1 Thursday, 30 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
6 everybody in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Good afternoon to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
11 Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic, appearing
14 for Stanisic Defence.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
16 Igor Pantelic, Aleksandar Aleksic, and Jason Antley for Zupljanin
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 And if there are no housekeeping matters, may the witness be
20 escorted back to the stand, please.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE HALL: Good afternoon to you, ma'am. Before counsel for --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
1 JUDGE HALL: -- the accused Stanisic continues his
2 cross-examination, I would remind you, you're still on your oath.
3 WITNESS: SLOBODANKA GACINOVIC [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Madam.
9 Madam, yesterday we mentioned the Law on Criminal Procedure of
10 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which was applied in 1992.
11 So I would like to comment Article 153 with you. For the benefit of the
12 Trial Chamber, this is document which in this case is marked P120 and
13 it's under tab 152 in the Defence binder.
14 I will read out you to the text of Article 153, paragraph 1. It
16 "The public prosecutor will refuse to deal with a criminal report
17 if, from the -- if it follows from the criminal report that the offence
18 committed" -- I apologise. I see here that the reference in the
19 transcript is 152. However, I'm reading Article 153, paragraph 1. So I
20 will continue:
21 "... if it follows from the report itself that the act reported
22 is not a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio, if the statute of
23 limitation applies or if the act is covered by amnesty or pardon, or if
24 there are other circumstances which make prosecution impossible, the
25 public prosecutor will inform the injured party of the rejection of the
1 criminal report and of the reasons for that within eight days, reference
2 to Article 60, and if a body of the -- of the Ministry of Interior
3 submitted the report, that body will also be informed."
4 Do you remember that Article of the Law on Criminal Procedure,
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Let me just explain. If you, as a public prosecutor, for certain
8 reasons establish that there are no grounds for initiating criminal
9 procedure and reject the criminal report, then you are duty-bound to
10 inform the injured party accordingly. The injured party in -- in every
11 case. And if the criminal report was filed by the police, then both the
12 injured party and the police must be informed; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And then, within the set deadline, I believe it was eight days,
15 that injured party has the right to file an appropriate act with the
16 court that has jurisdiction in the capacity of subsidiary prosecutor to
17 initiate criminal proceedings, the -- although the criminal report was
18 rejected by the public prosecutor's office; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. After filing such an act, such a document, which was done by the
21 injured party, then the court that has jurisdiction is duty-bound to act
22 upon it; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. But if I may explain.
24 If the injured party within eight days from the reception of the
25 notification by the public prosecutor, that criminal report so-and-so was
1 rejected, so if the deadline was met, then the court will request from
2 the public prosecutor that the case file be forwarded to them. I would
3 like that -- that was an amendment because paragraph 1 does not outline
4 what the prosecutor's office must do in such a case.
5 Q. Thank you for that clarification.
6 So the public prosecutor's office, upon the request of the court,
7 submits the entire case file to the court if the injured party initiated
8 criminal prosecution in the capacity of subsidiary prosecutor.
9 Let me read to you paragraph 2 of Article 153. It says:
10 "If ... the public prosecutor cannot draw conclusion based on the
11 criminal report itself, if the alleged -- of the allegations in the
12 criminal report are likely or if the information contained therein is --
13 doesn't constitute sufficient grounds for a decision whether an
14 investigation must be launched, or, if the public prosecutor has only --
15 has hearsay evidence of the commitment of a criminal offence, especially
16 if the perpetrator is unknown, then the public prosecutor, if he cannot
17 do it himself or through other bodies, will request the bodies of the
18 Ministry of the Interior to collect necessary information and take other
19 measures to detect the criminal offence and its perpetrator. Reference
20 to Articles 151 and Article 152."
21 And now the last sentence:
22 "The public prosecutor can always request the bodies of the
23 Ministry of the Interior to inform him of the measures taken by them."
24 Do you remember these provisions of the Law on Criminal
25 Procedure, Madam?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So in cases where -- let's envisage a certain scenario, the
3 public prosecutor hears rumours that a criminal offence has been
4 committed, then the public prosecutor will act himself and act
5 autonomously, if he can. If not, he will request assistance from the
6 police and other bodies to supply additional information to enable him to
7 initiate criminal proceedings; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And, as we have seen, apart from the right to make that request,
10 you also have the right to request information on all measures taken by
11 other bodies and services, with regard to your request; is that correct?
