportunity to attend, in 1993, I think, perhaps one of
13 those meetings, along with the Prosecutor Pantic and the
14 Prosecutor Puvacic, where a small number of criminal reports received
15 were being discussed; that is to say, received by the Military
16 Prosecutor's Office. These reports referred to -- or, rather, the
17 discussion referred to the jurisdiction, whether it should be under the
18 military or the civilian organs. In all these criminal reports that were
19 the subject of this meeting, the offence cited was abscondment from the
20 military forces, or theft of property of the military. And the
21 perpetrators were reserve soldiers and civilians, in a number of cases.
22 Therefore, a question was raised at this meeting of establishing
23 subject-matter jurisdiction for these particular criminal reports and
24 these particular criminal offences, given that the persons reported had
25 changed their status; in other words, they were no longer reserve
1 soldiers but became civilians in the meantime. That is to say, they were
2 given a work obligation. And in the instances where civilians were the
3 perpetrators of crimes within the domain of general crimes against
4 military property, these civilians had left Republika Srpska or, rather,
5 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 That meeting, as far as I could conclude and from what I knew,
7 there was no dilemma in anyone's mind that the military prosecutorial
8 authorities had jurisdiction for crimes against the civilian population
9 and the international law.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic, for this clarification.
11 Now, if I understand your testimony correctly, the jurisdiction
12 between -- or, rather, the division of jurisdiction between military and
13 public prosecutors would also depend on the status of the perpetrator; is
14 that correct?
15 I'm asking you this because you testified just a while ago that
16 the status of the perpetrator had changed. As long as he was a
17 reservist, he would fall under the jurisdiction of the military
18 prosecutors; but if he changed his status and became a civilian, then he
19 would come under the public prosecutor's office.
20 Was that correctly understood?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were the topics that we had
22 to discuss to harmonise our positions between the Military Prosecutor's
23 Office and civilian prosecutor's offices. They had to arrive at a common
24 position regarding jurisdiction over civilians who had to be prosecuted
25 for such offences.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 How would, for instance, a murder committed against a civilian
3 during the armed conflict be handled? Would that be handled as a war
4 crime or as a private crime?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only speak about common
6 practice. In determining jurisdiction in 1992, and that continued
7 throughout the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, if there was a murder or a
8 multiple murder, according to common practice with regard to civilian
9 perpetrators, criminal reports were filed by police authorities. And the
10 crime, if it involved several victims, would be qualified as murder from
11 Article 36, it would be aggravated murder - Article 36, para 2, I
12 believe - and, as such, it was to be prosecuted by the civilian
13 prosecutor's office.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
15 I just wish to be very clear about this because you seem to be
16 saying that the jurisdiction really depended on the status of the
17 perpetrator. So, in other words, the military prosecutor would assume
18 jurisdiction over a murder as a war crime only if the perpetrator
19 belonged to the armed forces, either as a regular combatant or as a
21 Is this correctly understood?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know about the actual
23 practice of military prosecutor's offices regarding prosecutions from
24 this chapter, chapter 16 of the Criminal Code. My knowledge about
25 jurisdiction for prosecuting crimes in the entire territory of Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina for the duration of the conflict is what I just described.
2 From what I know, both in the territory of Republika Srpska and
3 in the territory of the Federation, the jurisdiction was the same in
4 prosecutions of these crimes if - I repeat - these crimes were reported,
5 Article 36, para 2, civilian authorities had jurisdiction; but in other
6 cases, if somebody reported a crime against the civilian population or
7 international law, such reports went directly to the Military
8 Prosecutor's Office and the military authorities in the entire territory
9 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. From what I know, that was the practice
10 throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina throughout the war.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic. I don't
12 think I should be taking more of the Defence counsel's time, so I give
13 the floor back to Mr. Pantelic. Thank you.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacevic, in your answers to my learned
16 friend Mr. Olmsted and also the Defence team of Mr. Stanisic, you said
17 that in our legal system that prevailed in 1992 there was a certain
18 change in jurisdiction - I believe it was in June 1992 - when
19 jurisdiction for practically all crimes was transferred from higher
20 courts to lower courts, higher authorities to lower authorities.
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. I believe you may remember that at the same time jurisdiction
23 over the work of the police was also adjusted. And we should look at
25 While we're waiting: The principle was that there should be
1 cooperation between the lower court, the lower prosecutor's office, and
2 police stations in coordinating and detecting war crimes because of the
3 change in jurisdiction that I just described?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. You probably haven't seen this document before, and we didn't --
6 don't need to discuss it. But to illustrate this change of jurisdiction
7 on the 2nd of July, 1992, a certain Mr. Josic, who was a police inspector
8 in a public security station, head of the criminal investigations
9 department, we see that policemen from Banja Luka are complaining to
10 their superiors in the CSB Banja Luka, saying that they do not have
11 enough staff to fight the amount of crime that is placed in their lap
12 after this change of -- in jurisdiction.
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] In Serbian, in e-court, we need
14 page 3 in B/C/S.
15 Q. It was signed by Chief -- by the Chief Tutus, and the report was
16 prepared by Mr. Josic. And it says: In view of the new obligations and
17 the shortage of staff and the increased number of crimes that are now
18 within our jurisdiction, et cetera, et cetera.
19 What was the situation with the prosecutor's office? Did you
20 encounter problems once a whole series of crimes were transferred to your
21 jurisdiction? But very briefly, please.
22 A. There were many problems. A very extraordinary situation reigned
23 in the whole of Banja Luka. The war started. There were no qualified
24 staff, qualified officers. And such a huge inflow of cases was very
25 difficult to prosecute within a reasonable amount of time. All of a
1 sudden, we had dozens of cases a day received by the prosecutor's office.
2 Q. We'll pause here.
3 Mr. Kovacevic, you said it your statement to OTP investigators,
4 and we heard it also from your colleagues who testified here, prosecutors
5 and judges, there were many cases of attacks by army members against
6 prosecutors and judges. Do you know that?
7 A. Yes, of course.
8 Q. And the prosecutors and judges in question are precisely those
9 who did their work professionally and risked their lives sometimes
10 because of that. Have you heard of that?
11 A. Yes, of course I did. I myself was in such a position a couple
12 of times. My car was shot at. My apartment was shot at. It all
13 happened in 1992.
14 Once, in the courtroom, a civilian, or somebody from the audience
15 because it was a public trial, set off an explosive device. We did not
16 have any police in the courtroom. We didn't have qualified personnel who
17 would conduct security checks before letting anyone come into the
19 It was very difficult for prosecutors to work in 1992 in every
21 Q. So if I understood correctly, in a trial where you were the trial
22 attorney, armed individuals threatened your life, because, at that time,
23 almost everyone carried arms.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. I'm now specifically interested in the region of Prijedor. Of
1 course, we can't analyse it all now, but in 1992, did you have any
2 knowledge about Prijedor as a rather idiosyncratic region, political and
3 other ways. There were rumours that certain officials from Prijedor were
4 acting any way they liked. How was Prijedor treated within the
5 Autonomous Region of Krajina? What was its reputation? What were the
6 stories going around?
7 A. From what I know of the Prijedor area, indeed, that area
8 functioned in a different way than the rest of Krajina in 1992.
9 Q. In what way?
10 A. Well, in view of certain structures, primarily in the police
11 force, the situation was very difficult to control. It was very
12 difficult to -- to get good information if something happens.
13 Q. There was a question from my learned friend Mr. Olmsted where you
14 said you came up against a wall of silence in your own work, and you
15 mentioned the example of Prijedor. The difficulties that you encountered
16 as prosecutors, were they shared by other authorities that had to
17 communicate with Prijedor? Did they also find it difficult to get
18 information from Prijedor, to get anything that was necessary from
19 Prijedor if it was necessary for prosecutions and detection of crimes?
20 A. That's precisely what I tried to say in my answer to the
21 Prosecutor. Other authorities came up against a similar wall of silence
22 in -- in getting information, in exchanging information with the
23 municipality of Prijedor.
24 Q. Now, please, Mr. Kovacevic, let us just note for the record that
25 in Prijedor area there was a very strong and well-organised unit - I
1 don't know of which level, whether it was a brigade or a tactical group -
2 of the Army of Republika Srpska made up of military staff who were
3 conducting combat operations on the front line; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And, of course, in view of the instruction given by the
6 prosecutor, it was only logical to expect the commanders, the army
7 commanders and other commanding staff, to know what was going on in the
8 area of Prijedor.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, now we have to conclude this cross-examination.
11 And, for that purpose, we have to move to specific analyses of two
12 crucial cases. The first one is the Koricanske Stijene crime. And the
13 so-called Vrbas case -- or, rather, the non-Serb victims who were thrown
14 into the Vrbas. Both these heinous and brutal crimes took place in
15 August of 1992.
16 First of all, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that it is
17 in line with the law -- the role of the prosecutor is to prosecute
18 ex officio certain crimes and, among other things, to direct the
19 preliminary criminal proceedings which is stipulated by the law. So,
20 therefore, you will agree with me that the prosecutor plays a certain
21 active role in insisting on the process of detecting the perpetrators and
22 other things; of course, in cooperation with the police?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Of course, there is hierarchy within the prosecution's office.
