Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15007

 1                           Wednesday, 29 September 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The Accused Zupljanin not present]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

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

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

 8     the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

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

10             May we have the appearances, please.

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

12     Tom Hannis, and Jasmina Bosnjakovic for the Prosecution.

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

14     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for

15     Stanisic Defence this morning.  Thank you.

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

17     Igor Pantelic, and Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

18     Our client is not present.  He already signed a waiver.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  And are we ready to have the witness

20     escorted in?

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, just one small matter before we start

22     with the witness.  We received last night the new version of witness

23     statement with annexes totalling some 87 pages --

24             JUDGE HALL:  In respect of this witness?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  And I didn't even have the time to read it,

Page 15008

 1     let alone analyse it, so we will not be able to start the

 2     cross-examination of this witness today.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Today?

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, Your Honour, maybe I can give some background

 6     into this.  During the last couple days of proofing, the witness made

 7     some revisions, alterations, additions to the annexes attached to her 2

 8     June 2010 statement.  The size of what we disclosed to the Defence

 9     yesterday is deceptive.  It's -- looks worse than it really is.  Rather

10     than having the standard addendum that we submit with a 92 ter package

11     that results from proofing, where you would list a particular line in the

12     statement and indicate the change, so you would cross-reference the two

13     documents, as a practical solution because that would require a lot of

14     work for the Trial Chamber and the Defence to flip between the addendum

15     and the original annexes, we inserted all the changes, all the revisions,

16     into the annexes and produced revised annexes.  So we really saw that as

17     a practical solution to make it easier for them to read.

18             Now, we turned over this morning red-lined versions of the

19     changes to the annexes so the Defence can review them.  Two points.  It's

20     important to know what materials is in the annexes.  This is simply her

21     results of her review of the log-books, in other words, the cases she was

22     able to identify that fall within either one of the annexes -- one of the

23     schedules to the indictment or she concluded involved serious crimes

24     committed by Serb perpetrators against non-Serb victims between April and

25     December of 1992.

Page 15009

 1             So really, her annexes can be looked at along with the log-books

 2     themselves to verify the information she found, and Defence could either

 3     agree that she found the relevant cases or that she missed some.

 4             I also want to note that the vast majority of the revisions are

 5     really in favour of the Defence; in other words, she identified some

 6     additional cases that the police reported to the prosecutor's offices

 7     that fall either within the scope of the indictment or involved serious

 8     crimes against non-Serbs.  And I believe that once the Defence have taken

 9     a look at these revisions, they're not going to have a strong objection

10     to them.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Olmsted, why am I sitting here thinking that

12     having regard to everything that you have just said that it is surprising

13     that at some point between yesterday evening when this material was

14     forwarded to the Defence and the point at which the Judges took the bench

15     this morning that counsel on both sides would have had a chat about this

16     as to what the consequence of this is in terms of the time, allocation of

17     time, and how we are proceeding today.

18             MR. OLMSTED:  Yes, well the witness was reviewing the annexes up

19     until about 7.00, 7.30 last night, and then we had to get them into the

20     system and disclosed as quickly as possible.  So I didn't have time last

21     evening to talk with the Defence.  I did talk with Mr. Zecevic and the

22     Zupljanin Defence this morning and they did indicate their concerns, and

23     I explained really what these annexes contain and what the revisions

24     consist of.  So we communicated at that stage.  I suggested that we do

25     something similar with Mr. Vasic, Witness ST-210, which is perhaps take a

Page 15010

 1     slightly extended break after I do my examination-in-chief.  The Defence

 2     can take a look at the revisions and see whether it really is necessary

 3     for them to delay the cross-examination.  The witness wanted me to sit in

 4     on their proofing which occurred on Sunday, and I note that I didn't see

 5     much of what they were raising that dealt directly with the annexes

 6     themselves.  So perhaps once they've seen the revisions, see that they're

 7     not really detrimental to their case, they might be in a position where

 8     they say, Well, we can go ahead with the cross-examination.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, is Mr. Olmsted being unduly optimistic

10     in his proposal, that an extended break after he has completed his

11     examination-in-chief may resolve the concerns that you think you have?

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I'm afraid so, Your Honours, my concerns

13     are -- I would like to state that my concerns are basically objective

14     concerns because I didn't even have time to read the -- this additional

15     statement with the annexes, with the revised annexes, let alone analyse

16     it.  Therefore, I would, at the very least, need to be able to analyse it

17     once before I could give you any information which would be -- which

18     could be regarded as a solid information about that.  So in that sense, I

19     don't see that it is achievable -- that the suggestion which Mr. Olmsted

20     made would be achievable or realistic.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE HALL:  I'm going to, of course, take the views of my fellow

22     Judges, but I am thinking that the most efficient course would be that

23     the -- at the conclusion of the examination-in-chief we come back after

24     the usual time, after the usual break, and then counsel would report as

25     to whether we should take an extended break -- pick up the hearing at a

Page 15011

 1     later point in the course of today.  Let me confer.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE HALL:  So that is the course that we will follow.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, while the witness is being brought

 5     in, may I take the usual practice in giving a brief summary of what is

 6     contained within this witness's 92 ter package.  As background,

 7     Ms. Gacinovic was appointed deputy basic prosecutor in Trebinje in 1976

 8     and held that position until August 1992, when she was appointed higher

 9     prosecutor for Trebinje, a position she has held ever since, although the

10     title has changed over time.  As Your Honours know, the Trebinje higher

11     prosecutor's office had jurisdiction over two municipalities charged in

12     the indictment:  Gacko and Bileca.  At the request of the ICTY Office of

13     the Prosecutor, Ms. Gacinovic reviewed the prosecutor office log-books

14     from the period of 1992 through 1995, covering the 20 municipalities

15     charged in the indictment as well as the higher prosecutor's office

16     log-books to the extent those log-books were still existing.

17             As the Trial Chamber has heard from other witnesses, these

18     offices consisted of -- these log-books consisted of a KT log-book which

19     contained criminal reports of known perpetrators, KTN log-books which

20     contained criminal reports of unknown perpetrators' crimes, and then a

21     KTA log-book which included on-site investigation reports filed by the

22     courts as well as other official notes that really weren't criminal

23     reports per se.

24             Now, in reviewing these log-books, Ms. Gacinovic was asked to

25     address essentially three issues.  The first was whether any of the

Page 15012

 1     crimes listed in the schedules to the indictment are recorded in the

 2     log-books; second, the extent to which the log-books record criminal

 3     reports of serious crimes committed by Serb perpetrators against non-Serb

 4     victims between 1 April and 31 December 1992; and finally, to provide

 5     some statistical information about the number and kinds of cases that the

 6     prosecutor offices received in 1992.

 7                           [The witness entered court]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Could we have the witness make the solemn

 9     declaration, please.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

11     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12                           WITNESS:  SLOBODANKA GACINOVIC

13                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  You may be seated.

15             Good morning to you, ma'am.  The first thing I would point out --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

17             JUDGE HALL:  -- is that the solemn declaration that you have made

18     exposes to the pain of the penalties of perjury which this Tribunal is by

19     its constituent Statute and power to impose should you give false or

20     misleading testimony.  With that I would ask you, first of all, to tell

21     us your name.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Slobodanka Gacinovic.

23             JUDGE HALL:  And could you summarise your professional background

24     for us, please.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I completed primary school at

Page 15013

 1     Danilovgrad, Montenegro, and I graduated from secondary school in

 2     Ginozija [phoen], Trebinje 1969.  I graduated from the faculty of law at

 3     the university of Belgrade in 1974 in February 1974.  In October, I got a

 4     job at the primary school and preschool education centre in Trebinje as a

 5     secretary.  Until December 1975 I worked there, and then I got a job with

 6     the basic public prosecutor's office at Trebinje.  I was an intern until

 7     May 1976.  In June, I passed the bar exam and I was elected to be a

 8     deputy basic prosecutor in Trebinje.  I held that position until August

 9     1982, when I was appointed higher public prosecutor in Trebinje.  I was

10     in that position until March 2004.  Then my title changed when I was

11     elected chief district prosecutor in Trebinje.  Last year I was -- my

12     term in office was extended and I still remain in the same position.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

14             Have you testified previously before this Tribunal or before any

15     of the courts in any of the countries that comprise the former

16     Yugoslavia?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some ten years or so ago I appeared

18     as a witness in a case where we conducted an investigation -- actually,

19     it was the investigating judge of the basic court in Trebinje.  In that

20     case I was heard as a witness, but I didn't testify before any other

21     court.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Well, in this case you have been called

23     by the Prosecution, and under an expedited procedure permitted by the

24     Rules of the Tribunal the Prosecution would be examining you for only 20

25     minutes.  After that you would be cross-examined, of course as you would

Page 15014

 1     expect, by counsel for each of the other accused -- each of the two

 2     accused and the times that they have indicated subject to some variation

 3     that may have occurred in the course of -- since it was first indicated

 4     is a total of three hours and it was expected that your testimony would

 5     have been completed within the compass of today's sitting which ends at

 6     1.45.  The usual pattern is that the court takes a break after no longer

 7     than an hour and a half to allow for the technical changing of tapes and

 8     also the comfort of counsel and the witnesses and everyone else.  But

 9     that may be varied today.  But notwithstanding those fixed periods, if at

10     any time you need to take a break you will indicate that to the Court,

11     and we will, of course, accommodate you.