12 A. Yes. But let me give some clarification.
13 If the police doesn't act upon the request of the public
14 prosecutor to collect information, and the public prosecutor sometimes
15 requests urgent action or action within a set deadline, then the public
16 prosecutor will make -- will send an urgent reminder to the police to
18 Q. At any rate, yesterday we commented that, under the law, the
19 police and all other agencies and services were duty-bound to act upon
20 the request of the public prosecutor; correct?
21 A. Certainly. And if they don't do so, they are duty-bound to
22 inform the public prosecutor of the reasons for that, failing to act.
23 Q. Thank you for this clarification. I believe that now the Bench
24 is better acquainted with the subject matter.
25 I would like to interpret another provision for you. It's
1 Article 18 from the Law on Public Prosecutor's Offices. That's document
2 1D04-2985. I said yesterday that once we get a translation of that law,
3 we will insert it into the legal library, the law library. And it can
4 you found under tab 153 of the Defence binder. So I'm about to read out
5 Article 18:
6 "A binding instruction as used in this law is considered to be
7 instructions of general nature with regard to the work and the activities
8 of public prosecutor's offices as well as instructions for taking action
9 in individual cases."
10 And it goes on to say:
11 "Binding instructions of a general nature are issued by the
12 public prosecutor of the Republic."
13 Do you remember these provisions of Article 18, Madam?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Madam, binding instructions of general nature are issued first
16 and foremost by the public prosecutor of the Republic, we have just seen.
17 And these are instructions of a general type that apply to all public
18 prosecutor's offices in the territory where the -- the public prosecutor
19 of that Republic has jurisdiction; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, and quite normally so.
21 Q. That's in line with the hierarchy that's at the foundation of the
22 institution of public prosecutor's offices; I agree with you. But apart
23 from these binding instructions of general nature, there are also binding
24 instructions for acting in individual cases, and perhaps we can
25 illustrate this with an example.
1 You, as a senior prosecutor, based on this provision, were able
2 to give binding instructions to a subordinate prosecutor with regard to
3 an entire case which he or she deals with; isn't that correct?
4 A. Under the law, yes; if there should be a need to issue such an
5 instruction for the -- that particular case.
6 Q. I agree fully. So if there should be a need to do so. If you
7 have information that makes it dissatisfied with the way your subordinate
8 prosecutor deals with that case, you can issue a binding instruction to
9 him or her and say you will qualify that offence as a serious offence or
10 you will also indict additional persons, and so on and so forth; is that
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Thank you for this clarification, Madam.
14 Madam, I will now show you a document, P1318.23, which is in
15 tab 156.
16 This is a report on the work of the ministry and judicial organs
17 for period May to October 1992, and it is dated 16 November 1992.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And could we turn to page 2,
19 please, both in the English and in the Serbian version.
20 Q. Madam, what I'm interested in --
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I think we need the following page
22 in the English version. In the Serbian version, we need the last
23 paragraph, please. Thank you.
24 Q. You see here it says, under 1:
25 "Area of judiciary."
1 And then in the third paragraph, underneath the title reads:
2 "Judicial organs do not perform their functions with equal
3 efficiency and usefulness. The Supreme Court and the republican public
4 prosecutor's office have not begun to work yet, because" --
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please turn to the
6 following page in the Serbian.
7 Q. "Because the relevant personnel has not been elected or
8 appointed, as yet, and the premises for these organs have not been found
10 And then they go on to explain the situation further.
11 Is this your recollection also, that, in November, in
12 mid-November of 1992, the office of the republican prosecutor of
13 Republika Srpska had not yet started working?
14 A. To tell you the truth, I really don't know when the office of the
15 republican prosecutor started working. I know when we, as the district
16 prosecutor's office in Trebinje started working. As for the republican,
17 I don't know the date. I know who the first republican prosecutor was,
18 but I don't know when they started working. I'm simply not sure.
19 Q. All right. Can you tell us what is the name of the first
20 republican prosecutor?
21 A. Miroslav Gladanjac, as far as I can remember. But I truly don't
22 know when they started working, or when he started working.
23 Q. And in relation to the district prosecutor's office in Trebinje
24 where you worked as prosecutor, you said that you know the date. Can you
25 please give us the date? You, yourself, were appointed on the 2nd of
1 August. That's what you told us yesterday. What about the prosecutor's
2 office in Trebinje? When did that office start working?
3 A. I was appointed on the 2nd of August as senior prosecutor, and
4 deputies were appointed on that day as well. So the senior or higher
5 prosecutor's office and the basic prosecutor's office were in the same
6 building, and I think that around that time we started working
7 immediately after the appointment, shortly thereafter. That's how I
8 remember it.