25 You said that Mr. Pantic was your boss, then Mr. Puvacic was his boss,
1 and finally I think that it was Mr. Gladanac at the level of the
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. As we could see, both in the activities of public and military
5 prosecutor offices, certain positions were taken towards the policy of
6 prosecution, depending on different circumstances. And in that way, the
7 prosecutor's role was that of an active agent in combatting crime in
8 society. You accomplished that through certain directives and
9 consultations at the level of the prosecutor's office and adopted
10 strategies of how to proceed; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, in our legal system, the investigating judge also had a
13 certain active role to play. This is beyond dispute, and the
14 Trial Chamber gathered as much from your answers.
15 Now, can you please explain to the Trial Chamber, when you
16 receive a criminal report against an unidentified perpetrator, you
17 register the case and you propose certain things to the investigating
18 judge. Now what I'm interested in is the following: Is the
19 investigating judge autonomous in conducting this investigation? He is
20 allowed to issue certain orders and carry out certain activities without
21 your knowledge; or is he directly linked with your activity?
22 Can you just explain this procedure briefly.
23 A. I'll just give you a short explanation:
24 The investigating judge is an organ investigating the whole case.
25 In any specific situation, or in the specific case of Koricanske Stijene,
1 the investigating judge had commenced an on-site investigation. And as
2 long as it lasts, and it can last indefinitely, but preferably should
3 last as short as possible, but while it's ongoing, the investigating
4 judge plays an absolutely independent and active role with regard to
5 collecting all the information, taking statements from the individuals
6 that might in any way provide valuable information.
7 Q. Will you stop there, please.
8 So the investigating judge may carry out certain activities
9 without even informing you as the prosecutor?
10 A. He doesn't have to give me prior notice, but he must inform me
11 subsequently about the activities that he had carried -- he or she had
12 carried out.
13 He was entitled to carry out a series of activities, and then
14 when -- the summary of all these activities, after a certain period,
15 should be passed on to me.
16 Q. And, of course, each and every participant in this part of the
17 proceedings have their respective role under the law. The prosecutor is
18 free to seek assistance from other state authorities, like the army,
19 police, et cetera. There are no limitations in his attempt to gather
21 A. There are no limitations whatever. He can contact military
22 security authorities. Particularly in this particular case, which, in
23 view of the activities of the prosecutor's office, was very special - I'm
24 talking about the Koricanske Stijene case - there was a dilemma whether
25 we would have jurisdiction for the on-site investigation or whether that
1 would be within the jurisdiction of the military authorities. Because we
2 didn't know at the very beginning who the victims were.
3 So he was obliged to coordinate his work, if necessary, with the
4 military security organs and other military authorities, and he could do
5 that autonomously.
6 Q. Are you aware of the fact that in these contacts with the
7 military judiciary, the military distanced themselves from the whole
8 case. They refused to undertake any measures. Do you know anything
9 about that?
10 A. That became quite apparent quite soon. Some 15 or 20 days later,
11 we faced certain difficulties.
12 Q. Let me stop you there.
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at
14 Prosecution Exhibit -- yes -- well, this dispatch is part of P18567, but
15 in order to be more efficient, can we -- can we please look P675.
16 Q. Speaking of this subject, let us shed the light on the role of
17 the military, specifically in those times when all the events were
18 revealed very quickly.
19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please enlarge this for the
20 benefit of the witness.
21 Q. We can see that the dispatch was sent on the
22 21st of August, 1992. It's an extraordinary operational report. And the
23 commander of this area of responsibility, Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic
24 says -- or, rather, proposes a committee to be formed within the
25 Krajina Corps to carry out an on-site investigation. And at the end he
1 proposes that the CSB organs be informed as well.
2 So he is talking about a report of a mass killing taking place on
3 that location. And in according with the instructions that Mr. Peulic
4 received from the Military Prosecutor's Offices, practically proposing
5 some other measures as well. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic is a professional officer, very
8 experienced, and he knows very well that if such a serious thing takes
9 place in his area of responsibility, what should be done.
10 Now, what I'm asking you is the following: In your opinion - and
11 you are a professional - if we know that in this period, not all the
12 details are yet available, whether the military was involved, whether the
13 police was involved, what was the situation particularly in view of the
14 jurisdiction for prosecuting crimes against civilians, tell me, did ever
15 anyone from the military judiciary or military security authorities
16 contact you or your boss, Pantic, seeking cooperation in detecting the
17 perpetrators of the Koricanske Stijene crime? Did you have any
18 cooperation in that sense at all?
19 A. According to what I know and remember, we did not have any
20 cooperation on this particular incident.
21 Q. Now let's be very specific. In 1992, you couldn't have known to
22 what extent the police was involved in certain detecting work. You have
23 issued certain orders, but when you came here and you spoke to the OTP,
24 you were shown a set of documents and correspondence, including
25 dispatches, in which the chief of the Prijedor police informs the chief
1 of the CSB that the individuals who are suspected of possibly committing
2 these crimes are members of the military and are assigned the certain
3 military tasks.
4 Now I'm asking you, what was the obligation of the military
5 prosecutor and the military security organ in light of the information
6 that we see in this dispatch? What was the military prosecutor and the
7 military security organs were supposed to take on the basis of the
8 suspicion that the perpetrators were among their ranks?
9 A. At least they should have taken a copy of this criminal report
10 and carry out this part of the job, provided they establish that it's
11 their jurisdiction at the time.
12 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I see that my learned friend
13 Mr. Olmsted is on his feet.
14 MR. OLMSTED: I was going to object to the form of the question
15 which not only is it extremely long and complex but it's also misleading.
16 The document we have in front of us states that the convoy of
17 buses that went to Koricanske were escorted by members of the Prijedor
18 and Sanski Most civilian police. And then later on it states that these
19 police officers participated in the liquidation. And then it further
20 states that the military units had nothing to do with this.
21 So unless perhaps Mr. Pantelic is offering a hypothetical
22 question - if the perpetrators happened to be military, should the
23 Military Prosecutor's Office have done something about it - then,
24 perhaps, that's a proper question. But here it's assuming facts not in
25 evidence. And this witness, as he has testified, simply didn't get any
1 information regarding who the perpetrators were, other than, of course,
2 this particular memo from the military which states it was the civilian
4 JUDGE HALL: We would take the break now, and Mr. Pantelic would
5 have the opportunity to --
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 JUDGE HALL: -- rephrase that question when we return.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Pantelic, you will attempt your question
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Kovacevic, we see on the screen this
16 interim report, a dispatch from the commander, Mr. Peulic. And Peulic
17 uses qualifications very correctly. He says, in fact, genocide against
18 civilians. He is not a lawyer. The word "genocide" was used by all the
19 three sides for propaganda purposes. But it's indubitable that this
20 concerns a very large number of the civilians, that it happened within
21 the area of responsibility. And it's indubitable that according to the
22 instruction previously received, commander Peulic is informing his
23 superior command about this crime. Correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now let's go back to the line of questioning that we started
1 before the break.
2 Either it's a question of interpretation or a misunderstanding
3 with Mr. Olmsted. I was not asking anything hypothetically. I will show
4 you now the same documents that he has shown you before; namely,
5 dispatches concerning communication between CSB Banja Luka and
6 CSB Prijedor about where the members were, whether they were in the army
7 or not, et cetera.
8 You remember that?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. But before we get to that, we must - because you are a
11 professional and so are the Judges here who will dispense justice - we
12 are not having a trial against institutions or organisations. We have on
13 trial, individuals who are being tried for individual responsibility.
14 That's why I'm asking you: Did my client, Mr. Zupljanin, ever give you
15 any orders to obstruct an investigation or did he advise you not to
16 conduct an investigation? Did he ever obstruct justice?
17 A. Never.
18 Q. Do you have any information that my client, Mr. Zupljanin, ever,
19 in relation to your superior, Mr. Pantic, excerpt any pressure, maybe
20 Pantic complained to you that he was under pressure not to investigate or
21 anything like that?
22 A. No, I don't have any information that Mr. Zupljanin obstructed
23 anything in this case, from what I know or from what Mr. Pantic told me.
24 Q. In this area of individualising criminal responsibility, we have
25 to explain to the Trial Chamber the structure of CSB Banja Luka and its
1 work vis-à-vis the prosecution, and the specific tasks of individual
2 people in prosecuting perpetrators of crimes.
3 Now, let us look at a Prosecution Exhibit. P1567. It's a
4 voluminous document related to criminal reports that have to do with
5 KTN Koricanske Stijene and KTN Vrbas that we discussed.
6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, this is a document
7 we'll have to analyse later. I'll need 2D71 now.
8 Q. That is, in fact, the Vrbas case, the killing of those non-Serbs
9 and the bodies found in Vrbas. It's not a separate document; it's part
10 of a case file.
11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And we need page 16, if I'm not
12 mistaken. Perfect, that's it.
13 Q. Before we analyse further the work of the police and the
14 prosecutor and the investigating judge, tell me: As an experienced
15 prosecutor, you know what police work is, what a work-plan is, the
16 operative work-plan when the police is working based on the instructions
17 of the investigating judge or its own senior officials; it's a plan that
18 says how they should conduct a specific operation?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. A very important issue is cooperation with --
21 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, this is the right English
22 version. But we need the second page in English with the names.