12             And I would of course invite Mr. Olmsted to begin.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you, Your Honour.  My recollection may be

14     incorrect, but I believe I was granted 30 minutes to examine her.  It was

15     an oral ruling.  I'll tell you what I want to do, it's quite simple other

16     than doing the standard questions with regard to the 92 ter package, I

17     want to take the Trial Chamber through one of her annexes so that you'll

18     be able to review it on your own and make a couple of clarifications so

19     that when you see something perhaps you'll understand what she meant by

20     it.  And then I just wanted to ask her some more general questions about

21     things she observed through her review of these log-books and I think I

22     can do that within half an hour.

23             JUDGE HALL:  I don't pretend to remember this, Mr. Olmsted, but I

24     take you at your word, so 30 minutes.

25             MR. OLMSTED:  Thank you.

Page 15015

 1                           Examination by Mr. Olmsted:

 2        Q.   Good morning, Ms. Gacinovic.  Now, prior to testifying today, did

 3     you have the opportunity to review your written statements from 2 June

 4     2010 and 28 July 2010?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now, with regard to the 2 June 2010 statement, did you have some

 7     corrections and clarifications to some of the annexes to that statement?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  If we may have 65 ter 10530 on the screen and I

10     also want to hand the witness a copy of her addendum.

11             And while they're bringing that up, just to note for the record

12     since this was produced yesterday, we did not have the opportunity to

13     insert the ERN numbers onto it.  That will be done very soon, it was just

14     in the process of getting that done.  We'll have that done before we seek

15     to tender it.

16             I'm actually interested for the -- on the screen if we can have

17     the -- there we go.  Now it's on the screen to the left.

18        Q.   Ms. Gacinovic, can you just confirm that this is the addendum to

19     your 2 June statement containing the 11 annexes you revised during

20     proofing?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   With these revisions to the annexes, are you satisfied that the

23     information contained in your written statements is accurate and correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   I want to show you one of the revised annexes by way of an

Page 15016

 1     example.

 2             MR. OLMSTED:  If we can have page 32 of the original, of the

 3     B/C/S, and page 15 of the English on the screen.  This is the revised

 4     annex 8 which applied to the Teslic office of the prosecutor's log-books.

 5        Q.   And I want you to first -- and you can look at the one in front

 6     of you if that's easier, but it's also on the screen.  And I want you to

 7     first -- do you have it in front of you, Ms. Gacinovic?

 8        A.   I have reviewed it on the screen.

 9        Q.   Very well.  Now, if we can first look at -- under issue number 1

10     we see that you recorded one criminal case that you determined falls

11     within the schedules B7, C7, and D7 of the indictment.

12             MR. OLMSTED:  And for the record, this is the Mici group case

13     which the Trial Chamber has already heard evidence on.

14        Q.   Ms. Gacinovic, do you recall, other than this case, how many

15     other cases you found in the log-books you reviewed that pertained to

16     issue 1; in other words, crimes charged in the schedules of the

17     indictment?

18        A.   I subsequently identified four more cases that referred to the

19     indictment in this case against Mico Stanisic, against Stojan Zupljanin,

20     as is mentioned under item 1 of this table of the annex.

21        Q.   Yes.  And we have this one in front of us which is Teslic.  There

22     was one for Vogosca, is that correct, and then there was one for --

23        A.   Yes, one for Vogosca and two for Banja Luka.

24        Q.   Very well.  And those can be found in revised annex 5 and revised

25     annex 15 and they pertain to incidents charged in the schedules under

Page 15017

 1     D16-1, B1-2, and B6-1.

 2             Now, if we could turn the page, page 34 in the original and page

 3     19 in the English, we see issue 2 which are cases of serious crimes

 4     committed by Serb perpetrators against non-Serb victims between 1 April

 5     and 31 December 1992 that you were able to identify in the various

 6     log-books that you reviewed.  And before we go through this issue I want

 7     to turn quickly to 65 ter 10528, and I want to turn to page 14 of the

 8     B/C/S and page 8 of the English.

 9             And, Ms. Gacinovic, can you confirm that this is the list of

10     serious crimes that you were asked to identify under issue 2?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, looking at this list were there any crimes on this list that

13     you did not focus on when reviewing the log-books?

14        A.   Article 172 of the Criminal Code of the RS is referred to here

15     under item 4, but I didn't focus on that so much because I focused on

16     Article 187 [as interpreted] of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina

17     with regard to the consequences of the crime committed because Article

18     187 stipulates serious bodily injury or great damage done to property.

19        Q.   And just to clarify for the record, we have it on our transcript

20     that you're referring to Article 187.  Is it 187 or 177 that you're

21     referring to?

22        A.   177 is the article of the Criminal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23        Q.   And if I understand you correctly, Article 172 does not involve

24     instances where there is serious physical injury to a victim involved in

25     the crime?

Page 15018

 1        A.   Yes.  That is the basic offence.  When serious danger to lives or

 2     property is caused, and Article 177 when there is serious bodily injury

 3     or great damage to property or the lethal outcome of an injury.  But I

 4     mostly focused on Article 177 which actually comprises the basic offence

 5     as described in Article 172.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  Let's have 65 ter 10530 back on the screen, page 34

 7     of the original, page 16 of the English.

 8        Q.   Now, if we look at the entries under issue number 2, we see that

 9     in the last two columns you provide information regarding the date when

10     the indictment was filed in the particular case, and in the last column

11     the resolution of the case.  Now, for some of the entries in your

12     annexes, one or both of these columns are blank.  For example, if we look

13     at the first entry under issue 2 we see that the date of indictment for

14     the first entry is not -- is blank.  Can you explain what -- how should

15     we interpret the blanks on these -- in these annexes?

16        A.   In this particular case, KT177/72, the SJB in Teslic submitted a

17     criminal report to the prosecutor's office in Teslic, a report against

18     Mile Stanojevic.  The victim was Fadil Resulovic.  The crime was

19     committed on the 5th of August, 1992, so this was in the period between

20     April until the end of 1992.  The crime here is 148/1, and looking at the

21     log-books we can see that the indictment was not issued but rather the

22     investigation was halted in 1993, which in this particular case -- in

23     this particular case the Prosecutor, after submitting a request for

24     investigation to be conducted, halted that investigation and gave a

25     proposal to the investigative judge to suspend further proceedings in

Page 15019

 1     this case which was done in May of 1993.  So in every case where I had

 2     information indicating that there was a decision by the public prosecutor

 3     pursuant to a criminal report, I inserted the data into the table.  Where

 4     you see blanks, that means that there was no decision taken either

 5     vis-a-vis the indictment or if the indictment was issued there was no

 6     judgement by the court.  So whenever I had information, whenever I had

 7     files, I inserted data from the files into these columns.

 8        Q.   And just for the record, she was referring to the entry that's --

 9     involves case that has a KT number of 157/92.

10             Let's turn the page to page 37 of the B/C/S and page 19 of the

11     English.  And this is issue 3 which is the statistical data you collected

12     regarding the criminal reports received by the prosecutor's office, in

13     this case the Teslic prosecutor's office between 1 April and 31 December

14     1992.  I just want to clarify just two things for us with regard to this

15     data.  First, we see under the first two entries you provide the total

16     number of criminal charges recorded in the KT and KTN log-books.  What do

17     you mean by criminal charges?

18        A.   When we look at table 3, I inserted in table 3 all cases which

19     reached the basic prosecutor's office in Teslic between the 1st of April,

20     1992, until the 31st of December, 1992.  When I put a total number of

21     criminal reports, I -- the ones that came from the KT log-book, I

22     included all criminal reports which were entered into the KT log-book

23     against perpetrators who were of age.  So KT log-book is a registry book

24     for criminal reports against perpetrators of age.  Now, whether these

25     reports were filed by authorised officials, that is to say police, or

Page 15020

 1     SJBs or citizens or other entities is irrelevant.  What is important for

 2     the KT log-book is that the perpetrator's identity is known.

 3        Q.   Yes, and I want to clarify just one particular point, and I think

 4     you've addressed it.  But these total numbers that you provide in the

 5     first two entries here, are they the number of criminal reports, the

 6     number of cases, or are they the number of perpetrators?

 7        A.   In column number 1, I inserted a total number of criminal

 8     reports, regardless of the number of perpetrators.  It could be that

 9     there were many more perpetrators here.  I simply looked at the number of

10     criminal reports in the period between the 1st of April, 1992, and 31st

11     of December, 1992; number of reports filed with the basic prosecutor's

12     office in Teslic regarding known perpetrators, regardless of the number

13     of perpetrators.  This just reflects the number of criminal reports

14     filed.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Now, the rest of the data that is contained in this

16     table beginning with the number of indictments and continuing down, is

17     this data from the KT log-book or does it also include data from the KTN

18     log-books?

19        A.   In column 2 underneath the KT log-book, I inserted there the

20     total number of criminal reports in the KTN log-book with the basic

21     prosecutor's office in Teslic, and that was 12 within the same period of

22     time.  So number 12 -- the figure of 12 reflects the number of criminal

23     reports filed against unknown perpetrators.  Then I put in the number of

24     indictments issued which was 64.  I also counted cases and not

25     perpetrators, and then further down the data that you see in table 3, all

Page 15021

 1     of it reflects cases and not perpetrators.