9 Q. So, most likely, sometime in August of 1992, the office of the
10 prosecutor started working, right?
11 A. Yes, we could say so. A couple of days later, or 10 to 15 days
12 later, thereabout.
13 Q. Are you familiar with the initiative launched by the Ministry of
14 Justice and general administration of Republika Srpska in early summer of
15 1992, initiative aimed at taking over the responsibilities and
16 jurisdiction of military courts by civilian courts.
17 Are you familiar with that initiative?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you know that the Ministry of Justice of Republika Srpska
20 pointed out that there was serious problems in the work and in the
21 process of establishing the rule of law, given that the military
22 judiciary and military prosecutor's office were not functioning in the
23 course of 1992?
24 A. I'm not familiar with that.
25 Q. Very well.
1 Madam, on page 19 of your statement, this is your statement of
2 the 3rd and 5th of April, and the 2nd of June, paragraph 85, where you
3 speak about the log-book of the basic prosecutor's office in Bijeljina.
4 And you say:
5 "In those log-book, I did not find a single criminal report for
6 offences committed in the territory of Bijeljina
7 fall under the annex of the indictment."
8 If you want, I can show you your statement.
9 A. No need for that, I can remember it.
10 Q. In the annexes to the indictment, not a single crime is listed
11 from the territory of the basic public prosecutor's office in Bijeljina,
12 except for the fact that the detention facility in Batkovici is
13 mentioned. So I don't know to which crimes you were referring in
14 paragraph 85 of your statement.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Perhaps to refresh her memory. I mean, we did have
16 appendix that lists by municipality all the crimes that she was looking
17 for there in indictment. This came up with another witness, ST-210, if
18 you want to bring that up. She can look at Bijeljina and see the types
19 of crimes she was looking for that fell within the scope of the schedules
20 of the indictment. I'm just offering this to assist in this line of
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Gladly.
23 Could Annex A be shown to the witness, Annex A of her statement.
24 I don't know what number it has in e-court, unfortunately. Just a
25 minute, please.
1 MR. OLMSTED: I can assist with that. It's under 65 ter 10528.
2 That's where the two appendices are located and Appendice [sic] A is the
3 one that contains all the crimes by municipality.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
5 Again, we need the last page, where Bijeljina municipality is.
6 Page 3 in e-court, in the Serbian version.
7 I apologise, I apologise, ERN 06777865. It's most likely page 13
8 or 14. My math is not my strongest side. Thank you.
9 Q. See here, Madam, we have Bijeljina here, killing of at least, and
10 so on, on the 24th of September, but as far as I know, we don't have this
11 in our indictment. And then the next item is Batkovici detention
12 facility, May to December 1992.
13 When you gave your statement, is that what you were referring to
14 in paragraph 85, these crimes? Is that what it was?
15 A. When I gave my statement, I followed what was written under
16 Bijeljina. September 1992, what's written there, and then what's written
17 concerning Batkovici, and then I checked our log-book to see whether any
18 entries were made that would match this. So this is the list that I was
19 guided by.
20 Q. Thank you. I didn't think it was your mistake at all.
21 Now tell me, please, Madam, do you know that the camp for
22 military prisoners of war was closed off for civilians. Civilians were
23 banned from entering it. Do you know about that?
24 A. I didn't know anything about it, whether entry was allowed or
1 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that if it's a military camp
2 for military prisoner of war, then it would be off-limits to everybody
3 else except for authorised military personnel, right?
4 A. That's what the regulations set forth, and regulations need to be
5 abided by.
6 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me, won't you, that in the
7 military camp of military prisoners of war, if a crime is committed
8 there, then a military prosecutor would have jurisdiction over that
9 crime, rather than a civilian one.
10 A. If that's what the law stipulates, then yes.
11 Q. But you're not sure what the law says about these cases, right?
12 A. The Law on Military Courts, as far as I can remember now, lists
13 item by item the crimes that the military courts have jurisdiction over.
14 In addition to that, there is a provision setting forth that the military
15 courts have jurisdiction for trials of prisoners of war, should they
16 commit a crime. However, I'm not sure when this Law on Military courts
17 entered into force. As soon as it did enter into force and as soon as
18 military courts were set up, they naturally had jurisdiction over such
20 Q. You must know that in the former SFRY there was a Law on Military
21 Courts, Law on Military Prosecutor's Office, and the entire organisation
22 of the military judiciary organs, the Law on Military Courts of the SFRY
23 dates back to 1987 --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1977.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And this is P1284.07.