23 Q. You see, Mr. Kovacevic, you were a prosecutor for many years.
24 You cooperated on daily activities with members CSB Banja Luka. The
25 chief of the centre was Mr. Zupljanin; right?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Assistant chief and the chief of public security was Djuro Bulic;
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, under Djuro Bulic, there was a series of departments and
6 sections, but we are now interested in the department for crime
7 prevention. Below Djuro Bulic was the chief of the crime prevention
8 department in CSB Banja Luka, and his name was Milorad Djuric; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, depending on the type of case and the number of cases, there
11 was also in the hierarchy a chief of section for general crime
12 prevention; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that was Zivko Bojic?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then there was the leader of the team of inspectors. Nobody
17 works alone but in a team. And that was the inspector from this general
18 crime prevention section, and that was Mr. Dragomir Markovic?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, when you, as a prosecutor from the basic prosecutor's
21 office, have communication and cooperate with others, I assume - and you
22 will correct me if I'm wrong - you are in charge of specific cases. And
23 in certain operations, you communicate with Chief of Sector Bulic, or
24 Chief of Section Bojic, or Section Chief Djuric and the operative team;
1 A. Yes, mostly.
2 Q. With all due respect, it's different from your superior
3 Mr. Pantic; he has the same communication with someone else at a
4 different level of the CSB; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It's very important here, Mr. Kovacevic, for the sake of
7 establishing the truth, that Stojan Zupljanin is not a one-man orchestra
8 and a magician with a wand. He has, under him, well-trained
9 professionals in different departments whose job is to deal with certain
10 types of crimes and carry out operative work.
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Now that we have noted all the players in a certain police
13 operation, let us go back ...
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] My colleague advises me that we
16 should later return to this work-plan.
17 Q. Let us go back to the case of Koricanske Stijene.
18 In your evidence given to the Prosecution, you also analysed
19 certain documents and dispatches that are in the case file. For the
20 record to be precise and to have the correct chronology, I will put to
21 you certain dates and we will go through this chronology together.
22 This serious crime occurred on the 21st of August, 1992, at
23 Koricanske Stijene; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. CSB Banja Luka files a criminal report against an unidentified
1 perpetrator on 8 September 1992; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. As far as I remember your answer to the Prosecutor, you were in
4 charge, because there is an certain procedure of registration through
5 various organs of the prosecutor's office, and you were entrusted with
6 the case. You received it on the 10th or 11th.
7 A. I believe it was officially received by the prosecutor's office
8 on the 11th.
9 Q. The 11th of September?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. There is a letter where you propose to the investigating judge
12 that certain investigative actions be taken, and the date of that letter
13 to the investigating judge is the 14th of September, 1992; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The investigating judge, after several witness interviews
16 conducted at your proposal, believes that this particular action has been
17 completed and returns the case to you on the 24th of September.
18 A. I don't have it here on the screen, but I believe it was the
20 Q. And on the 30th of September, 1992, you issue an instruction to
21 the members of the crime police in CSB Banja Luka to continue operative
22 work to identify the perpetrators; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So we have here, roughly speaking, a month of exchange between
25 various authorities; the prosecutor's office and the police. It all took
1 place within a month and ended with your order to continue operative
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. When you arrived here in The Hague, the OTP showed you some other
5 dispatches between CSB Banja Luka and Prijedor regarding these operative
6 actions. You said you did not remember that from 1992. You don't
7 remember seeing it, but you were looking through them with the
8 Prosecution. I'd like to go through those documents with you again.
9 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] First of all, let us take P1573.
10 Q. We'll start with this document. CSB Banja Luka is sending this
11 dispatch to the SJB Prijedor quoting a dispatch from the MUP of
12 Republika Srpska dated 31st August 1992 and gives orders to Prijedor to
13 take written statements from the policemen who escorted the convoy, to
14 provide the personal details of these police officers by the
15 15th of September.
16 Do you see this?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. That's an integral part of police work, isn't it, in efforts to
19 identify the perpetrators; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let us look at the next document now. I'm sorry we can't have
22 everything on the screen at the same time to see a whole overview.
23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] The next one is P682.
24 Q. On the 14th of September, 1992, SJB Prijedor sent a dispatch to
25 SJB Banja Luka, and the reference is the request from 11 September, and
1 the public security station of Prijedor says the following:
2 1, SJB Prijedor is unable to carry out an investigation into the
3 incident at Koricanske Stijene.
4 It's clear from this that CJB Banja Luka required an
5 investigation and required certain steps to be taken by SJB Prijedor --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Pantelic.
7 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. -- right?
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think we have been through this already quite
11 intensively. So unless you're able to bring something completely new to
12 this, I suggest you move on.
13 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honour, I was about to stand up, myself,
14 because really these documents are with regard to internal workings of
15 the RS MUP, and this witness was a prosecutor at the time. And so I
16 don't know if there's even foundation for him to comment on
17 communications between the CSB and Prijedor. They -- Mr. Pantelic
18 certainly could ask whether this witness was aware of this information
19 contained in this dispatch; but, beyond that, what more can he provide?
20 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, the position is very simple. We have
21 four very important dispatches which I want to line up here for the
22 record and for the final determination for the submission. This witness,
23 was aware about a certain number of these dispatches during proofing with
24 the OTP. So, I am not going to go into every detail. I just want to see
25 and hear from this witness, in light of his professional experience as a
1 prosecutor, where the military jurisdiction and military organs are
2 fitted in this particular case of Koricanske Stijene. And I will show
3 you just in a few moments how we see -- I mean, we shall ask from witness
4 if can he give us some -- some answers and his personal knowledge about
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I agree with that. Unless the four
7 documents that you want to show to the witness are already on the record
8 and unless the witness now offers some other answer to the question as to
9 whether the military indicated right away its reluctance to investigate
10 the Koricanske Stijene incidents.
11 I think the witness gave a clear answer when he was confronted
12 with the document in which Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic said that this was
13 not anything of the military's business.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: But, Mr. Pantelic --
15 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: If you want to respond, please do. I'll ask my
17 question afterwards.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Actually, I would like to draw the attention
19 of this Trial Chamber and to discuss this particular part from a witness
20 that we have here in light of his previous prosecutor experience. What
21 the further steps should be taken when the information of potential
22 alleged perpetrators being a member of army should be done. That's --
23 that's the point, actually. That's the point.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Well, yes, the Prosecution doesn't have a problem
25 with that question as long as it's clear who should take those steps. If
1 you're talking about what the Military Prosecutor's Office should do,
2 again, this witness was with the civilian prosecutor's office, and those
3 questions are best asked to someone who was with the Military
4 Prosecutor's Office.
5 MR. PANTELIC: I completely agree with you, Mr. Olmsted.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacevic, let us look at the next fact that
7 seems to follow from this. We see that these persons, whose details are
8 requested, were, as of 9 September, in the military units in Han Pijesak.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And we also see from this that upon the request of the army and
11 the Red Cross, some order or request was finally issued for these police
12 officers to be attached to this convoy.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, please tell the Court, in a situation like this, when
15 potential perpetrators are in the ranks of the army, what can you as a
16 prosecutor tell us? What kind of measures are to be taken by the
17 military prosecutor or by you as the civilian prosecutor?
18 Just hold on a minute.
19 MR. OLMSTED: That question is misleading because this document
20 does not say that these police officers were members of the military. It
21 says they were sent to the front lines.
22 MR. PANTELIC: With all due respect, let's disregard this
23 objection because my learned friend should know that his own Exhibit P618
24 speaks by itself about who and where was sent and under which authority.
25 So that's why I want to go through this particular documents because it's
1 of the crucial importance for the Defence of my client, in terms of
2 showing what the relevant departments of -- criminal department of CSB is
3 doing in the meantime and also to see and to hear - if, of course, this
4 witness is -- is able to give us the answer - what he as a civilian
5 prosecutor in this particular case will -- will do.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic --
7 MR. PANTELIC: -- which measures. Yes.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, if I understand you well, you take
9 it from this document that there is an indication that members of the
10 military were among the perpetrators; is that right? Because that's what
11 you're suggesting already two or three times.
12 Is that -- is that what --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, Your Honour, we know that before
14 September, before August, and after August, namely, on the -- on the
15 9th of September, we don't know upon which order and how members of a
16 special platoon from Prijedor were sent to -- to the front and became,
17 actually, military -- military officials.
18 So that's the point.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you're linking the Koricanske Stijene killings
20 with policemen under resubordination on the basis of this document?
21 That's -- that's one -- perhaps one of the documents, but this is one of
22 the documents, in your view, that indicates that?
23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, it's -- it's a
24 misunderstanding. No, no. The position is the following, that from
25 9th of September 1992, there are ample evidence and lot of informations
1 that members of who are in the -- in the -- in this convoy, members of
2 SJB Prijedor, upon certain order were sent to military -- to military
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: After the events.
5 MR. PANTELIC: After the events.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
7 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, yes.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: And your position is, because they are, at that
9 moment, as Mr. Drljaca is saying, under the command of the military, it
10 should be the military -- military jurisdiction investigating?
11 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. Like this, it's clear to me.
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] So let's move to document P -- I'm
14 sorry I'm trying to put this in chronological order. This was a response
15 from the 11th of September.
16 Yes, that's the reply to this dispatch. Now we're coming to the
17 next dispatch. CSB Banja Luka, 7th October 1992. It's
18 Prosecution Exhibit 61 -- P617.
19 Q. So another dispatch concerning Koricanske Stijene. Prijedor is
20 required to provide a detailed answer. Which police officers escorted
21 the convoy.
22 2, was there anyone else on the security detail.
23 3, what did these police officers write in their reports when
24 they came back.
25 And, 4, a report on the on-site investigation.
1 And then identification and burial.
2 You see the document?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. You will agree with me that this was the usual practice of the
5 police in the process of detecting the perpetrators, so this is a normal
6 relationship that existed in that context?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Now, let's look at Prosecution
9 Exhibit P618. And that's the last document in this set. So P618. Here
10 it is. Can we please enlarge the document for the benefit of the
12 Q. So, on the 13th of October, Prijedor replies to the CSB dispatch
13 sent on the 7th of October by saying the following: That the individuals
14 who had been escorting the convoy, members of the Prijedor SJB, were
15 currently carrying out war assignments. And then they say that they had
16 provided certain additional information, et cetera.