 2        Q.   Yes.  And we understand that, but the clarification I want to

 3     make is we see first 64 indictments and then we see the number of

 4     criminal reports for various crimes.  Were those derived from the KT

 5     log-book, the rest of the data on this chart?

 6        A.   Yes, yes.  From the KT log-book, that is to say against known

 7     perpetrators.  Only figure from column 2 pertains to unknown

 8     perpetrators, whereas the rest of the data pertains to known perpetrators

 9     and I took this information from the KT log-book.

10        Q.   Let's turn to issue 4, which is page 38 of the B/C/S and page

11     20 --

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Hold on a minute.  Before we leave this schedule.

13     First of all, Madam, I have a question to you regarding the number of

14     perpetrators.  Is that included in this chart?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this table you can see the

16     following.  Let's focus on one or two issues.  Total number of cases, in

17     cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity, based on this wording

18     you can see that this pertains only to known perpetrators.  I wrote down

19     the number of criminal reports regardless of whether there was one

20     perpetrator or five perpetrators, because those were my instructions.

21     All of this pertains to known perpetrators of crimes and the list of

22     crimes is given below.  This is in the period between the 1st of April,

23     1992, until the 31st of December, 1992.  Whatever was entered into the KT

24     log-book with the basic public prosecutor's office in Teslic.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I understand, but my question was really if it is

Page 15022

 1     possible to extract from this chart how many perpetrators were involved,

 2     because if you look at the first entry on top of the chart you see the

 3     total number of criminal charges recorded in the KT log-book, and the

 4     figure says 132 charges.  Now, I suppose that several charges might be

 5     raised against one perpetrator.  So my question was:  How many

 6     perpetrators are involved in this chart?

 7             Mr. Zecevic.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may be of assistance, there might be a slight

 9     problem with the translation, Your Honours, because the Serbian says

10     "krivicna prijava," which is a criminal report or criminal complaint

11     filed with the office of the public prosecutor.  So it's not the criminal

12     charges, it's the number of criminal reports which were filed with the

13     prosecutor -- with the prosecutor's office.  I don't know if I was of

14     assistance.  I thought maybe that is maybe creating the confusion.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Well, thank you, Mr. Zecevic, for this

16     clarification, and that is indeed an important point that you are

17     raising.  Nevertheless, I sit back with the question of how many

18     perpetrators were involved in the number of criminal reports, the 132

19     criminal reports that were registered in the KT log-book.  Because my

20     assumption would be that it probably includes a considerably smaller

21     number of perpetrators because the reports would -- or maybe bigger.  I

22     don't know.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the very outset I said that in

24     table 3 I counted only reports, not perpetrators of crimes.  However,

25     sometimes in one single report there are several perpetrators listed.  I

Page 15023

 1     only counted the number of criminal reports, regardless of the number of

 2     perpetrators; I did not enter information on perpetrators, how many

 3     perpetrators were involved in each particular crime.  It could be that

 4     from -- for the crime in Articles 36 to 38 I listed down four criminal

 5     reports, that is to say four cases.  It could be that there were ten

 6     perpetrators involved.  So I put down information concerning criminal

 7     reports, not perpetrators.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I understand.  And with the clarification that

 9     Counsel Zecevic provided, it would seem that the number of perpetrators

10     would for sure exceed the number of 132.  Is that correctly understood?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible, given that my

12     instruction was to go by cases.  As a result of that, I did not analyse

13     perpetrators.  It could be done subsequently to see how many perpetrators

14     there were and how many perpetrators were recorded in the KT log-book.

15     It should be no problem to obtain that piece of information.  I looked at

16     cases, not perpetrators.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  My second question goes to the

18     penultimate entry which seems to be a bit vague to me.  I simply don't

19     understand what it comprises.  It reads:

20             "The total number of serving with the enemy army cases against

21     non-Serb perpetrators under Article 119."

22             What does this cover, Madam, if you recall?

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, if I may be of assistance again.  I

24     believe the translation again is a problem.  Maybe Your Honours can

25     invite the -- our interpreters to read the penultimate paragraph of the

Page 15024

 1     chart and I will -- I'm sure you will better understand what it refers

 2     to.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I don't know if the translators have the text in

 4     B/C/S, but if not then could you please read it out, Mr. Zecevic, or

 5     Madam Prosecutor.

 6             MR. OLMSTED:  And just -- just for the record, I think

 7     Your Honour's referring to the -- not the -- yeah, the penultimate one,

 8     yes.

 9             Why don't we have the witness read it out since she has it in

10     front of us.

11        Q.   Ms. Gacinovic, can you read the second-to-last entry on this

12     chart.

13        A.   In the penultimate line it says:

14             "Total number of cases for the crime of serving in the enemy army

15     Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY."

16             So this is not a crime committed against non-Serb individuals.

17     My task was to list the number of criminal reports in the given period

18     from the 1st of April, 1992, until the 31st of December for the crime of

19     serving in the enemy army, Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY,

20     where the perpetrators were of non-Serb ethnicity, that is to say Muslims

21     or Croats.  So the same of the crime is serving in the enemy army,

22     Article 119 of the Criminal Code.  It wasn't my job to see how many

23     criminal reports were filed for this crime, no.  My job was to see how

24     many perpetrators were reported for the crime of serving in the enemy

25     army, Article 119, where the perpetrators were non-Serbs, that is to say

Page 15025

 1     Muslims, Croats, or of some other ethnicity.  Perhaps it was confusing

 2     for you that it says here serving with the enemy army cases against

 3     non-Serb perpetrators under Article 119, perhaps the word order should

 4     have been different in order to make it more clear for you.  My job,

 5     however, was to establish how many were reported for Article 119 where

 6     the perpetrators were of non-Serb ethnicity.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you for this clarification, and I admit it

 8     was indeed confusing.  But, Madam, let me be clear, what are we talking

 9     about here?  Are we talking about charges raised against Muslims for

10     serving in the Muslim army?  Is that what is included in this entry?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This reflects the today number of

12     cases that arrived at the prosecutor's office during this period of time

13     for this particular crime.  We have no information as to any indictments

14     or the resolution of the case.  In cases where there were indictments,

15     that's reflected in the column for indictments.  As far as I can

16     remember, I don't think that a single indictment was issued for this

17     particular crime.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  But that's not the issue.  My

19     question to you is:  Were criminal charges brought against Muslims for

20     serving in the Muslim army during the time covered by this chart?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't enter that -- such

22     information in this table.  I only did what I was instructed to do.  It

23     was my duty to mention only the number of indictments issued, regardless

24     of the crime committed.  I didn't state the number of indictment by

25     individual criminal reports.  I only listed the total number of criminal

Page 15026

 1     reports from April till December 1992, but I didn't make a breakdown to

 2     the type of criminal offence because that wasn't my task.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honour, maybe if I can intervene here and help

 4     clarify matters.  Her job was to only look at the log-books.  Now,

 5     log-books, as you've seen already, they list the perpetrators, the

 6     victims, and the procedure that the case went through; it doesn't give

 7     the facts of the case.  So she identified cases of criminal reports filed

 8     against non-Serbs for serving in the enemy army.  Now, what enemy army

 9     they were serving in, you're not going to get that from the log-books.

10     You would have to pull the criminal file and see what's actually alleged.

11     The criminal report would say they were, for instance, with the

12     Green Berets or they were with the BiH army or what have you.  But from

13     the log-books which is what she reviewed, she wouldn't be able to tell

14     you which enemy army they were serving with, because her scope was really

15     just limited mainly to log-books, and then we referred to some cases --

16     case files where it fell under issue number 1 or 2, or you'll see number

17     4 to get clarification to make sure that they fall under one of those

18     issues.  But for the statistical purpose, all she did is go through the

19     log-books is say, Yes this is an enemy army case, and yes, it's charging

20     non-Serb perpetrators so that's one.  And then find another one.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Olmsted, I'm sorry.  You can't help asking

22     the question of what does this actually signify?  What lies behind these

23     entries?  I am fully aware of the fact that this is just a statistical

24     review, but nevertheless the witness is a prosecutor and I would assume

25     you would be able to tell us what does this penultimate entry cover.  And

Page 15027

 1     to your knowledge were charges brought?  Apparently there were 15 charges

 2     registered against non-Serb persons for serving in the enemy army, and

 3     this looks mysterious to me.  I'm sorry.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's proceed.  Thank you very much, Madam.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just provide some

 7     clarification?  I only adhered to the table, only what was mentioned in

 8     the table, and I entered the relevant information from the log-books.  I

 9     entered the total number of indictments, regardless of the criminal --

10     underlying criminal offence.  And I relied only on the number of criminal

11     reports filed.  Let's take as an example Article 119 of the Criminal

12     Code.  I proceeded the same way with regard to Article 116.  So I

13     strictly adhered to the requirements of this table and didn't pay

14     attention to the ethnicity -- to issues such as ethnicity.

15             MR. OLMSTED:  Just for the record, Your Honours, you may want to

16     refer to the testimony of ST-176 to get further clarification regarding

17     the nature of these cases in Teslic and the reasons for them being filed

18     and other information that perhaps Your Honours are seeking with regard

19     to the particular cases here.

20             If we may turn to page 38 of the original as well as page 20 of

21     the English, this is issue 4.