1 Q. Do you remember that the law was adopted in 1977, the Law on
2 Military Courts, shortly after the Criminal Code of the SFRY was adopted?
3 A. Yes, I think that that's how it was, that the Law on Military
4 Courts was also adopted.
5 Q. It is a fact, isn't it, that Republika Srpska took over all
6 regulations of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which were
7 not contrary to the interests of the Republika Srpska and its people. Do
8 you remember that?
9 A. I would like to give a very brief explanation.
10 I'm not sure about this, whether the Criminal Code of Republika
11 Srpska was simply renamed. Because previously we had the Criminal Code
12 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and they took it over with just renaming it.
13 That applies to the general portion, as far as I can remember.
14 So the Law on Criminal Procedure remained unchanged for a while.
15 We had the general portion and then, in addition to that, we also had the
16 Criminal Code which was taken over and that was the former Criminal Code
17 of the SFRY.
18 Now, as for the Law on Criminal Procedure, it was also taken over
19 without any amendments. The Law on -- on Military Courts was, I think,
20 also published in the Official Gazette of Republika Srpska and that law
21 listed specifically the offences for which the military courts had
22 jurisdiction. That is to say, that these offences were not covered by
23 other courts.
24 Q. Thank you. Now I have just a couple of general questions.
25 In relation to the documents that you went over - KT, KTN and KTA
1 log-books - if my calculations are right, you went over log-books of 17
2 basic prosecutor's offices and two senior prosecutor's offices, one in
3 Doboj and one in Banja Luka. Do you remember that?
4 A. I think I also went over the Trebinje log-books. I think I also
5 checked Trebinje, Doboj, and Banja Luka; but in Trebinje, there were no
6 entries, relevant entries, so I did not enter any data into annexes.
7 Q. In your statement and in the annexes to your statement, you dealt
8 with the KTA log-books in cases where the injured parties were non-Serbs,
10 A. Yes, as far as I could infer from the information contained in
11 the log-books that somebody was a non-Serb. It wasn't always legible or
12 the name of the injured party wasn't always entered. So as far as I
13 could reconstruct from the information available, I did so.
14 Q. At any rate, the problem with reviewing these log-books lies with
15 the fact that you must take for granted what was entered. You must rely
16 on the person who entered the information so that much information can be
17 missing, right?
18 A. In most cases, the information required was entered column by
19 column, who filed the criminal report, when, the number of the file, who
20 the injured party was, the place and date of the offence, et cetera. We
21 tried to come up with some of this information subsequently. That's why
22 there are also these annexes. For the information to be as complete as
24 Q. Yes. But you said a minute ago that you established that in some
25 cases the information was illegible or possibly there was no reference to
1 the injured party, et cetera; isn't that correct? You said so a minute
3 A. Yes. And that is why these cases were entered in table 4 where
4 there are cases where we need additional information. Wherever something
5 was unclear, we entered the relevant information in table 4.
6 Q. Madam, I have a technical question now.
7 In accordance with the usual way, or usual methodology of work in
8 public prosecutor's offices, the reports that are received and entered
9 into the KT log-book, that is, against a known perpetrator as well as
10 those entered into the KTN log-book against unknown perpetrators, also
11 considering the KTA log-book, in principle, you would always open a case
12 file and you would ... for -- open a case file at the public prosecutor's
13 offices for each such case, right?
14 A. It was done that way, and it had to be done that way. It was
15 well-known where information about a case must be entered. If it --
16 something was entered in the KTA log-book of onsite investigations and
17 later on a criminal report against a known or unknown perpetrator is
18 filed, then the document -- documents would be transferred to the other
19 log-book, depending on whether the perpetrator was known or unknown. So
20 KTA was transferred to KTN, or KT, or was transferred to KTM, in case of
21 a minor. We spoke about that yesterday.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.
24 Q. [Interpretation] I apologise. Tell me, Madam, yesterday when I
25 was reviewing your amended statement and compared it to your previous
1 findings, I found the following: In Sanski Most - you may remember
2 because it's kind of a characteristic occurrence - a -- a file about a
3 criminal offence was transferred to the military prosecutor's office
4 concerning one Danilusko Kajtez?
5 A. Yes, I remember, and I did have that case file, yes.
6 Q. But while you were reviewing these log-books, did you have access
7 to the log-books of the public prosecutor -- sorry. Military
8 prosecutor's offices or the prosecutor's offices with military commands,
9 or were they -- or -- or were you familiar with them?
10 A. What you say is correct. I also reviewed the log-books of the
11 basic and district prosecutor's offices. I remember that even in the
12 log-book there's an entry about the file having been transferred to the
13 military prosecutor's office. Every log-book contains a box for possible
14 transfers of the case file, and you must enter the relevant information
15 there whether or not the case file was transferred to another
16 prosecutor's office, civilian or military.