17 Now, in the context of all these documents, tell me this: Number
18 one, the case, KTN, was open, it was registered, and the police
19 obliged -- is obliged to carry out their work constantly with a view to
20 detecting the perpetrators; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Number two, it has been noted that the civilian police, in view
23 of this information, has no competence over members of the military at
24 that point in time; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. It has also been noted, and it is a fact, that this case would
2 never be closed unless the individuals who are in the army come to the
3 jurisdiction of the civilian police and be brought in subsequently.
4 That's the normal procedure, isn't it?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. In your professional opinion, what would you, as a prosecutor, do
7 in a situation like this? You have information that certain suspects are
8 under the jurisdiction of the military. What would your task as a public
9 prosecutor be in this particular case?
10 A. In this particular case, I would notify the military prosecutor,
11 or I would even defer the report to the Military Prosecutor's Office. So
12 I would resort to either of the two options.
13 Q. Can you tell me this: Since the military security organs, on the
14 basis of dispatch sent by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic, were aware of the
15 incident -after all, it was published in international and local media -
16 tell me, what is the role of the military prosecutor in this specific
17 case as well as security organ, since they knew that the suspects from
18 Prijedor were in the ranks of the army? What would their duty be under
19 the circumstances?
20 A. The military authorities should have done something which would
21 be identical to the -- what would be done by the civilian police.
22 Q. In other words, the military authority knew what had happened,
23 they knew that the potential suspects had been sent from Prijedor to
24 Han Pijesak to join the military on someone's order.
25 So what was the security organ of the army doing in that
2 A. The security organ should temporarily arrest these individuals,
3 put them in custody, and subsequently transport them as soon as possible
4 to the military police. After operational processes of these suspects,
5 they would be brought before the military prosecutor.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: But to follow up on this answer that you just
8 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe you were proceeding to that same issue, I
10 don't know. But, Mr. Pantelic, you looked as if you were moving on to
11 something else.
12 But before we do that, my question to you, Mr. Kovacevic, would
13 be: If the military police would arrest some members of the armed forces
14 who had just been resubordinated to the army but having committed the
15 crime at Koricanske Stijene while they were still policemen and, thus,
16 under the jurisdiction of the public prosecutor, would the military
17 prosecutor then continue to prosecute and investigate, or, rather, the
18 other way around, investigate and prosecute the perpetrators, since they
19 were now under the army's jurisdiction; or would he refer them back to
20 the public prosecutor, assuming that it would fall under the public
21 prosecutor's jurisdiction since the crimes were committed at a time when
22 the perpetrators were policemen?
23 Can you clarify that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not at all simple to
1 In view of the fact that members of the police were also members
2 of certain structures of the armed forces on the ground, what I want to
3 say is that some of those individuals who were in the escort could have
4 been, as per establishment and as a reserve police officer, a member of
5 the military unit deployed somewhere on the front line. Under such
6 circumstances, there is no doubt that it was -- it would be the military
7 prosecutor who would have jurisdiction over such individuals, and there
8 is no dilemma about that whatsoever.
9 Therefore, the military prosecutor, in this particular instance,
10 should establish the deployment, as per establishment, of each and every
11 individual, or, rather, their assignment, prior to their being sent to
12 carry out these military missions in and around Han Pijesak. Once they
13 established that, then it is to be decided whether this particular
14 perpetrator of the crime was a member of the armed forces as a reserve
15 police officer and whether he was under the command of the military
16 authority or not.
17 So, the entire reserve police force, the special police units,
18 and all other police structures - I mean individuals from these
19 structures - could have been members, as per establishment, of combat
20 units of the Army of Republika Srpska.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this clarification.
22 Could I just ask you directly if, to your knowledge, any attempt
23 was made by the police to relieve the public prosecutor's office of
24 jurisdiction over this crime by resubordinating and transferring the
25 perpetrators from Koricanske Stijene to the armed forces?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult for me to speak,
2 sir, about somebody else's decision taken within certain structures
3 relating to sending someone to the battle-field in order, perhaps, to
4 thwart the conduct of certain proceedings. That seems to be -- me to be
5 highly unlikely. It is possible, but incredible. Because, under such
6 circumstances, these individuals would be exposed to death or sustaining
7 injuries. Therefore, I very much suspect that anyone would agree to
8 that. He would rather flee from the army in order not to be sent to the
9 zone of combat operations on the front line and, thus, avoid being killed
10 or injured. They would try to find their way out of such a situation
11 which, undoubtedly, could have led to their death.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
13 Back to you, Mr. Pantelic.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: If I -- if I may, I have -- I have a question for
15 the witness as well. But before that, I would like to be sure about the
16 document that is referred to in the document on the screen, where it is
18 We sent the information which you had requested for all the
19 policemen who escorted that convoy in your document number 11-12-16 dated
20 26th of September, 1992.
21 Do we know what that information was? Do we have that document?
22 Does anyone, a public prosecutor or Defence knows -- know what
23 information that is?
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, you're referring to the
25 22 September 1992 dispatch that Chief Drljaca says he sent to the CSB? I
1 do not believe we have that document. So we're -- we have to draw
2 inferences from this particular dispatch.
3 MR. PANTELIC: We are in even a worse position.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Then I'll ask my question anyhow.
5 MR. PANTELIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... in the hands of OTP.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, I seem to remember that you said, I
7 think during examination-in-chief, that you asked for the name of all the
8 policemen who were escorting the convoy but that you never got that list.
9 You never got a reply on that request. Is that right? Do I remember
10 that well?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you do.
12 I'm sorry, Your Honours, I stand corrected. Not the policemen.
13 I asked -- submitted a request for a checkup of individuals --
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Okay, thank you.
15 And, now, as you were asked a series of hypothetic questions, I
16 would ask one -- I would add one to that. Here, it is said:
17 "We hereby inform you that a policemen ... who escorted the
18 convoy from Prijedor to Knezevo ... are at present on
19 War Commissions [sic] ..."
20 And this would then be the reason to hand over the jurisdiction
21 on -- on these people to the military prosecutor. But wouldn't one
22 expect or -- or request, anyhow, the names of those -- those people who
23 were escorting -- the people who were escorting and the people, if any,
24 who were resubordinated to the military, as information from somebody one
25 knows that was involved in the Koricanske Stijene incident and that one
1 could perhaps suspect of covering up or covering the perpetrators?
2 Would you not have asked for those names and just be satisfied by
3 the response, They're not longer here, they're somewhere else?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult for me to answer
5 such a hypothetical question.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Witness,
7 you're --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably --
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, you're answering hypothetical
10 questions all the time, the last 20 minutes.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes, I apologise,
12 Your Honours.
13 Since I am expected to give my personal assessment of the
14 situation, that is to say, whether the names of the perpetrators were
15 known by someone who sent this letter to Mr. Simo Drljaca, and then
16 Mr. Drljaca is responding in this manner. I don't know if this
17 information was known to the seeker of the information. All I can do is
18 to repeat what is stated herein, which says in line 3, second sentence:
19 "In our document number 11-12-16, dated 22nd September, 1992 ..."
20 We've lost the document. Now it's all right.
21 "... we sent the information that you requested for all the
22 policemen who escorted the convoy in question."
23 And I honestly don't know whether all the information was
24 provided, in order to be able to give a direct answer to your question.
25 In the criminal, legal sense and for purposes of operative work,
1 at least in our system, just a name and surname are not enough to
2 identify a person. What I'm trying to say is that along with a name and
3 surname, we need the mother's maiden name, date of birth, and all the
4 personal details that are necessary to identify the perpetrator of a
5 crime. All these details would be necessary for me to be able to say
6 that whoever requested this information knew the identity of the
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: But --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if this is clear.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, it is. But by all means you confirm that
11 all the information, although you asked for it as well, it was never
12 provided to you, as a public prosecutor?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. We did not receive it.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Thank you.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Now let us wrap up this topic.
17 Members of the crime prevention service, or CSB Banja Luka in
18 this correspondence with Prijedor, do not have any jurisdiction over
19 military authorities and persons who are in the army. As far as they're
20 concerned, this is an open case but they are unable to act?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Now, please tell the Trial Chamber: Who is authorised to send
23 these people from Prijedor to Han Pijesak? Is it the police who would
24 send them or is it the competent military unit that issues an order for
1 A. I believe the competent military body is in charge of
2 transferring a person to a military unit, to a certain position.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, this witness is entitled to his
4 opinions, but this -- this witness is not a member of the police. He
5 is -- there's been no foundation laid that he would know anything about
6 the policies of resubordination between the RS MUP and the VRS. But,
7 obviously, he answered the question.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Oh, come on. Okay.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacevic, please, did you ever serve in the
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you have the rank of reserve officer?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Do you know, both as a prosecutor and as a man who has been
15 through all these military structures, who and when orders an individual
16 to be sent to a certain military position?
17 A. Yes, I think so.
18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions on
19 this topic. But I do have other questions.