22        Q.   Which is where you recorded entries that you identified in the

23     log-books which you required additional information to determine whether

24     they fell either under one of the indictment's schedules or involved

25     serious crimes against non-Serbs.  Now, turning to the first couple

Page 15028

 1     entries, the KTN entries that you recorded under issue 4, and this

 2     applies generally to your other tables for -- under issue 4, did you find

 3     any indication in any of the log-books that a criminal report was ever

 4     filed against a known perpetrator for these particular crimes that you

 5     identify under issue 4?

 6        A.   By reviewing the KTN and KTA log-books, I didn't find information

 7     showing that the perpetrator of these crimes was identified nor that

 8     criminal reports were filed with the basic prosecutor's office in Teslic

 9     for these crimes on the dates of the 13th -- or rather, committed on the

10     13th and 14th of November and the 15th of September and so on.  One would

11     have to check the records of the basic public prosecutor's office in

12     Teslic to find the relevant information.  That's why I entered these in

13     table 4 because they require additional documentation to complete this

14     review.

15        Q.   Thank you.  And just to clarify, these entries -- these KTN

16     entries that you record under issue number 4, those are not found in the

17     KT log-book because if they were found in the KT log-book you would have

18     recorded that in entry under issue number 2; is that correct?

19        A.   By reviewing the log-books, I found in some cases that the

20     perpetrator of a crime was identified and then I entered a remark that he

21     was identified and that the case was entered under certain item number in

22     a log-book because I wanted to establish a link between unidentified and

23     identified perpetrators but I wasn't able to do so for these four cases.

24        Q.   Now, with regard to the KTA entries that you have recorded here

25     under issue number 4, we see that they reference the basic court.  What

Page 15029

 1     was the basic court submitting to the prosecutor's offices or the

 2     prosecutor's office of Teslic in this instance?

 3        A.   It follows from this table that the investigative judge of the

 4     basic court in Teslic conducted an on-site investigation on the occasion

 5     of a murder that happened on the 15th of September, 1992, at Banja

 6     Vrucica and on the 22nd of September, 1992, at Osovica.  He drafted an

 7     on-site investigation report and submitted it with the public

 8     prosecutor's office in Teslic under the file numbers as stated in the

 9     table.  The investigative judge makes an on-site investigation report and

10     submits it to the public prosecutor's office and copies the police

11     station on it because the police assists in the on-site investigation,

12     that is, the authorised officials from the police station who make a file

13     including photographs, sketches, and so on.

14        Q.   Now, if subsequently the police file a criminal report against a

15     known or unknown perpetrator for one of these cases that you refer to in

16     the KTA, where would that case be transferred to?

17        A.   If the police submits the remaining documentation that was made

18     at the site, in this case it is added to the case file.  In this concrete

19     case of murder, the whole file is entered in the KT log-book and this

20     file which is entered in the KTA log-book is entered in the log-book that

21     contains identified or known perpetrators.

22        Q.   And am I correct in stating that if the police file a criminal

23     report against an unknown perpetrator on that -- that this case would

24     then transfer from the KTA into the KTN log-book?

25        A.   Yes.  If the police file a criminal report against an

Page 15030

 1     unidentified perpetrator and after the on-site investigation the police

 2     fails to identify the perpetrator, then the police file a criminal report

 3     against an unknown perpetrator with the public prosecutor's office.

 4     Since the police already have the on-site investigation report, or

 5     rather, the public prosecutor does, the case is entered in the KTN

 6     log-book.  And what was received from the court is also entered in the

 7     KTN log-book together with what was received from the police and the two

 8     files are merged because they refer to one and the same offence.

 9        Q.   Finally --

10             JUDGE HALL:  Oh, I was pleased to hear you say "finally."  I was

11     just about to point out to you that you're ten minutes past your 30

12     minutes.

13             MR. OLMSTED:  I apologise.  I just want to now go over some

14     general trend issues that I think might be helpful for the Trial Chamber.

15     I don't think it's going to take long.

16        Q.   I just want to ask you some questions about some of the general

17     trends you observed from your review of the prosecutor's log-books for

18     the period of 1992 to 1995.  First, did the log-books indicate to you

19     that the district and basic prosecutor's offices in the various

20     municipalities were functioning in 1992 and subsequently?

21        A.   Yes, by reviewing all log-books that I received when I worked on

22     this project, in the time-period from the 1st of April until the end of

23     1992 I saw that occasionally there were criminal reports against

24     identified or unidentified perpetrators and the public prosecutor's

25     office worked on these cases and so did the courts in that period because

Page 15031

 1     there are court decisions.

 2        Q.   Now, with regard to the prosecutor offices that you worked for in

 3     Trebinje in 1992 and subsequently, were your -- was your office able to

 4     receive and process criminal cases during this time-period?

 5        A.   Yes.  That can be seen from the table.

 6        Q.   Now, based on your review, what can you tell us about the number

 7     of criminal cases or criminal reports filed with the prosecutor's offices

 8     in 1993 or 1994 or 1995 that relate to crimes that were committed in

 9     1992?  What can you tell us about the overall number of those?  Were

10     there many of those?

11        A.   Not many.  Criminal reports for offences committed in 1992 were

12     mostly filed during that same year, although some of them were filed

13     later but there weren't many such reports.

14             MR. OLMSTED:  No further questions, Your Honour.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE HALL:  We propose to take the adjournment now, but only for

17     15 minutes, at which point, Mr. Zecevic, we would ask you to report to us

18     how much -- at what point you would comfortably be in a position to begin

19     your cross-examination.

20             So we return in 15 minutes.

21                           --- Recess taken at 10.07 a.m.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- On resuming at 10.31 a.m.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I informed Ms. Featherstone and Ms. Audrey

Page 15032

 1     about the -- what we are suggesting at the moment as a way how to

 2     proceed.  What I proposed and what I'm prepared to do at this point is --

 3     the fact is that my cross-examination concerns two particular points

 4     actually in general.  One is the general position of the office of the

 5     prosecutor and the police according to the laws at the time, and I'm

 6     ready to start with this general points in the cross-examination.  And I

 7     propose to lead -- to cross-examine the witness on these points up until

 8     I believe one hour and a half.  And then that we are adjourned and I have

 9     half an hour to 45 minutes tomorrow after I reviewed the -- and analysed

10     additional statement which was given to us last night.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  I think I understand that.  I would ask

12     the court officer to work out at what time we should take the next break.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.  I understand, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, so could the witness -- yes, thank you.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Gacinovic.

18        A.   Good morning.

19        Q.   I will put several questions to you regarding your testimony

20     earlier today.  Today at page 9 of the transcript, line 21, when asked by

21     Mr. Olmsted whether you could confirm, given the revisions to the annex,

22     that the information contained in your written statements was correct and

23     accurate you said yes.  Do you remember that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Tell me, please, the statement that you gave yesterday, the

Page 15033

 1     revised statement of the 27th and 28th September was drafted in English;

 2     right -- just please answer my question.

 3        A.   Let me tell you.  I want to answer.  Yesterday when we worked in

 4     proofing, the statement was read out loud to me, we compared the tables,

 5     and I could confirm that what was written in the statement was indeed

 6     what I wanted to state.

 7        Q.   Madam --

 8        A.   And I also compared it with the tables.

 9        Q.   Madam, do you speak English?

10        A.   A bit, not really well but I do speak some.

11        Q.   Your statement drafted yesterday, the first 15 pages is in

12     English; right?  You signed that statement.  Did you read it in English

13     or not?

14        A.   As I told you, I read out some of it myself in English, but in

15     addition to that the interpreter read it out loud to me in my language

16     and I confirmed that.  And then I put my signature and date to it, and I

17     compared the data that I had with what was written in the tables.

18        Q.   All right.  Very well.  So the statement was read out to you by

19     an interpreter?

20        A.   Yes, in my presence; and to the extent that I was able, I read

21     the statement myself.

22        Q.   I would like to ask you for the sake of interpretation to please

23     make pauses between my question and your answer.

24        A.   All right.

25        Q.   Madam, today Mr. Olmsted showed to you the document from Teslic,

Page 15034

 1     and while it is still fresh in our minds let us discuss it.  That's

 2     65 ter 10530, and the page that was shown to the witness pertains to the

 3     revised annex number 9 to Teslic, to municipality of Teslic, and the

 4     prosecutor's office in Teslic.  I really can't remember what page number

 5     it was.  I think it was page 32.  I think that's the page I need in

 6     English.  It was issue number 3.  Perhaps it was page 34.  I apologise

 7     for not being accurate enough, but I did not have occasion to look at the

 8     document or study it a bit.  So that's why we're having these problems.

 9     Yes, that's the page.

10             Can you see this?  This is revised annex 9, issue number 3.

11     Madam Gacinovic, the prosecutor's office has the following log-books:  KT

12     log-book for criminal reports against known perpetrators?

13        A.   Right.

14        Q.   KTN for criminal reports against unknown perpetrators?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   KTM for criminal reports against minors?

17        A.   Yes, known minors.

18        Q.   KTA for accompanying documentation such as on-site investigation

19     reports, official records, and other documentation pertaining to certain

20     events for which an indictment was not yet issued?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   In Teslic -- or rather, did you study the KTM log-book in Teslic?

23        A.   As I said at the outset, I only checked KT, KTN, and KTA

24     log-book, and you can see that reflected in table 1 where I stated that I

25     checked log-books in Teslic for 1992 KT; and then KT for 1993, 1994, and

Page 15035

 1     1995; and KTA for the same years.  That is to say I did not check the

 2     log-books -- I did not check KTM log-books.