17 Q. Madam, let me ask you once more to provide concise answers so --
18 for it to be more easily understandable. And I see that your previous
19 answer was not recorded fully or correctly.
20 So let me repeat. While you were reviewing the log-books, you
21 reviewed a total of 17 log-books of basic prosecutor's offices, civilian
22 offices, and two -- that is, three log-books of higher or senior civilian
23 prosecutor's offices, but you did not review any log-book of a senior or
24 supreme military prosecutor's office with any military command for the
25 relevant period; is that correct?
1 A. I have already answered that it was correct. I did not review
2 military log-books.
3 Q. If I remember correctly, your experience as a prosecutor goes
4 back to 1976 when you started working at the basic public prosecutor's
5 office in Trebinje; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Since you have experience as a prosecutor, from 1976 to 1992,
8 then you were also prosecutor during the war and you have been one since
9 the end of the war, tell me about the following: The situation with
10 regard to criminal offences committed in the territory of -- under the
11 jurisdiction of your basic prosecutor's office, first and foremost, but
12 then also for the entire Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1976 till the 1990s, it
13 is striking that there was a small number of serious crimes committed;
14 isn't -- isn't that correct?
15 A. I can only say that in the territory under the jurisdiction of
16 the basic prosecutor's office in Trebinje, until 1992, the -- most
17 offences were minor offences.
18 Q. When we spoke before your testimony in the presence of a
19 colleague from the OTP, I think that you told me that the average for the
20 region of eastern Herzegovina
22 A. You put forward that figure, and I agree that probably there was
23 less than one murder per year. Murders were a rare occurrence in
24 Trebinje. That is, in the territory covered -- under the jurisdiction of
25 our prosecutor's office. Although we didn't have subject matter
1 prosecution -- subject matter jurisdiction over murders. That lay with
2 the prosecutor's office in Mostar, the senior prosecutor's office.
3 Q. All right. Let us return to 1992.
4 In 1992, if I understood you correctly, you worked for the public
5 prosecutor's office in Trebinje; but, for a while, after the beginning
6 of -- of the war, you lived in Bileca, and you travelled to work to
7 Trebinje; correct?
8 A. I said during our conversation that I had fled for a short while.
9 When there was shelling even close to the building where I lived and part
10 of the apartment was damaged by shrapnel, I fled to Bileca and stayed
11 there for a while but I came to work regularly and did my work. So I
12 cannot really say that I lived outside of Trebinje.
13 Q. When you say "shelling," you mean shelling by the Croatian army,
15 A. I apologise. I don't know who shelled us, but I knew that shells
16 fell in the city. One landed in the yard of the building where I lived,
17 and one vehicle was destroyed. But I have no reliable information as to
18 where the shells had come from, and I didn't inquire.
19 Q. As a higher prosecutor, or senior prosecutor in Trebinje, your
20 subordinate prosecutor's offices were those in Bileca, Gacko, Ljubinje,
21 Nevesinje, and you said Foca for a while, if I remember correctly?
22 A. You said municipalities. The senior public prosecutor's offices
23 in Trebinje had three subordinate prosecutor's offices. The one in
24 Trebinje, the one in Nevesinje, and the one in Foca. However, the basic
25 public prosecutor's office in Nevesinje may not have started working at
1 the same time as those in Foca and Trebinje. I am not sure, because I
2 don't remember all the details. So these are the three prosecutor's
3 offices. Whereas, as far as the municipalities are concerned, each
4 municipality came under the jurisdiction of a certain basic prosecutor's
5 office. If you're interested in the details, I can provide them.
6 Q. I'm interested only in the municipalities that are relevant for
7 this indictment, and they are the municipalities of Gacko and Bileca.
8 They were under your jurisdiction, weren't they?
9 A. The basic public prosecutor's office in Trebinje had jurisdiction
10 over the municipalities of Trebinje, Berkovici, Bileca, Ljubinje -- yes,
11 Ljubinje. These are the municipalities that were under the jurisdiction
12 of the basic public prosecutor's office of Trebinje. The one in
13 Nevesinje covered Gacko, Nevesinje, and the Serbian municipality of
14 Mostar. I don't know how large that is. And these are the
15 municipalities or parts of municipalities covered by the basic public
16 prosecutor's office in Nevesinje.