20 Q. Now, look, please, at this series of events. First of all, in
21 August 1992, this really heinous crime, you saw the documentation shown
22 you by the Prosecutor. Then we have certain actions by the district
23 prosecutor in Banja Luka in 1999. And, finally, trials before the
24 BH state court in Sarajevo in 2008, 2009, and 2010, judgements included.
25 This is the series of steps and actions in relation to
1 Koricanske Stijene?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Twenty years is the time it took to gather all the legal elements
4 and take action, and you worked in a prosecutorial position at the time,
5 with the proviso that at a certain point in your tenure, jurisdiction
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, as a professional and a man who lived this period, tell me,
9 In 1992 and 1993 in this wartime turmoil, was it possible to take all
10 this action that was ultimately taken seven years later in peacetime?
11 Were you able to work in the same way, with the same results, in 1992 and
12 1993 as after the war?
13 A. It was very difficult to work in 1992 and 1993. It was not
14 possible to achieve the same quality of work that we were able to achieve
15 in peacetime, under normal circumstances. Such serious crimes with very
16 grave consequences could hardly be expected to be dealt with quickly,
17 with an efficient outcome, and that the perpetrates be brought to justice
19 Q. But we would agree that the operative officers in CSB Banja Luka,
20 under the circumstances, did everything to document the crime, and
21 created a basis for eventual closure of the case 18 years later?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Now let's look -- let's look at
25 Q. While it's coming up, we have to deal with serious problems in
1 documentation. You saw yourself that there are dispatches missing,
2 elements are missing, and even parts of the case file are missing.
3 First of all, tell the Trial Chamber when the case file was
4 opened in the prosecutorial office, the KTN file? It has a cover, it has
5 a folder.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It's usually cardboard -- a cardboard folder?
8 A. We had cover files, although it was not exactly cardboard. There
9 were shortages of everything, including paper.
10 Q. On the inside of this cover, there must be a list of every
11 document put in, every enactment, every communication with anyone?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. As a prosecutor, it's your responsibility and your duty to make a
14 record of certain actions. You tell your assistants -- your assistants,
15 Please put it in the agenda that we have to do this and this and this in
16 November 1992.
17 It's your duty?
18 A. Under normal circumstances, yes.
19 Q. And the acronym for these actions by the court is EV, short for
21 A. Yes. EV, or "skontro, [phoen]" SC.
22 Q. And when you came here to testify, the Prosecution did not show
23 you the folder of the file. They showed you some documents from the
24 file, but the prosecutorial official file is -- the folder is something
25 you haven't seen?
1 A. Do you mean the basic prosecutor's office or the district one?
2 Q. The basic one.
3 A. No, I haven't seen that one.
4 Q. So we don't have that folder of the file opened in
5 September 1992, and we can only guess what was in it and what wasn't in
6 it. All that we were able to reconstruct was from the documents shown us
7 by the Prosecutor; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now let's go to page 32 of this document to try to assist the
10 Trial Chamber by explaining all the stages that Banja Luka went through
11 in 1992 and 1993 that affected this case.
12 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, we need the next page.
13 The page after this. The ERN number ends in 497. Now, could we zoom in
14 on the third paragraph.
15 Q. Why is this document important? This is a document from 1999,
16 where the chief of the CSB Banja Luka, Mr. Sutilovic, says in
17 paragraph 3:
18 "Due to the conditions and circumstances under which this centre
19 worked at the time, especially the events related to the
20 Operation Septembar 1993 and Hurricane, and several incursions by the
21 SFOR into the centre who removed a lot of documentation from this centre,
22 we hereby inform you that we no longer have the criminal report with its
24 Now, tell the Trial Chamber, this Operation Septembar 1993, was
25 it carried out by certain bodies in the army against civilian
1 authorities? Was the building of the CSB Banja Luka surrounded? Did
2 they go in? Was it a kind of military putsch?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And it's during these operations that certain documentation was
5 removed from CSB Banja Luka, as this letter says?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, later on, there was also another Operation Hurricane in the
8 same centre. Documents were removed, tampered with, manipulated. During
9 this operation, too, there was a responsibility that a lot of
10 documentation disappeared?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, certainly Defence counsel can -- this
13 document has been admitted into evidence - and certainly Defence counsel
14 can make whatever arguments they want at the end of the trial - but how
15 can this witness comment on anything that happened to police files?
16 Unless this witness has personal knowledge of this. Otherwise we're just
17 simply reading a document to this witness.
18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. In these conversations with your colleagues, with policemen, with
20 prosecutors, did you discuss this, that papers were removed, that they
21 were abused, that they were used in various scandals, et cetera? Tell us
22 what you know.
23 A. The purpose of this Operation Septembar 93, and probably
24 Hurricane as well, was, for these military structures, an element in the
1 Q. A very specific question: Were documents removed?
2 A. Yes, they were removed. And the purpose of Septembar 93
3 operation was to remove certain documentation. The army wanted to take
4 some documents for their own reasons.
5 Q. Excuse me. And as cherry on the top, the SFOR came later and
6 removed even more documents. You were an eye-witness. And now, if we
7 look at the prosecutions, when was it first -- when did it first become
8 possible to collect evidence and documents in order to prosecute these
10 A. Well, the full picture of the events during the war needed to be
11 clear first, and it was towards the end of the war, or, rather, when
12 peace was concluded in 1996 and onwards. That's also the time when
13 military units were disbanded, police units, et cetera.
14 Q. That's when the documents were gathered?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in the same period, Mr. Kovacevic, Stojan Zupljanin had held
17 absolutely no post in the police?
18 A. No. At the time, Stojan Zupljanin did not.
19 MR. PANTELIC: It's time for break, Your Honours?
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, while the witness is coming back in,
1 Mr. Pantelic tells me he's got about 15, 20 minutes left, and then I
2 have, I think -- it's hard to say, but it could be upwards of 45 minutes
3 of re-examination to cover the issues raised by Mr. Pantelic as well as
4 by Mr. Zecevic.
5 We have the witness on stand -- the next witness on stand by.
6 Because he is a protected witness, I understand there's a 15,
7 20-minute time-period where the system has to be switched over. May that
8 witness be excused for the day?
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes, that seems to me the most practical course.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, while we still have this document in front of us,
13 which has a certain number of pages, let us use this opportunity to
14 clarify an answer you gave to my colleague Mr. Olmsted.
15 It's a minor thing, but it is my duty to clear up this issue with
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] It's about page 14180 of the
18 transcript; the date is 3rd of September, 2010.
19 Q. My learned colleague Mr. Olmsted asked you to interpret an
20 Official Note made by Radovan Sukalo, who was a crime technician. This
21 document was from 1992. And according to Mr. Sukalo, the investigative
22 judge had not been at the on-site investigation at Koricanske Stijene.
23 It may have been just an omission by my learned colleague
24 Mr. Olmsted, who did not show to you page 35 of the document we have.
25 It's in an Official Note made in 1999 by Mr. Zdenko Tesanovic. It is --
1 he's a anti-sabotage protection technician. And here it is stated that
2 Jankovic, Jevto, who was the investigative judge of the basic court in
3 Banja Luka who was there at the on-site investigation.
4 Can you see that? It's somewhere in the middle of the page. It
5 mentions inspector Markovic, and the on-site investigation was headed by
6 Jevto Jankovic and so on.
7 A. Yes, I see that.
8 Q. We have some other examples. Buhovac is speaking about it. Also
9 we can see it in the criminal report by the CSB Banja Luka, where this
10 topic is discussed.
11 So, first of all, do you remember this in your conversations with
12 your boss, Mr. Pantic? Had he told you anything about a investigative
13 judge being there on the on-site investigation site?
14 A. Well, I do remember that a commission was established, including
15 a significant number of people, crime technicians, experts, and I think
16 this commission also included my boss, Mr. Pantic, as well as
17 Jevto Jankovic, the investigative judge. The commission was established
18 for the very purpose of gaining insight into all the aspects, both legal
19 and other aspects, of the case we're talking about.
20 I believe they may have gone to the site, although I'm not sure
21 about that. At least a part of the commission. Whether Mr. Jankovic
22 went, I don't know. It is possible.
23 Q. That's fine. My question was: If you remember, tell us.
24 Now, the OTP investigator, when you were interviewed in 2003,
25 showed you notes that accompanied the criminal report. And part of the
1 notes were notes taken by two policemen from Knezevo who explained what
2 they knew about the whole affair. You spoke about whether you received
3 their notes and so forth.
4 But what I'd like to clarify now is the following: Are you aware
5 that, at a later stage, the investigative judge did take a statement from
6 the two policemen, Milovanovic and Brkic?
7 A. I really have no recollection of whether a statement was taken
8 from them at a later stage. But, in any case, the investigative judge
9 could have, as part of the on-site investigation, carry an interview with
10 the two individuals about the statements they've given, especially in
11 view of the fact that these two persons were reserve policemen from the
12 Skender Vakuf area.
13 So when I asked for or recommended certain investigative actions
14 to be taken, when I asked the investigative judge to do that, for
15 instance, to interview the victims, this investigative action was
16 something that was delayed, and, therefore, Mr. Jankovic should have done
17 it urgently. And as a part of these interviews, set of interviews, one
18 could find, most probably, statements by these two policemen.
19 But because of this possibility of delaying the statements by the
20 victims, I assume the interrogation of the two policemen was not
21 recommended either. But, in any case, Jevto Jankovic, the investigative
22 judge, could have taken statements or could have interviewed the two
23 policemen and notify me about these statements, even had he taken those
24 statements in the area of Skender Vakuf.
25 By taking the statements from the two policemen, he would have
1 achieved something, but it wasn't done. Maybe because at the time the
2 two of them were, for instance, somewhere on the front lines. So the
3 recommendations related to what investigative actions needed to be taken
4 would have been delayed because the victims needed to be interviewed
5 immediately, without delay, and taken care of in one way or another.