 3        Q.   So concerning issue 3 of the revised annex 9, the prosecutor's

 4     office in Teslic had 132 criminal reports in the KT log-book, and then in

 5     KTN log-book there were 12 reports.  Tell me, please, did some of the

 6     reports recorded in KTN log-book get transferred to the KT log-book in

 7     Teslic for the year of 1992, if you are aware of this?

 8        A.   While working on issue number 3, I only analysed how many there

 9     were recorded reports in KT and KTN log-books during the relevant period

10     of time.  I did not analyse whether any of the reports were transferred

11     from KTN to KT log-book.  I strictly adhered to my instructions and to

12     the task given to me.  If there is a criminal report filed in the KTN

13     log-book against an unknown perpetrator and then the perpetrator gets

14     identified, that year or in the following five years there is a column

15     where there should be an entry as to whether the file, the case, and the

16     information was transferred to the KT log-book for perpetrators that are

17     of age or into the KTM log-book for perpetrators that are minors.

18     However, I did not look for that kind of information because I was not

19     told to.

20        Q.   In order to clarify, there is a logical sequence in these

21     log-books that are kept in the prosecutor's office.  First of all, the

22     first information that arrives about an event is recorded either in an

23     official note or in a document called information or in the on-site

24     investigation report.  It is sent as such to the prosecutor's office and

25     then recorded in the KTA log-book; isn't that right?

Page 15036

 1        A.   Well, it depends.  If an investigative judge goes to an on-site

 2     investigation together with authorised officials, whether the prosecutor

 3     is present or not the judge will draw up a report on the on-site

 4     investigation.  The police will do the rest.  They will take photographs

 5     and do other things that need to be done.  Then the investigative judge

 6     draws up the on-site investigation report.  This is how it was done

 7     during this period of time.  This report is sent in two copies to the

 8     prosecutor's office, and then a copy or two are filed with the court and

 9     then also one copy is sent to the police station.  This on-site report

10     will be recorded by the prosecutor's office in the KTA log-book.  Police

11     continues its work and they will make photographs, they will collect

12     statements from eye-witnesses, et cetera, and then together with the

13     criminal report against the known perpetrator they will send it to the

14     prosecutor's office.  The prosecutor's office will record it in the KTA

15     log-book with the proviso that the initial on-site investigation report

16     that was received from the investigative judge will be transferred to the

17     KT log-book.  However, this will be reflected as an entry in the KTA

18     log-book.  If the police learns of something that happened but there was

19     no need to conduct an on-site investigation, the police will draw up an

20     official record and they may send it to the prosecutor's office.  In the

21     prosecutor's office they will record it in the KT [as interpreted]

22     log-book, and then later on should a criminal report be filed then this

23     will be transferred to the KT log-book or KTM log-book or perhaps even

24     KTN log-book.  This is a piece of information indicating that something

25     had happened and that something is being done about it.  The on-site

Page 15037

 1     investigation report is drawn up only when while conducting an on-site

 2     investigation they come to a conclusion that indeed a crime had been

 3     perpetrated and then they will -- they would draw up an on-site

 4     investigation report.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Just -- I'm sorry, just to clarify.  In the record,

 6     page 30, line 19, she says that the official note would be recorded in

 7     the KT log-book.  I believe that she most likely meant the KTA log-book.

 8     Maybe you want to clarify that.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it should be KTA.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Madam, all of us here are attempting to be of assistance to the

12     Trial Chamber.  So please focus on my questions and give us brief answers

13     because I don't think that what we have just done was of assistance to

14     the Trial Chamber.  Your answer was fully correct, but it was overly

15     broad and you provided too much information in one answer.

16        A.   [No interpretation]

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters didn't hear the witness, as

18     the speakers overlapped.

19             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   I think it would be best if we could explain this using an

21     example.  Let's say a body is found, a corpse.  And then an official

22     record is drawn up or a report from the on-site investigation, and then

23     this document is sent to the prosecutor's office as a piece of

24     information on the event that had happened.  So this document would be

25     recorded in the KTA log-book; right?

Page 15038

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Following a forensic examination, for example, of a forensic

 3     expert, it is established that this was a case of natural death.  The

 4     corpse's identity is provided and this is where any further activity on

 5     the prosecutor's office halts; right?

 6        A.   Yes.  No need to do anything else except to inform the family

 7     that there are no grounds for criminal prosecution.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness is requested to speak into the

 9     microphone.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   So the prosecutor's office --

12             JUDGE HALL:  The interpreters are reminding the witness to speak

13     into the microphone, and while the -- I would remind the witness of what

14     counsel's already alerted her to, that to allow a gap between the

15     question and the answer so there's no overlap.  Thank you.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters would also kindly request

17     Mr. Zecevic to switch off his microphone when the witness is answering

18     because she's very difficult to hear when both microphones are switched

19     on.  Thank you very much.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Noted.  Thank you very much.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] So in case a dead body is found, the public

22     prosecutor's office is informed by the services and agencies in charge.

23     It is entered in the KT A log-book, and if it is established that there

24     are no elements of a criminal offence it stays in the KTA log-book and

25     the public prosecutor's office is informed accordingly?

Page 15039

 1        A.   There is no need to take any official action in such a case.

 2        Q.   If in such a situation after a forensic analysis it is

 3     established that this was a case of violent death, after certain

 4     additional activity is conducted by the police, a criminal report against

 5     an unknown perpetrator is filed; correct?  And then the event entered in

 6     the KTA log-book is transferred to the KTN log-book; correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Once that event was transferred to the KTN log-book after a

 9     certain time -- and after a certain time the perpetrator of the crime is

10     found or identified, then the police informs the public prosecutor's

11     office that they have established the identity of the perpetrator or the

12     suspect, then the entry is transferred from the KTN log-book to the KT

13     log-book; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.  There were -- some things were unclear, so we should

16     assist the Trial Chamber.  Concerning criminal offence 172 and 177 or

17     under -- that fall under Articles 172 and 177 of the Criminal Code of

18     SFRY -- or rather, the SR BiH, the -- as regards the differences between

19     Articles 172 and 177 of the Criminal Code of the S R BiH is that Article

20     177, which you say you relied on, describes a criminal offence with a --

21     with serious consequences; correct?

22        A.   Yes, that's what I explained.

23        Q.   So the so-called elements of the crime are identical in

24     Article 172 and Article 177 only that serious consequences are included

25     in Article 177.  So that is the specific difference that makes a criminal

Page 15040

 1     offence come under Article 177; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, and that's what I explained.

 3        Q.   Mr. Olmsted on page 12 of today's transcript, line 14 and 24,

 4     showed to you KT 177 [as interpreted] from 1992 against one Mile

 5     Stanojevic.  That's the revised appendix 2 --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Appendix 9, issue 2.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Do you remember?

 9             MR. OLMSTED:  And just to clarify again for the record, I believe

10     under issue 2 this is KT 157/92.  I think she misspoke when she said 177.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, 157/92.

12        Q.   Can you see it, Madam?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   The question my learned friend asked you was about the last entry

15     in the table where it says that the investigation was suspended on 12 May

16     1993, and the document is self-explanatory in this sense.  If the

17     perpetrator of a crime dies, we're talking about an identified person

18     whose name is Mile Stanojevic, so this Mile Stanojevic commits a crime, a

19     criminal report is filed, but the investigation was suspended in 1993.

20     I'm interested in the following:  Is the investigation suspended when the

21     accused or the suspect dies?

22        A.   The investigation is suspended.  I didn't review the case file.

23     I just collected information from the log-books which showed that a

24     criminal report was filed against Mile Stanojevic, that the injured party

25     was Fadil, that the offence was committed on 5 August 1992, and that the

Page 15041

 1     criminal charges were brought under Article 148, paragraph 1.  But I

 2     don't have information about the reasons why the investigation was

 3     suspended.  If I had had the case file, I could have answered your

 4     question.  An investigation is suspended when the public prosecutor makes

 5     a proposal to the investigating judge to suspend the investigation.

 6     Possible reasons are the death of the perpetrators or that the suspect

 7     did not commit the offence, but that's information I didn't have.

 8     However, this column reads only investigation suspended and the relevant

 9     date.

10        Q.   Thank you.  That's what I wanted to clarify.  Let us return to

11     revised annex 9, issue 3.  If I remember correctly, that's page 34 of

12     this document.  That's the previous document that we saw.  We can see

13     from this overview of statistical data that between April and 31st of

14     December, 1992, the basic public prosecutor's office in Teslic received a

15     total of 144 criminal reports.  That is 132 against known perpetrators

16     and 12 against unknown perpetrators; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   But your reservation was that it was possible that a certain

19     number of criminal reports was filed against perpetrators who are minors,

20     but since you did not review the relevant log-books you couldn't say any

21     more about that; correct?

22        A.   I did not review KTM log-books.  Whatever I say would be my

23     assumptions, but I'm not supposed to assume.  I can only speak about what

24     I saw.

25        Q.   So you will agree with me that a short answer to my question will

Page 15042

 1     be yes?

 2        A.   There are minor offenders anywhere, so we can assume as much, but

 3     it wouldn't be fair to state anything based on assumptions.

 4        Q.   But I repeat, the answer to my question is yes.  You did not

 5     review KTM log-books and that is why it is possible that there is a

 6     number of reports against minor perpetrators?