17 Q. So, the municipal prosecutor's office in Nevesinje also had
18 jurisdiction over the municipality of Gacko
19 that you were not sure when the municipal prosecutor's office in
20 Nevesinje started working and that you allow for the possibility that it
21 was only months after you had established the senior prosecutor's
22 office -- or, rather, you were appointed senior prosecutor in Trebinje;
24 A. Well, we're talking about maybe a month or two weeks. As far as
25 I remember, on the same date the prosecutors in both the senior and the
1 basic prosecutor's office in Trebinje were appointed. But I don't think
2 that it was done at the same time for Nevesinje, for the reason that I
4 Q. At any rate, Madam, both the basic prosecutor's office in
5 Nevesinje and the basic prosecutor's office in Trebinje, both were
6 subordinate to the senior prosecutor's in Trebinje headed by you in 1992;
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We've seen that the public prosecutor's office of the Republic,
10 we have seen -- that's what we saw on the documents that I showed you
11 today, hadn't started working even in November 1992. It was basically
12 you, as senior prosecutor in Trebinje, who held the highest prosecutorial
13 position in eastern Herzegovina
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. While you were giving your statement in March 2006, if you
16 remember, the investigator of the OTP asked you about some locations
17 where, allegedly, crimes had been committed in the area. Specifically
18 the detention facility, hotel -- the hotel near the power plant in Gacko.
19 Then the detention facility in the SJB building in Gacko. Then the
20 detention facility in the SJB building in Bileca. Then the student's
21 hostel in Bileca. Then the Mosa Pijade Barracks. And if that is
22 recorded correctly in your statement, then you said that you knew nothing
23 about the alleged crimes, that you had hadn't seen or heard anything
24 about them; correct?
25 A. It was recorded correctly. I didn't know and I didn't hear
1 anything about it.
2 I didn't hear about it until 1998 perhaps, and I didn't know
3 until then, and later on, I found out. So I just wanted to be as
4 specific as possible.
5 Q. Given that at that point in time you were -- you held the
6 position of the senior prosecutor, there must have been -- or, rather,
7 had there been a report filed by an injured party or by any civilians, or
8 had the prosecutor's office received rumours about any grave crimes
9 committed, you would have known about it. You would have been notified,
11 A. As I have said earlier, the jurisdiction of the senior
12 prosecutor's office in Trebinje, as well as all other senior prosecutor's
13 offices, were only second-instance cases, appeals from lower courts
14 covered by that office.
15 As for the criminal reports, during that time we did not receive
16 any criminal reports. I have not heard from deputies or from basic
17 prosecutors either about them receiving such reports. They did not even
18 come to me, asking me for advice about what to do in such cases. There
19 was none of that.
20 Q. My question focussed on something quite specific. Do you know
21 whether any of the citizens, any of injured parties, filed criminal
22 reports for such or similar crimes to any of the basic prosecutor's
23 offices which were under your jurisdiction in 1992? Yes or no, please.
24 A. I did not have such information. I didn't know about that.
25 Q. Basic public prosecutor's offices, or you, as senior prosecutor,
1 did any of you know of such or similar cases which would perhaps be
2 registered in the KTA log-books? Yes or no, please.
3 A. I didn't know -- I did not know about this myself, and I received
4 no such information from my subordinate prosecutors, basic public
6 Q. Had you learned of it, you or any other employee of the
7 prosecutor's office, according to the law, you were duty-bound to launch
8 criminal proceedings, based on the information you received; or, as we
9 saw earlier, you were duty-bound to order certain organs or organs of the
10 interior to collect relevant information; right?
11 A. We would have acted in accordance with the Law on Criminal
12 Procedure. We certainly would have.
13 Q. Since you held the highest prosecutorial position in eastern
15 of prosecutor's offices, complained about them not doing their work, on
16 not doing it properly? Such as giving preferential treatment to some
17 individuals and persecuting some other individuals? Did you have any
18 complaints of this nature?
19 A. In the district public prosecutor's office, we never received any
20 complaint, be it in writing or verbal, complaints of the nature that you
21 described where somebody was complaining about the work of a prosecutor
22 in the jurisdiction covered by the senior prosecutor's office.
23 Q. Did you receive any reports or complaints that prosecutor's
24 offices subordinated to you are guilty of discriminating on ethnic basis?
25 A. Never.
1 Q. Did you ever hear, or did you ever receive, instructions or
2 policy views saying that the prosecutor's offices, in their work, should
3 discriminate on an ethnic basis?
4 A. Never.
5 Q. Tell me, please, since the republican prosecutor's office did not
6 work at that time, if prosecutor's offices subordinate to you had
7 received such an instruction, then that instruction could have only come
8 from you, as the highest prosecutors in that area, the senior
9 prosecutors? I'm just giving you a theoretical, hypothetical.