6 Q. Let us clarify the role of the judicial organs in this case.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Pantelic, please.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, microphone.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Ah, sorry, I do apologise.
10 Q. [Interpretation] What we're trying to do now is clarify the role
11 of the judicial organs in the case of Koricanske Stijene incidents.
12 We have a memo that you forwarded to the investigative judge,
13 Jevto Jankovic, a memo that has been discussed here. You've looked at
14 the document. And the date of the document is September 1992. And in
15 this document you are asking for eight persons, all eight persons, to be
16 interviewed. You stated you were submitting relevant documentation for
17 these persons. Then you attend the interviews on the 16th and the
18 17th of September, the office of the investigative judge. And then,
19 finally, on the 24th -- on the 24th of September, the investigative
20 judge - and this is ten days after you've sent a request - he then sends
21 it back to you to make a decision.
22 It must have been possible for the prosecutor's office to take
23 some additional steps later on, to ask for some information, to carry out
24 some activities in relation to this case; am I right?
25 A. Yes. We could have, in some form, at some later stage.
1 Q. And it is also a fact that the prosecutor's office did not take
2 such actions, based on the documentation we have seen.
3 A. Well, yes. The prosecutor's office did not do anything at a
4 later stage. It did not try and hurry up the activities of those.
5 Q. Let us state it like this: The prosecutor's office did not have
6 an active role, did not exert pressure. We will not now go into why this
7 could be only speculation, but that is the fact, isn't it?
8 A. The fact is that the prosecutor's office does not have an active
9 role at that stage. There are some actions that a prosecutor could have
10 taken, but one cannot speak about some really active role that would have
11 critically changed the situation.
12 Q. Let us now move to the case of -- we're talking about document
13 2D71. It's a document related to Vrbas case. In that case - and I'm
14 asking you this question in your capacity of a prosecutor - for any
15 investigative actions to even start, one must go into expertise of
16 various aspects of the on-site investigation. All this needs to be done.
17 Do you agree with me?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now why is that important? It is important to identify the
20 victims and thereby set the framework, the time-frame work and other
21 conditions; am I right?
22 A. Yes, of course.
23 Q. And, of course, the investigation has to wait before the forensic
24 results are obtained, and only then one can start looking for potential
25 perpetrators; am I right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Unfortunately, these victims got killed in front of the
3 Manjaca Military Camp, and this camp was, as we know, disbanded at --
4 about that time, in November 1992, and it was impossible to find
5 eye-witnesses or any witnesses of the crime, and I'm talking about
6 victims here. However --
7 MR. OLMSTED: [Previous translation continues] ... the evidence is
8 not that the camp was disbanded in November of 1992. Just clarify that.
9 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. You can tell me whether -- was it in end of November, beginning
11 of December?
12 A. Yeah, it was in late 1992. I don't know precisely.
13 Q. That's fine. Now let us look at this case file. Let's see what
14 we have here.
15 The case is still active. It has forensic foundations. So we
16 have the foundations. What is necessary is to do -- to carry out further
17 activities with a view to specify who the perpetrators were?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Whereas, in Koricanske Stijene case, you, the prosecutor, make a
20 suggestion, recommendations for the activities that need to be done.
21 Now, I don't see similar activity here in relation to the Vrbas River
23 Mr. Kovacevic, let me give you options: I don't remember, you
24 know, you don't know. What I'm saying here is there is no act from the
25 public prosecutor sent to the investigative judge ordering him to take
1 certain actions. Have you sent such a document to the investigative
3 A. I don't remember sending such a document because the initial
4 document relevant for Koricanske Stijene was related to the victims.
5 Q. I apologise. I must specify that I'm discussing the River Vrbas
6 case. There were eight victims found in the river who, according to some
7 indications, were killed in front of Manjaca camp.
8 So do you remember having sent an order to the investigative
9 judge to take certain actions?
10 A. No, I don't think so. I don't remember having done that.
11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at page 19 of this
12 document. The following page, please.
13 Q. As can you see, on the 31st of December, 1992, the chief of
14 department, Mr. Tegeltija, reports that through forensic investigation,
15 some analysis was obtained, and here it is stated who the victims were:
16 Mr. Crnalic, Krak, Bozic, and so on. Can you see that?
17 A. Yes. Yes, can I.
18 Q. In legal sense, in criminal investigation sense as well, what do
19 we have here? At the end of 1992 -- I personally would like to see cases
20 being completed in five days. However, we know how the real situation
21 was. And what we have here is victims having been identified, and only
22 then one can start looking for witnesses and so on. But the factual
23 situation is the following: Nobody's left at Manjaca, so one cannot find
24 them. Am I right?
25 A. Yes, you're right.
1 Q. So, make it very -- let us make it very clear for the
2 Trial Chamber. From the human point of view and professional, it would
3 be terrible if we would know that something terrible had happened and
4 nobody acts upon that, but here we can see that foundations were laid and
5 then that -- those foundations help us come to justice.
6 Now, justice comes slowly. But do we agree that the forensic and
7 crime department police of the CSB Banja Luka actually did whatever they
8 could under the circumstances?
9 A. Well, under the circumstances, I would agree with you. They did
10 what they could.
11 Q. Okay. Now, please, I'm coming to the conclusion of my
12 cross-examination, and it is my duty to put to you the central question.
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] We need P1567, page ... page 53 of
14 the Koricanske Stijene file.
15 Q. Before I put to you this last question of mine, there's one
16 procedural -- procedural issue we have to clarify, and it is the
18 On the 29th of September, 2003, you gave a statement to the
19 investigator of this Tribunal, Mr. Grady. On page 18 of the Serbian
20 version, we can see you were shown two Official Notes relating to
21 policemen from Knezevo. And then he quoted to you or told you the
22 internal ERN number - for Milovanovic, it is number 0214-1510 - saying
23 this for the transcript.
24 We claim that in document P1567, so -- in that document, the
25 statement that had been given by Milovanovic is marked as 0105-6486. The
1 number I --
2 MR. OLMSTED: Before we confuse the witness with ERN numbers on
3 documents, the ERNed -- a document could be ERNed more than once, and the
4 English translations might have different ERNs depending on it. And I
5 think that's a -- really a technical issue that this witness is not going
6 to be able to comment on.
7 But unless you can -- you can assert that he was shown a
8 different document, I'm not sure this is going to get us anywhere.
9 MR. PANTELIC: It is absolutely not my intention. It's just my
10 intention to clarify for the record, to have clean situation for -- for
11 the further submissions. That's why. So I'm not challenging anything.
12 Everything is fine. But I need to do that for the record.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Let me repeat. You were shown the statement
14 that bears, as last three digits, 510, and in this case, in -- in the
15 file, we have the other one with last three digits 486.
16 Now, why am I insisting on that? Because, following the
17 documents that follow -- that accompanied the criminal report, which are
18 numbers 510 and then 511 and 512, all those documents were shown to you
19 in 2003. From that, one can see that they were grouped together, these
20 documents. Now, this other number that ends with 486, that system of
21 numbering creates a confusion.
22 Sow did gave -- you were interviewed by Paul Grady, and he did
23 show you the two documents that we just discussed?
24 A. Yes, I remember that, but I said even then that I don't remember
25 that these statements were in accompanying papers.
1 Q. No, I was just asking about numbers. You understand me about
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Let us move on.
5 On the screen we can see a document from year 2000 issued by the
6 district public prosecutor's office that was in charge of the case; is
7 that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And it's sent to the CSB Prijedor; am I right?
10 A. Yes, you're right.
11 Q. This document, and we will see that on the following page, was
12 signed by Vlado Mandic, who was deputy public prosecutor, your colleague?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. This Vlado Mandic, in year 2000, states in the final segment of
15 the memo in the Serbian version, he is saying, We are convinced it is not
16 correct that information cannot be obtained. We are aware that police
17 members escorted the convoy --
18 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Could we please turn the page of
19 the Serbian version.
20 Q. And then he says in some independent newspapers there are
21 information being published, information is being gathered by the
22 prosecutor. But you will agree with me that he is here, rather actively,
23 addressing the CSB Prijedor?
24 A. Yes, one can make such a conclusion.
25 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, please, we heard about what the period was at the
1 time. But as a professional and as a prosecutor, with all due respect to
2 the then-prevailing circumstances, could you have done something more
3 about this case? Could you be more active in the spirit of the standards
4 that we can see from this letter? Can you tell me this as a human being.
5 A. Well, to tell you the truth, in hindsight, the circumstances were
6 extremely difficult. And when one looks upon this entire event in that
7 time-frame, I could have demonstrated a more active involvement in the
8 sense that Mr. Mandic, the district deputy prosecutor, showed.
9 But, to put it simply, I'm sorry, as -- as a human being, for not
10 seeking more details. But it seems to me that nothing would have
11 changed. The effect would perhaps be the same. But as I said, as a
12 human being, I think that I omitted to cite certain things that I should
13 have done that would be implied by the nature of things and which
14 Mr. Mandic properly did in his letter.
15 So I say I am sorry that I didn't write my letter in the same
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic. I have no further questions for you.
18 MR. OLMSTED: May I proceed, Your Honours?
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
22 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, I first want to talk about Koricanske Stijene and
23 address some of the issues that was raised by Mr. Pantelic.
24 Did the police ever inform you that the perpetrators of the crime
25 at Koricanske Stijene were members of the military?