 7        A.   I cannot comment because I did not consult the KTM log-books,

 8     so -- which are for minor perpetrators.

 9        Q.   You explained here that your statistics are based on the number

10     of criminal reports.  I believe that you explained, but for the sake of

11     complete clarity of the transcript let me summarise that one criminal

12     report can be filed against a greater number of perpetrators; correct?

13        A.   Yes.  So a criminal report can be filed against one perpetrator,

14     but also for 50 perpetrators in the same case.

15        Q.   Let us reconfirm.  One criminal report can be filed against one

16     perpetrator for several offences, that is either one offence or several;

17     and likewise, it can be filed against several perpetrators for one

18     offence or several offences; is that correct?

19        A.   That is correct.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, to be totally complete, several

21     criminal reports can be filed against one and the same perpetrator; is

22     that right, Madam?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is right.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 15043

 1        Q.   But when several criminal reports are filed against one and the

 2     same perpetrator, then each criminal report is for a different offence;

 3     correct?

 4        A.   It can be the same criminal offence, but it can be about several

 5     offences.  It all depends on what the perpetrator has done.

 6        Q.   I know.  But if, for example, Petar Petrovic is the suspect for

 7     murder and one criminal report is filed against him for murder and the

 8     public prosecutor's office receives another criminal report against the

 9     same person for the same offence, then you wouldn't enter both criminal

10     reports but only one; right?

11        A.   The first criminal report is entered under one item number, and

12     if another report comes in against the same person for the same offence

13     it is entered in the case file, the same file.

14        Q.   So if one criminal report is already filed against one

15     perpetrator for one offence, all possible subsequent criminal reports for

16     the same offence against the same perpetrator would become part of the

17     same case file; correct?

18        A.   If it's the very same event, yes.  But if we're talking about

19     different events, then it all depends on the -- on the stage of the

20     procedure in which the previous case is at the time.

21        Q.   I think that one more thing remained insufficiently clear.  I'm

22     referring to page 22, I believe, where there was discussion about

23     criminal offences under Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY and

24     that is serving in an enemy army.

25             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show us 65 ter

Page 15044

 1     10130, that's tab 159 of the Defence binder.  While we're waiting, I need

 2     Article 119.  The page reference is 60 and the ERN number is 0025-3452.

 3        Q.   While we're waiting for the document to appear, Madam, it's a

 4     fact that the RS took over the Criminal Code of the SFRY; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   If you know, tell me, isn't it true that the Criminal Code of the

 7     SFRY was also applied in the territories controlled by the Muslim and

 8     Croat forces, which is the territory of nowadays Federation?

 9        A.   Well, I don't know which laws and regulations they took over.  I

10     know how we went about it in the RS, which laws we took over and so on.

11        Q.   We see Article 119 here, which describes the criminal offence of

12     serving in an enemy army; correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Tell me, do you know whether the courts and prosecutor's offices

15     in the Federation submitted criminal reports against citizens of Serbian

16     ethnicity under the same article, namely for their belonging to the RS

17     army?

18        A.   I'm not aware of that.

19        Q.   To clarify for the benefit of the Court the documents that get

20     entered into K TA log-book, let me show to you two documents from Doboj.

21     The first one is 1D01-0315, tab 157.  As you can see, Madam, this is a

22     memo by the security services centre Doboj.  The date is the 25th of

23     August, 1992.  The document is signed by the chief of the centre,

24     Andrija Bjelosevic.  This is an accompanying letter and it is stated that

25     it's -- that attached is the on-site investigation report and the

Page 15045

 1     interview of the witnesses.  The prosecutor's office in Doboj is informed

 2     about a certain event, namely, that an anti-tank mine was blown off which

 3     resulted in death of Hodzic Sejfudin.  A driver Bozidar Vidovic received

 4     injuries.  There were some other people injured as well.  The injured

 5     parties are people of both Muslim and Serb ethnicity; am I right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   This type of document would normally be entered into the KTA

 8     log-book of the prosecutor's office; am I right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In essence, the prosecutor's office on the basis of such a memo

11     received by the CSB, the prosecutor's office has information about the

12     event only; am I right?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, unless there are any

15     objections, I would like to tender this document.

16             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, Your Honours, I'm not sure why it's

17     particularly relevant to this case.  I mean, the witness doesn't know

18     anything about this particular event and I think he's shown it to another

19     witness and basically the witness is giving the same general answers

20     about procedures.  I think the procedure is established; the relevance of

21     the document itself is not.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, what -- how does this document assist?

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, the position of

24     the Defence is that the work of the police is completed at the moment

25     when documents concerning a certain event is submitted to the relevant

Page 15046

 1     prosecutor's office, and the purpose of tendering this document was to

 2     show an example of the procedure.

 3             MR. OLMSTED:  Well --

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, I thought that we were exploring

 5     reports relating to Article 119.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I believed, Your Honours, that it

 7     was sufficient to have shown the SFRY Criminal Code, where one could find

 8     an explanation as to substance of a crime under Article 119.  I don't

 9     have any other interest here except by using the assistance of the

10     witness to explain the situation.  But if you wish me to do so we can go

11     and elaborate it to the smallest details, but I move to a different topic

12     really.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I missed that and I apologise for that.  I

14     thought actually that this memo from Doboj was supposed to illustrate one

15     of the 15 reports that were --

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- included in the schedule put together by the

18     witness.  But if that is not the case, then what is it that you seek to

19     show with this memo?

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in accordance with

21     Rule 90(H), this document would be relevant for the Defence case.

22     Through the assistance of the witness, I'm attempting to enter a document

23     as an illustration of the fact that the CSB reports basic public

24     prosecutor's office in charge of the territory in question about events.

25     The question here is whether this case was transferred either to the KT

Page 15047

 1     or the KTN log-books because what we have here is a case of an anti-tank

 2     mine.  A vehicle hit the mine and one person got killed and several -- or

 3     all together three persons were injured.  So I believe that in that sense

 4     it's relevant for our case.

 5             MR. OLMSTED:  Your Honours, the witness has identified this case

 6     in her annexes, so the fact that this particular event occurred or this

 7     document was filed with the prosecutor's office is in her annexes under I

 8     believe it's KTA 74/92.  Now, if the Defence is claiming that this case

 9     resulted in eventually the police filing a criminal report, then they

10     should produce the criminal report of that.  The fact that it is in her

11     report under issue number 4, she's indicated that implies that there was

12     no criminal report filed in that matter -- or at least the log-books did

13     not indicate that a criminal report was filed for that matter.

14             JUDGE HALL:  What I was going to ask is whether in terms of the

15     procedure, which as I understand it was the purpose of your seeking to

16     tender this in support of the -- what you are showing the procedure to

17     be, isn't it sufficient that we have the testimony of this witness and

18     other witnesses in that regard and the illustration of this particular

19     incident notwithstanding its being cross-referenced in the annexes to the

20     present witness's report.  It doesn't advance the clarity of the matter

21     for the benefit of the Trial Chamber.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my idea precisely was

23     to show by giving you an example, to show you something that both this

24     witness and some other witnesses demonstrated, namely, that such an event

25     could be found logged in the KTA log-book.  I just wanted to help the

Page 15048

 1     Trial Chamber see what this was really about.  In the KTA log-book you

 2     can only find several details and numbers, but if you believe all this is

 3     superfluous I will not insist and ask for tendering this document.

 4             MR. OLMSTED:  The Prosecution doesn't dispute that this case --

 5     that this document or at least this event was recorded in the KTA

 6     log-book for Doboj.  As I indicated, it's in her annex, and therefore if

 7     it's in her annex, the Prosecution will agree that the prosecution

 8     receives something from the police with regard to this case.  In this

 9     case it was just an Official Note about an event.

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That is precisely the essence of

11     this, Your Honours.  This is the essence.  Tomorrow the Prosecutor will

12     say in their final argument that the police informed the prosecutor's

13     office about this event, that the event was entered into the KTA

14     log-book, and then police stopped taking any actions in relation to this

15     case.  This is why I'm using this specific example, showing that there

16     was nothing to do.  How can police determine where did the anti-tank mine

17     come from, who placed it, and so forth?  Well, it is possible to do so,

18     but that would involve enormous resources and take a lot of time.  That

19     is the essence of our case here, namely, in showing you specific examples

20     and documents related to them.

21             MR. OLMSTED:  Well, I'll agree with -- Your Honours, I'll agree

22     with Mr. Zecevic's statement that to find out whether this was a crime it

23     would require the police to do further investigation.  I think that's

24     obvious.  But I ask that Mr. Zecevic again refrain from characterising

25     the Prosecution's case, particularly in front of a witness, because I

Page 15049

 1     don't think he knows necessarily our case inside and out and what our

 2     arguments eventually will be.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  I think we can move on.  It still seems to me that

 4     the narrative of the events that forms the indictment in this trial, that

 5     something like this is at best a footnote.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Madam, the KTA log-books, what was entered into

 8     them was not only the Official Notes by the internal affairs organs nor

 9     only on-site investigation reports, it also included information the

10     prosecutor's office received from citizens in regard to certain events;

11     am I right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   The public prosecutor's office, they -- there are two main

14     documents regulating it, one is the Criminal Code and the other one is

15     the Law on Public Prosecutor's Office.