10 A. It would have been very unusual in my mind that anybody from the
11 judicial organs or from the justice system would write such an
12 instruction. We never received anything of the sort.
13 Q. Tell me, please, on page 14 of your interview, dated 30th of
14 March 2006, when asked by the Prosecutor whether there were certain
15 complaints or objections raised in reference to the work of police,
16 complaints addressed to you, as senior prosecutor, you said that you
17 never ever received such complaints or objections from anyone in 1992;
18 isn't that right?
19 A. I remember saying that, and it is true, that neither in 1992 or
20 in subsequent years, did I receive any such complaints or objections from
21 anyone, including authorised officials. Even though, under the Law on
22 Criminal Procedure, and that was a distinct possibility.
23 Q. I think that you said something different from what you said. It
24 says here that did you not receive such complaints or objections from
25 anyone, including authorised officials. And I think that you said that
1 you did not receive any complaints or objections of that nature,
2 complaints or objections concerning the work of authorised officials; is
3 that right?
4 A. Let me clarify.
5 I did not receive a single complaint concerning the work of
6 authorised officials, police stations, or CSBs, which came under the
7 jurisdiction of the senior prosecutor's office in Trebinje. I don't know
8 whether I made myself clear now. This is entirely correct, because any
9 such complaint or objection would have been recorded as such.
10 Q. Thank you very much. I have just one more question.
11 During your work in the prosecutor's office of the
12 Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, before 1992, you must have
13 gone to various professional seminars and work-shops organised for
14 prosecutors and courts, right? Organised every year.
15 A. As far as I remember, up until 1992, it was done within the
16 former Yugoslavia
17 go to such events.
18 Q. Those were work-shops and seminars organised for civilian courts
19 and civilian prosecutors, right?
20 A. I know that colleagues from civilian courts and civilian
21 prosecutors were there. Now, whether there were any military ones as
22 well, I really wouldn't be able to tell you.
23 Q. Now tell me, please, whether, at any such professional
24 conferences or seminars, there was discussion or exchange of opinions on
25 prosecuting for crimes under chapter 16 of the Criminal Code of SFRY,
1 which pertains for -- to war crimes and crime against humanity.
2 Do you remember whether this was ever discussed at such
3 professional gatherings?
4 A. As far as I remember, no. We typically discussed the current
5 topics at the time and the current problems we encountered in our work at
6 the time.
7 Q. Thank you very much, Ms. Gacinovic. I have no further questions
8 for you.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honours, Aleksandar Aleksic will cross-examine
10 this witness. [Indiscernible] the Registry and legal advisor.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Please proceed.
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Given
13 that this is the first time I'm addressing this Chamber, I would like to
14 say that it's a honour for me to be -- to participate in such a large
15 case, and to be a member of Defence of Mr. Zupljanin.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Madam Gacinovic. I will try not
18 to repeat any of the issues or laws you covered with Mr. Zecevic, but we
19 may have to touch upon some of those issues, in order to clarify some
21 Yesterday, on pages 49, 50, and 51 of the transcript, you
22 discussed with Mr. Zecevic provisions of Article 155 of the Law on
23 Criminal Procedure, where it says that the public prosecutor's office can
24 request that certain investigative activities be conducted even when the
25 perpetrator is unknown. Then further on, that, an investigative judge
1 can object to such a request, can disagree with it, and that, in that
2 case, a trial chamber from Article 23 of the Law on Criminal Procedure
3 would rule on that issue. And such a chamber would normally have three
4 professional judges.
5 Do you remember that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, I would like to follow up with a question.
8 In such a situation -- or, rather, in a situation where
9 investigative judge does not object to this request by the public
10 prosecutor to carry out certain investigative activities, or if the
11 Trial Chamber should rule that there's no basis for such a rejection or
12 refusal on the part of the investigative judge, then such an
13 investigative judge is duty-bound to act upon the request of the
14 prosecutor and conduct all investigative steps requested.
15 A. I'm not entirely sure. I lost concentration for a moment. You
16 said that if the Chamber should rule against the investigative judge,
17 then the investigative judge is duty-bound to act upon the prosecutor's
18 request. Yes, you're right.
19 Q. And he is also duty-bound to do any other steps as required in
20 the profession, to take statements, interview potential witnesses,
21 et cetera?