1 A. The police never informed me about that.
2 Q. And we looked through this case file which was transferred to the
3 district prosecutor's office in 1999. Was this case ever transferred to
4 the Military Prosecutor's Office?
5 A. It wasn't transferred to the Military Prosecutor's Office, given
6 that the military prosecutor offices were abolished. A reform of the
7 military judiciary was carried out, and I think that they were abolished
8 in 1998 as part of the overall reform and revamping of the judicial
9 system in Republika Srpska.
10 Q. Well, the military court and prosecutor's office existed from
11 September 1992 through the remainder of the conflict. During that
12 time-period, was this case ever transferred to the Military Prosecutor's
14 A. I have no information to that effect.
15 Q. Until a case is transferred from the civilian prosecutor's office
16 to the Military's Prosecutor's Office, it remains a case within your
17 jurisdiction; is that correct?
18 A. Well, for this particular crime that the perpetrators were
19 reported for, there was no dispute that the civilian prosecutor was
20 responsible in terms of dealing with the report.
21 Q. Now, I know you've probably grown tired of all our hypothetical
22 questions, but I do want to ask a couple. And perhaps to clarify some
24 I want you to -- you to think of this scenario: We have a
25 civilian police officer who commits a crime of murder, for instance, but
1 he's a civilian police officer. There's no question that he is civilian.
2 Now, after he commits that murder, a few weeks later, he is temporarily
3 assigned to a war unit along the front lines.
4 Now, after his wartime assignment, he returns to his civilian
5 police responsibilities. When he returns to his civilian life, can you,
6 as a civilian prosecutor, prosecute him for that murder that he committed
7 before he went to the front lines?
8 A. Well, we need to have precise information relating to this
9 hypothetical career moves, let's put it that way, that, first, he was a
10 civilian, then he joined an army unit, then he left the army unit. What
11 I want to say is we need to have this exact information in order to be
12 able to establish who is responsible for conducting prosecution.
13 Q. And assume, for purposes of my hypothetical, that the information
14 is exact. So this is in fact what is determined: That he was civilian
15 when he committed the crime; then he just temporarily was assigned to the
16 front lines; and then he came back and he is a civilian again.
17 Can the civilian prosecutor's office then prosecute him for that
18 murder he committed while he was a civilian?
19 A. There is such a possibility. But, as I said, this information is
20 crucial, and they have to be relevant and verified; that is to say, that
21 he was seconded to the army in a lawful way, that he was discharged from
22 the army, in a lawful way, et cetera. This is key information that would
23 determine what the answer to your hypothetical question would be.
24 Q. Now, let's assume that it's determined that he was civilian.
25 Now, he's gone off to the front lines for a few weeks. In the meantime,
1 can the civilian prosecutor's office open an investigation against this
2 person for that civilian crime? Is there anything that stops the
3 civilian prosecutor from doing that?
4 A. He has to have information that at the time of the commission of
5 the crime this particular individual was a civilian.
6 Q. Now, let's leave that hypothetical aside. I want to you give a
7 different hypothetical now.
8 We have a civilian police officer who commits, again, a murder as
9 a civilian. A few weeks later, he joins the military, and he stays with
10 the military. It's not temporary; he stays with the military.
11 Who has jurisdiction to prosecute him for the crime he committed
12 while he was a civilian?
13 A. Let me clarify one thing: The jurisdiction for conducting
14 proceedings against civilian - and it's absolutely clear to everyone - is
15 civilian judiciary. However, when one changes one's status, that is to
16 say, if somebody joined a military unit and he is needed there, the
17 civilian judiciary cannot have any jurisdiction over a member of
18 military. It cannot address his command or whoever with a request to
19 discharge this soldier so that he can be arrested and placed in custody.
20 That would be possible only if the security organs, or, rather, the
21 military police, establishes this fact and deals with the whole case,
22 operationally and in the sense of criminal investigation, and then
23 forward it to the Military Prosecutor's Office.
24 If the military prosecutor determines that at the time of the
25 commission of crime he was a civilian, in the army there's a variety of
1 ways to strip someone of his status of a member of the military
2 personnel, and, thereafter, this case is referred to the civilian
3 judiciary for further processing. First of all, to the court; and then
4 to the --
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the last word.
6 MR. OLMSTED:
7 Q. First to the court and then to the ...? We didn't catch the end.
8 A. Either to the court, if he is in detention, because of the
9 deadline set down by the law; and, if, in the meantime, his status is
10 being resolved and he is no longer a soldier, he is placed in civilian
11 detention and he comes under the jurisdiction of the investigating judge.
12 At that point, the civilian prosecutor becomes involved.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, in this hypothetical, the police officer
14 committed the crime while he was a civilian. Now he's -- in a military
15 unit. Whose responsibility is it to inform the military prosecutor that
16 they have a criminal amongst their ranks?
17 A. That's a difficult question. First of all, such an individual
18 cannot join any army unit on their own initiative, whether he be a
19 criminal or not a criminal. No one can join the army on their own
20 initiative. They have to have certain status, whether they have work
21 obligation, whether they were a reserve police officer, et cetera. So
22 there is an established procedure for people to be assigned to war units
23 and thereby change their status.
24 What was your question?
25 Q. Yes --
1 A. I'm sorry.
2 Q. That's fine. Let's assume that the military doesn't know that
3 this person who's now joined the military had committed a crime while
4 they were a civilian, a serious crime like a murder. So they have now
5 this murderer amongst their ranks, but they don't know it.
6 Whose responsibility is it to inform the military prosecutor that
7 this -- this civilian had committed a crime?
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Olmsted, I think we are going --
9 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on, Mr. Kovacevic, please.
11 I think we are going a bit too far here. I mean, at the moment
12 when these gentlemen were transferred or resubordinated from the police
13 to the army there was at the most, perhaps, a suspicion, and there was
14 certainly no conviction for having committed the crime at this point.
15 And I just wonder if I may address your line of questioning in
16 general, how useful it is to pursue this matter. Because I think the end
17 result was, and we know this as a fact now, that the case was eventually
18 assumed by the public prosecutor.
19 So if ever the military prosecutor had any action in this case,
20 it was very short and very brief; and the case, as I said, ended up with
21 the public prosecutor, so -- and that's it.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. I see your point, and I'm
23 going to move on.
24 Q. Just one more series of questions with regard to the
25 investigation into the Koricanske Stijene matter. And I want you to base
1 this on your experience as a prosecutor.
2 As a prosecutor, who would you have expected the police to
3 interview to find more evidence about this crime? We've talked -- we
4 already know that they interviewed the victims. But who else?
5 A. Potential suspects and eye-witnesses. And other witnesses,
6 potential witnesses.
7 Q. What about members of the police leadership at SJB Prijedor?
8 A. The duty of the SJB Prijedor, given that these individuals were
9 from their territory, was to undertake all measures with a view to
10 detecting and establishing the identity of the perpetrators, of
11 questioning them, arresting them under the regulations then in force, and
12 bringing them into custody, bringing them then before the investigating
13 judge. And the rest was supposed to be taken care of by the prosecutor
14 and the court.
15 Q. Well, I'm going to move on to another topic entirely.
16 Now, on Friday, you were asked a number of questions by
17 Mr. Zecevic regarding the functioning of the military courts and the
18 prosecutor's office in 1992.
19 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have on the screen Exhibit 1D367.
20 Q. And this is a report by the 1st Krajina Corps Military
21 Prosecutor's Office, dated 19 September 1992. And if we can turn to
22 page 2 of both the B/C/S and the English, Mr. Zecevic drew your attention
23 to the second paragraph under Roman numeral II, entitled: "Review of
24 Crime Trends," where it says that a few thousand cases were currently
25 being resolved.
1 To put that into some context, I would like to draw your
2 attention to what is written a few paragraphs below that, where it
4 "The largest number of cases related to the avoidance of military
5 service described under Article 217 of the SFRY Criminal Code and other
6 crimes against armed forces."
7 Mr. Kovacevic, do you recall that desertion was a major issue for
8 the military in 1992?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't know -- Your Honours, with all due respect,
10 I don't see how does this come out of my cross-examination. I posed a
11 very specific question concerning this -- this statistical data and
12 never, ever mentioned some other crimes. I concentrated on what is
13 relevant in this case, and I would kindly ask that Mr. Olmsted be
14 instructed accordingly. Thank you.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I would like to respond, but could we
16 ask the witness to take off his headphones before I give you an argument
17 on why this is relevant.
18 JUDGE HALL: Does he speak English?
19 MR. OLMSTED: I think very little.
20 JUDGE HALL: In your view, that would be sufficient; he doesn't
21 have to be escorted from the courtroom?
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, the Defence argument -- and perhaps
25 Mr. Zecevic can explain to me if I get it wrong, but as I understand it
1 the Defence's argument in this case is that the crimes charged in our
2 indictment were crimes that fell within the jurisdiction of the military
3 courts and then that the military courts were inundated with these cases
4 and unable to process them.
5 Now, the Prosecution's position is that crimes charged in the
6 indictment are largely cases that fall within the civilian jurisdiction.
7 And at any rate, the military courts were not inundated with criminal
8 reports of the crimes that we charge in the indictment but, rather, were
9 processing ordinary or typical crimes that you would expect them to be
10 prosecuting in times where they have military actions, which would
11 include these particular types of crimes, crimes involving a failure to
12 report to military duty or desertion.