16        A.   Yes.  It was the Law of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law of

17     Public Prosecutors, but there were other laws.

18        Q.   I agree with you.  You will agree with me that the Law on

19     Criminal Proceeding in Article 17 provided for the criminal procedure to

20     be initiated upon the request of the public prosecutor?

21        A.   For such crimes that are dealt with ex officio.

22        Q.   And for other crimes, it was the injured party who could be the

23     party that launches the proceedings; am I right?

24        A.   I believe in such cases one would file a private lawsuit, if I

25     remember it correctly.

Page 15050

 1        Q.   I agree that this was called private criminal complaint, but this

 2     kind of document, complaint or lawsuit, would rather be the first stage

 3     of the criminal proceeding?

 4        A.   But that was independent of the prosecutor.

 5        Q.   Independently in relation to the public prosecutor; am I right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   It is a fact that the Law on Criminal Proceeding in Articles 45

 8     to 51 devotes one whole chapter to public prosecutor; am I right in

 9     saying that?

10        A.   As far as I remember the provisions, yes.  It's been a while

11     since I've used that law so I may be wrong in giving you answers about

12     that.

13        Q.   You will remember just general postulates from the provisions

14     where in Article 45 it was prescribed that the public prosecutor is in

15     charge of crimes that are dealt with ex officio, including taking

16     measures in determining the crime, finding the perpetrator, and directing

17     the pre-trial criminal proceeding; is that correct?

18        A.   You skipped paragraph 1 where you're saying that basic rights and

19     duties of public prosecutor is to prosecute those crimes that are dealt

20     with ex officio.  You read paragraph 2, but you skipped paragraph 1

21     where it is stated that the basic task of the public prosecutor is to

22     prosecute those crimes that are prosecuted ex officio.  I do not have the

23     law before me, so I cannot give you a full interpretation.  You have it

24     so you can confirm it.  And in paragraph 2, yes, what you just read

25     that's what is stated.

Page 15051

 1        Q.   Correct, Madam.  Your memory serves you right when it comes to

 2     these regulations.  What I read out to you, paragraph 2, item 1, because

 3     I want to ask you the following question or a question.  So we agree that

 4     the public prosecutor under paragraph 1, item -- paragraph 2, item 1

 5     takes necessary action to detect crimes and identify perpetrators and

 6     take measures to direct the pre-trial criminal proceedings.

 7             Could you please explain the meaning of this formulation in the

 8     law directing the pre-trial criminal proceedings, but very briefly.

 9        A.   It depends on a case.  Once the prosecutor informs what he has

10     available and what he needs to obtain what the organs of the interior

11     need to do, what kind of steps they need to take.

12        Q.   Which means when the prosecutor receives information or criminal

13     report, then he, according to the law, directs and indicates the

14     direction in which certain facts should be established by the organs of

15     the interior, i.e., the police; right?

16        A.   Yes.  In many cases that's how it is and in many other cases the

17     police itself once it learns that a crime was committed does it on its

18     own because this is their duty under the law.  Once a crime is committed

19     for which persecution needs to take place under the law, then the police

20     is duty-bound to take certain steps.  And I think that this is regulated

21     by Article 151.  The police is duty-bound to do certain steps, regardless

22     of the steps taken by the prosecutor.

23        Q.   However, if the police takes all these steps and they don't

24     provide expected results, then the prosecutor can direct the police to do

25     certain other steps, to conduct other checks, or obtain some other

Page 15052

 1     evidence.  The prosecutor is entitled to do that; right?

 2        A.   I can give you a very brief explanation.  Once a criminal report

 3     is filed against an unknown perpetrator, the police until that time has

 4     done everything it was able to do.  And then it sends the report to the

 5     prosecutor against unknown perpetrator.  The last sentence in every

 6     criminal report reads that in addition to everything that is enclosed

 7     with that report, the police will continue working on establishing the

 8     identity of the perpetrator.  And if they manage to do that, then they

 9     will send a criminal report against the known perpetrator.  However, if

10     something else was recorded in the KTA log-book and the prosecutor while

11     working on the case believes that police or somebody else needs to take

12     additional steps, then the prosecutor can direct them to go and collect

13     statements or conduct other steps.  This is the kind of direction that

14     the prosecutor can give in pre-trial proceedings to the police.  However,

15     if the prosecutor establishes that the police has done everything it was

16     able to do until that point in time, then there is no need for them to do

17     anything else and they can perhaps have a phone call and conclude that

18     the police has done everything it was able to do in that particular case

19     until that time.  It just all depends on the particular case.

20        Q.   When the prosecutor's office conducts work on a certain case,

21     when they're working on collecting evidence that would enable the

22     prosecutor to draft the indictment properly and to have sufficient

23     evidence to support the indictment, then the prosecutor gives certain

24     instructions or sends requests to police to obtain certain evidence, such

25     as to carry out a forensic analysis or additional forensic analysis or to

Page 15053

 1     carry out a ballistic examination or something of that kind; right?

 2        A.   I have already explained this.  If the prosecutor establishes

 3     that something else is needed in the file, then he can ask that

 4     additional statements be obtained or other additional steps be taken, and

 5     this comes all under Article 152 of the Law on Criminal Procedure.

 6        Q.   I think you said Article 153, paragraph 2, and the transcript

 7     reflects Article 152.

 8        A.   Yes, that's correct.  As far as I can remember, I think it's

 9     Article 153, paragraph 2.  Perhaps my memory is not what it should be.

10        Q.   No, you're absolutely right.  It's 153, paragraph 2.  However,

11     paragraph 3 of that same article of the Law on Criminal Procedure says as

12     follows and gives the following authorisation to the prosecutor.  It

13     says:

14             "Public prosecutor can seek the necessary information from state

15     organs, from organisations of associated labour, other organisations and

16     associations, and can also for that purpose send a request to the person

17     who submitted the relevant criminal report."

18             Right?

19        A.   Yes, all of that is fully correct.

20        Q.   And in accordance with the role of the public prosecutor, as

21     defined by the constitution and the law, all of these state organs, all

22     of the individuals and organisations were duty-bound to act pursuant to

23     the request sent out by the public prosecutor; right?

24        A.   Yes.  If they were able to act upon the request of the

25     prosecutor.

Page 15054

 1        Q.   I will remind you of Article 16 which says that:

 2             "The public prosecutor's office is entitled to receive from

 3     courts and other organs and entities all documents and information that

 4     are necessary for the public prosecutor to act within its competence."

 5             The last paragraph says that:

 6             "Organs and individuals from paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article

 7     are duty-bound to act pursuant to the requests sent out by the

 8     prosecutor."

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   When I said Article 16 I failed to say that I was referring to

11     the law on public prosecutor's office, and the law on public prosecutor's

12     office is 1D04-2985.  Unfortunately we are still missing the translation

13     of this law, but as soon as we have the translation we will file it into

14     our law library and we have already agreed on this with the Prosecution.

15             JUDGE HALL:  While you are paused, Mr. Zecevic, the hour and a

16     half you indicated would run until noon, but in any event for the usual

17     technical reasons we cannot sit beyond 12.10 so that you would indicate

18     around noon whether we should come back after usual break or whether at

19     that point we will take the adjournment until tomorrow.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I can give you my answer right now.

21     I'm going to lead the cross-examination until noon and then I propose

22     that we adjourn for tomorrow and I will finish the rest of my

23     cross-examination tomorrow.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Very well.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

Page 15055

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Now let us go back once again to the Law on

 2     Criminal Procedure.  Just a minute.  I need to find it.  That's P120, tab

 3     152.  No need to show it on the screen.  I just want your comment,

 4     please.  It seems that you have very good memory of the Law on Criminal

 5     Procedure which was in force at the time.  Since you have mentioned the

 6     case of -- or rather, the case of unknown perpetrators, I would like to

 7     remind you of Article 152 -- 155 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, which

 8     envisioned that:

 9             "In cases when the perpetrator is unknown, public prosecutor can

10     request from the organs of the interior to take certain investigative

11     steps should that be deemed useful and that they can ask for this even

12     before an investigation is initiated."

13             Further on:

14             "If the public prosecutor believes that an investigative judge

15     needs to take certain steps or if he believes that an autopsy or

16     exhumation of a corpse needs to be conducted, the prosecutor will --

17     shall propose to the investigative judge to do that."

18             Correct?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   In accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure, the

21     investigative judge could disagree with the proposal advanced by the

22     public prosecutor, proposal to conduct such investigative action?

23        A.   He could disagree with the request of the public prosecutor to

24     launch an investigation.  Now you're talking about just investigative

25     step.  I'm not sure whether he could disagree with the request to conduct

Page 15056

 1     certain investigative steps.  I'm not entirely sure of that.  When it

 2     comes to initiating an investigation, then I'm sure that you're right;

 3     but when it comes to just certain investigative steps, I'm not fully

 4     sure.

 5        Q.   I will read you, this is Article 155, paragraph 1, the last

 6     sentence.  This is the Law on Criminal Procedure of the SFRY.  So the

 7     last sentence reads:

 8             "If the investigative judge disagrees with this proposal, he

 9     shall request that the chamber rule on this."

10        A.   Are you referring to an investigation or just individual

11     investigative steps?