13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours, I -- I clearly showed to the --
15 to the witness, again, what is relevant, that the military judicial --
16 judicial organs were involved and were actually conducting the -- or
17 processing the cases of the -- of the war crimes and crimes against
19 Therefore, those are the questions. I didn't went [sic] any
20 further than that. Now, if Mr. Olmsted wants to show what else were the
21 military organs doing, I don't see how is that relevant. That was the
22 point of my objection, Your Honours, at this very beginning.
23 JUDGE HALL: As I understand Mr. Olmsted's response, it is in the
24 context of the Prosecution's case that this is being asked -- that --
25 that the question is being asked. And this document appears to
1 specifically explain what the military courts were primarily concerned
2 with. So it appears to me that the question is permissible.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. The witness can put back
4 on his headphones.
5 Q. I apologise for that, Mr. Kovacevic.
6 Again, I want to refer you to the paragraph which points out that
7 the largest number of cases relates to the avoidance of military service
8 under Article 217 of the Criminal Code.
9 Do you recall that desertion was a major issue for the military
10 in 1992?
11 A. Well, I suppose it was.
12 Q. Well, were you aware that a significant portion of the criminal
13 cases processed by the Military Prosecutor's Office in 1992 and beyond
14 pertained to the crime of desertion?
15 A. Well, I suppose so. I suppose.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Zecevic also asked you a number of questions regarding
17 the military court's jurisdiction over war crimes, or at least
18 war-crime cases. Are you aware of any cases brought, in 1992 or 1993,
19 against Serb civilians for committing war crimes against non-Serb
20 civilians, regardless of whether it was before a military court or a
21 civilian court or otherwise?
22 A. I can't remember that there were such cases.
23 Q. In practical terms, if, in 1992, the police reported to your
24 office a crime committed by a Serb civilian that had the elements of a
25 war crime or crime against humanity, what would your office have done
1 with it?
2 A. I believe that I already said that if that was a case of
3 aggravated murder, according to Article 362, paragraph 5, the police in
4 charge should file a criminal report. This does not have to be only the
5 police. A state organ can file such a report as well, provided they have
6 this kind of information. Then, through intelligence work on the ground
7 with the assistance of police, we established the elements relevant for
8 the criminal report.
9 And I think that would be the answer to your question.
10 Q. In 1992, did you ever receive any instructions from
11 Prosecutor Pantic on how to process criminal reports charging crimes
12 against humanity or war crimes?
13 A. Well, we didn't receive any special instructions and guide-lines
14 because, at the time, it went without saying that for this type of crimes
15 the military judiciary would have jurisdiction, for the crimes committed
16 against civilian population and international law. So everybody
17 understood that, should such incident happen, these cases would be
18 processed by the military judiciary.
19 And I think that even at one of our staff meetings - I'm not
20 sure - we discussed, to a certain extent, this issue of jurisdiction and
21 that it was established then that it would undoubtedly be the military
23 Q. Do you recall, was that meeting in 1992, 1993, or can you give us
24 any idea?
25 A. I'm not sure, but it was at the beginning of my term of office.
1 1993, perhaps. I'm not sure.
2 Q. Mr. Zecevic showed you four criminal reports against unknown
3 perpetrators for Article 172, causing general danger crimes against
4 non-Serb victims.
5 MR. OLMSTED: For the record, these cases have been assigned
6 exhibit numbers 1D371, 1D372, and 1D373, and 1D374.
7 Q. And in order to save time, I want to hand you hard copies of
8 these four exhibits.
9 Now, keep them in order because that's the order I want to
10 discuss them in. And I first want you to take a look at the one that's
11 on top. One -- Exhibit 1D374. And do you notice that it has a K-U or
12 KU entry number 3566/92? Do you see that?
13 A. /92, yeah, you're right.
14 Q. And if you can look at, now, 1D372, we see that it has a KU entry
15 number of 3567/92.
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can have P1574 on the screen, please.
18 Q. This is the Banja Luka Basic Prosecutor's Office KTN log-book for
20 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn to page 29. Are we on page 29?
21 It was too small for me to see. Yes. Okay. And if we can now -- if we
22 can go look -- zoom in to entries 2346 and 2347. They're on the
23 right-hand page, I think a little bit towards the bottom. We need to
24 zoom in a little bit more because it's quite small on the screen. There
25 we go.
1 Q. We see that -- we see the two KU entry numbers for these two
2 unknown perpetrator cases in the third column, is that correct, under
3 entries 2346 and 2347?
4 A. [No verbal response]
5 Q. Do you see that?
6 A. Yes, 2346, and 2347.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we can just scroll up really quickly to
8 show the heading of column 9.
9 Q. Well, we see in column 9 -- first of all, before we do, we see,
10 in the ninth column, we see the date -- dates 24 September 1992 and
11 21 September 1992.
12 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could just scroll up so he can see the
13 heading for column number 9.
14 Q. Can you confirm that those are the dates that the prosecutor's
15 office sent requests to the police to collect needed information, under
16 column 9?
17 A. If it says here - and it does - that this request was sent to the
18 police, then it must have been sent.
19 Q. Now, column 16 - and we talked a little bit about this during
20 your examination - is where the name of the perpetrator, if identified by
21 the police, would be recorded along with the KT entry number to which the
22 case was transferred; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if we look at the first entry, 2346, we don't see anything
25 written in column 16. So does this mean that this case remained an
1 unidentified perpetrator case?
2 A. Probably. That means the perpetrator was not detected.
3 Q. Now, if we look at the entry for 2347, we see, in column 16, a
4 date which appears to be the 29th of May, 2000, and then something
5 written underneath it. Can you tell us what happened to this particular
7 A. Yes. The case was sent to the district prosecutor's office in
8 Banja Luka in May 2000 because jurisdiction had changed.
9 Q. Now I want you to look at Exhibit 1D371. And if you can see that
10 it has -- yes, that's the third one in your pile. You can see that it
11 was a KU entry number of 3709/92.
12 MR. OLMSTED: If we can turn -- please turn to page 35 of the
13 KTN log-book. And if we can -- yes, we don't need to call up the
14 criminal report because he has that in front of him.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, in that case, I would need the tab number,
16 please, from my list.
17 MR. OLMSTED: I apologise, I don't have that. You admitted it
18 into evidence. It's 1D371, admitted.
19 This is not ...
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, 371.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we can go to page 35 of the KTN log-book,
22 which is P1574. And if this is page 35, if we can go to the left-hand
23 page and look at entry 2454.
24 Q. And we can see in column 3 it has the KU entry number 3709/92
25 written in it. Now, according to this entry, was the perpetrator in this
1 case ever identified by the police?
2 A. I cannot see further in the register. Something is missing.
3 It's very close up. We need to zoom out a little. And now zoom back in
4 again, please, a little.
5 Q. Now you can see the whole entry -- or the whole line for the
7 Now --
8 A. Something is missing like -- we need to see the end of the last
9 page. There's nothing there.
10 All right. No? So it's not there. There is no entry that the
11 perpetrator was identified. It's not entered. That means he was not
13 Q. Finally, if we can look at Exhibit 1D373.
14 MR. OLMSTED: And while you're looking at that, if we can turn to
15 page 44 of the log-book. And this is the last one.
16 Q. If you look at Exhibit 1D373, we can see that it has a KU entry
17 number of 3925/92.
18 MR. OLMSTED: But, again, if we can stay -- there seems to be
19 miscommunication between me and -- I want to keep on the log-book. If we
20 can turn to the log-book and turn to page 44 of the log-book. The
21 witness has the criminal report in front of him, so we don't need to call
22 it up.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, but I don't seem to
24 understand the relevance of this redirect examination. Because if my
25 learned friend wants to show that it's -- that these -- that these
1 criminal complaints have been recorded with the Office of the Prosecutor,
2 we're going to stipulate that. I don't -- if, however, the idea is
3 that -- to show that there is un -- that the -- that the perpetrators
4 were not found, I don't -- it's probably me, I didn't understand that the
5 that the -- that the OTP case was -- actually had anything to do with the
6 results of the work of the police in 1992. If we are talking about
7 the -- the statistics of the -- or the results of the work of the -- of
8 the -- of the police in 1992, then, perhaps this would be relevant, but I
9 don't think that that was the -- that is the Prosecutor's case.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, Mr. Zecevic tendered through this
12 witness over the Prosecution's objection these criminal reports that this
13 witness knew nothing or very little about. I want the witness to help us
14 figure out what happened to these cases through a document that he is
15 familiar with, which is this KTN log-book. I can explain further, but I
16 need to ask that the witness's headphones be removed, and I can explain
17 the relevance in the context of the entire case.
18 And, at any rate, this is my -- this is the last entry I want to
19 go through because it was the last criminal report.
20 JUDGE HALL: And you do appreciate that it's time to take the
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. And I think we can do this in one minute, if
23 I'm allowed.
24 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed. One minute.
25 MR. OLMSTED: If we can please zoom in -- again, please take the
1 criminal report off the screen and just focus in on the log-book. And if
2 we can please look at entry number 3925. We have to be on page 44.
3 And if this is page 44, if we can just -- it's going to be on the
4 left-hand page, and it's 3925.
5 Is this page 44? This is it not page 44. This is page 44?
6 Then, Your Honours, I will finish up with this one, I think, at
7 the beginning of next session. And work out the technical problems.
8 JUDGE HALL: So the witness has to return tomorrow?
9 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. I have, I think, about 20 more
10 minutes, maybe less.
11 JUDGE HALL: Well, we take the -- we rise now and take the
12 adjournment to -- I believe we're in Courtroom I tomorrow at 9.00.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day
16 of September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.