12        Q.   Madam, please focus.  Article 155 reads, let me read it in its

13     entirety:

14             "If the public prosecutor believes that certain investigative

15     steps need to be taken by the investigative judge or if there is a need

16     to perform an autopsy or exhumation of a corpse, the public prosecutor

17     shall propose to the investigative judge to undertake that step.  If the

18     investigative judge disagrees with that proposal, then he will request

19     that a chamber rule on it."

20             In parenthesis it says:  "Article 23, paragraph 6."

21        A.   Yes, yes.  You are right I have forgotten about this, and as I

22     told you I don't remember all of the articles of the old Law on Criminal

23     Procedure.

24        Q.   So a special Trial Chamber ruled in these situations according to

25     the Law on Criminal Procedure, these situations when the prosecutor

Page 15057

 1     proposes to the investigative judge to do something and the judge

 2     disagrees with that proposal.  In such cases, a special Trial Chamber

 3     comprising three judges would rule on this, make a final ruling on this

 4     proposal of the prosecutor; right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Very briefly about the structure of the prosecutor's office.

 7     That's where we will conclude for today.  I'm referring now to 1992

 8     because that's the year that's relevant for this case.  The structure of

 9     the prosecutor's office was as follows.  There was a republic public

10     prosecutor at the level of the republic, then there were district public

11     prosecutors that worked with the district courts in their jurisdiction,

12     and then there were first-instance or basic prosecutors that worked

13     within the jurisdiction of the basic courts in the territory of the

14     republic; right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   In 1992 and I think to this day as well, there is a very clear

17     hierarchy in the office of the prosecutor.  The republic prosecutor is at

18     the top, and then below him we have district prosecutors or higher

19     prosecutors, and then basic prosecutors at the -- basic or junior

20     prosecutors at the lowest level; right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Each of these three prosecutor's offices had an identical

23     internal organisation.  At the head of the prosecutor's office there is a

24     public prosecutor who has one first deputy and then several additional

25     deputies.  That's how it was at the level of the republic, at the

Page 15058

 1     district level, and at the basic level; right?

 2        A.   It depends on the size of the prosecutor's office.

 3        Q.   When you say that it depends on the size of the prosecutor's

 4     office, you mean that it can happen that at the basic level, at the

 5     lowest level, they have just one prosecutor and one deputy and not

 6     several deputies.  Is that what you meant?

 7        A.   Yes, and that's how it could be at the middle level or at the

 8     highest level.  It just depends.

 9        Q.   Well, as far as I know it was a rare occasion where a republic

10     prosecutor's office would only have one prosecutor and one deputy and not

11     several deputies.  Have you -- are you familiar with any such instance

12     as -- because you said that you've been a prosecutor since 1976 or so?

13        A.   Well, you mentioned the years 1992 and 1993.  And at that time

14     I'm not sure whether there was only one prosecutor at the republic level

15     or several, and whereas we at the district level in Trebinje -- there was

16     one prosecutor, one deputy, and several second deputies.  So it all

17     depended on the resources and on needs.

18        Q.   In 1992 you were appointed senior prosecutor in Trebinje; correct

19     ?

20        A.   Yes, in 1992 it was called senior public prosecutor.

21        Q.   And your appointment, if I remember correctly, was in early

22     August 1992?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   The higher prosecutor's office in Trebinje which was headed by

25     you in 1992 had under its jurisdiction the basic prosecutor's offices in

Page 15059

 1     Trebinje, Ljubinje, Bileca, Gacko, Nevesinje, correct, Berkovici?

 2        A.   You now mentioned the municipalities that were covered.  There

 3     was a -- there was one higher prosecutor's office and three basic

 4     prosecutor's offices.  There was Trebinje, Bileca, Gacko, Nevesinje,

 5     Berkovici.  Actually, I'm not sure about Nevesinje.  Possibly in the

 6     early days Nevesinje didn't have a basic prosecutor's office.  I'm not

 7     sure when it was up and running, possible a couple of months later.

 8        Q.   Just one question, if you remember.  Was the jurisdiction of the

 9     public prosecutor's offices in Trebinje extended to cover the

10     municipalities of Visegrad and Foca?

11        A.   Foca belonged to Trebinje, but I don't think that Visegrad ever

12     did.  Trnovo did for a while, that municipality, together with Foca,

13     Kalinovik, and Cajnice.  But I don't think that Visegrad was ever under

14     the jurisdiction of the Trebinje prosecutor's office as far as I

15     remember.  And Trnovo didn't remain under our jurisdiction for long

16     either; it was soon transferred to Sarajevo.  I'm not quite certain, but

17     the CSB for a while had jurisdiction also over Foca and Visegrad, but

18     that was soon changed; however, Foca in terms of the jurisdiction of the

19     prosecutor's office there was under Trebinje.

20        Q.   I just have a few more questions and then we can finish.

21     Article 17 of the Law on the Public Prosecutor's Office --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please repeat the reference.

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  It's document

24     1D04-2985.

25        Q.   Article 17 explains the hierarchy within the public prosecutor's

Page 15060

 1     office, and it says:

 2             "The higher or senior public prosecutor," which was your position

 3     in 1992, "has the right and the duty to give binding instructions from

 4     work to the subordinate public prosecutor and in addition to that can

 5     conduct -- perform several activities from the jurisdiction of the junior

 6     public prosecutor.  He can authorise the junior public prosecutor to act

 7     upon certain cases from the jurisdiction of the junior prosecutor, then

 8     he can authorise the junior public prosecutor to perform certain duties

 9     from the jurisdiction of another junior prosecutor."

10             Let us clarify this.  If you wish, I can give you a copy of the

11     law for you to be able to control what I'm reading out.

12        A.   There is no need to.

13        Q.   So you agree that this was the text that I read out?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   This basically means that the senior public prosecutor can order

16     a junior public prosecutor, and let's assume that you are a senior

17     prosecutor and there is a junior prosecutor in Bileca, let's say.  And

18     you can order him or give him binding instructions for his work or order

19     him to perform certain activities; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   As senior prosecutor, you also have the authority to -- I'm using

22     "you" for the sake of argument.  I don't want to insinuate anything.  As

23     senior prosecutor you can remove a case from a junior prosecutor and task

24     another junior prosecutor to act on it or to deal with it; correct?

25        A.   Yes, but only if there are reasons for that, not if it's a whim

Page 15061

 1     of mine.

 2        Q.   Well, yes, certainly there must be reasons.  If you're

 3     dissatisfied with their work, that is the work of one prosecutor, you can

 4     remove a case from them and transfer it to another and give instructions

 5     as to what should be done; correct?

 6        A.   Yes, but it didn't happen in our practice.  It didn't happen, but

 7     it was possible under the law.

 8        Q.   So in your personal practice it didn't happen, I suppose because

 9     you were satisfied with the work of your subordinate prosecutors?

10        A.   I said that it didn't happen in our practice.  There were only

11     cases when the junior prosecutor or his deputy asked to be recused

12     because they couldn't work on a certain case, and then I would task

13     another prosecutor from our jurisdiction to deal with that case.

14        Q.   So let us shorten this.  You as senior prosecutor have the

15     authority to do what we have spoken about and which is provided for by

16     Article 17, but you as senior prosecutor did not exercise your right --

17     that right in your practice or did so relatively rarely when the

18     prosecutor himself would apply for -- to be recused?

19        A.   As far as I remember, that's how it was.

20        Q.   And here's my last question:  This same Article 17, paragraph 2,

21     reads that:

22             "The senior public prosecutor can take over criminal prosecution

23     from the jurisdiction of a subordinate prosecutor ..." and it goes on to

24     enumerate what the senior prosecutor is entitled to do.  But the essence

25     is that you as senior prosecutor, if you are dissatisfied with the work

Page 15062

 1     of any subordinate prosecutor, you have the authority to remove a case

 2     from their jurisdiction and decide to have the senior prosecutor's office

 3     to deal with that case; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Since I will be moving to another unknown territory

 6     at the moment, I suppose we can take a break -- adjourn for the day and

 7     continue tomorrow.  Thank you very much.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

 9             In my inquiries -- thank you, Mr. Zecevic, you may -- in my

10     inquiries as to the -- how we were proceeding, I apologise that I

11     neglected to inquire of counsel for Zupljanin as to how they were

12     positioned to deal with cross-examination of this witness.  But I advise

13     that they are in a position to begin their cross-examination today,

14     interposing in the cross-examination of Mr. Zecevic.  Am I correctly

15     advised, Mr. Krgovic?

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since Mr. Zecevic

17     have mostly covered what we wanted to deal with, we're basically left

18     with only such matters as are included in the amendments.  So we are not

19     in a position to start our cross-examination today.  So what will be left

20     unresolved once Mr. Zecevic has finished will be dealt with us, but we

21     would like to avoid going over the same things twice.

22             JUDGE HALL:  So in that case, we would take the adjournment until

23     2.15 tomorrow afternoon.  Thank you.

24             The -- Ms. Gacinovic, I would remind you that you, having been

25     sworn as a witness, cannot have any contact with counsel from either

Page 15063

 1     side.  You are excused for the day because we are about to take the

 2     adjournment as you would have gathered, to resume at 2.15 tomorrow.  And

 3     in addition to such -- you're not being able to communicate with counsel,

 4     in such discussions as you may have with anyone else outside of the

 5     courtroom, you cannot discuss your testimony.

 6             So with that we would rise and resume in this courtroom at 2.15

 7     tomorrow afternoon.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.04 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day of

10                           September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.