22 A. Let me just add to that. Should the Chamber overrule the
23 disagreement on the part of the investigative judge, then the case file
24 would go back to the investigative judge who was duty-bound do act upon
25 the request of the prosecutor. However, when the request for individual
1 investigative steps is made, the prosecutor always puts in that there's a
2 request for the judge to carry out any other additional investigative
3 activities that seem to be relevant, needed and so on, not just the ones
4 specifically listed in the prosecutor's request.
5 Q. I fully agree with you.
6 Once the investigative judge concludes the investigation and
7 investigative activities which were initiated under Article 155, then the
8 case file would be sent to public prosecutor for him to review it.
9 A. Yes. Because the prosecutor would normally always put an
10 instruction that once everything is concluded and completed, the case
11 file should be returned to him.
12 Q. Now, in a situation where the investigative judge does not fully
13 act in accordance with the request of the prosecutor, under Article 155,
14 for example, what if the prosecutor proposed that ten persons be
15 interviewed and the judge interviews only five of them. In such a case,
16 did the public prosecutor have right and was he entitled to return the
17 case file back to the judge to have additional investigative activities
18 carried out?
19 A. Two things are possible in such a situation.
20 For example, out of nine proposed witnesses, the judge could
21 interview only five but those five would be sufficient to elucidate the
22 situation based on which the prosecutor can make a decision. In such a
23 case, the prosecutor would not send back the case file to the judge.
24 However, if the interview of those five witnesses not sufficient and the
25 interviewing of additional four witnesses is needed, then the prosecutor
1 could make a proposal to carry out additional investigative activities.
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, before you proceed with your next
3 question, perhaps this would be a convenient time to take the break.
4 MR. ALEKSIC: Of course, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HALL: So we resume in 20 minutes.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.
10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Witness, we won't dwell much longer on the Law on Criminal
14 Procedure, but I have a few concluding questions.
15 According to that law, when the perpetrator is known, it is
16 standard procedure to have the person indicted, heard, if accessible to
17 the court, and then a decision on investigation is issued followed by a
18 number of other measures, such as witness interviews, expert analyses and
19 investigative measures in general; is that correct?
20 A. If it is not, according to the shortened procedure, then my
21 answer is yes, if it is a full investigation.
22 Q. Let's leave that law for now.
23 Can you tell me something about the procedure of keeping public
24 prosecutors' log-books. In terms of calendar years, is there an
25 interruption after one year ends and the other one begins, in order to
1 produce annual statistical reports?
2 A. Each year the log-books start anew, from number one. On one
3 sheet, it concerns the KT log-book, recording reports against known
4 perpetrators. Each such a sheet would contain ten persons. It could so
5 happen that there were four reports on a single sheet encompassing ten
6 persons. It may happen, though, that the list does not start with the
7 1st of January, if the person in question is still in detention. For
8 example, there may be no entries for five to ten days, but once a file is
9 received by the prosecutor, it is stamped and it -- entered into the
10 log-book as of that date.
11 As for the end of each year, it sometimes happens that the last
12 date is the 20th or the 25th of December. However, if a file has arrived
13 by the 30th of December, it is stamped by the prosecutor's office. The
14 rest is left as is, as on the 20th or the 25th of that year because of
15 the break needed to produce such annual reports.
16 In any case, all cases are entered, depending on the date
18 Q. My learned friend, Mr. Zecevic, touched upon the topic of case
19 files containing each and every file.
20 Can you just tell us what is between the different sides of the
21 cover sheet? What is contained in each such file?
22 A. In cases of adult known perpetrators, on the first -- or cover
23 page, it states Republika Srpska, basic prosecutor's office, or higher
24 prosecutor's office, as well as the KT case number/year. Towards the
25 middle, it says cover sheet and then it is followed by against, or file
1 against what person, and the type of crime. In the right-hand side
2 corner, it says the public prosecutor, together with the name of the
3 person in question. On the left-hand side, archival dates or up to what
4 date such a file would be kept.
5 Inside, there would be a date of reception and what was done as
6 part of that case file. If there was a request for an investigation, it
7 would -- included in the file. And there is also a note forwarded to
8 court, if this was the case, and any decisions by the judge are
9 mentioned. We have the date of the investigation began, the day the
10 investigation ended, when the indictment was raised, as well as all other
11 dates and measures taken, including possible judgements, appeal, et
13 This is regarding the KT log-book.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Aleksic, where are we going with this?
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have only one or two
16 questions left on this topic. When we heard several witnesses before,
17 without going into names, the same people stated that for one to have a
18 full view of the cases we need to have the case file cover. The witness
19 now specified the details mentioned therein. This is the thrust of my
20 question, and I have only one question left in that regard.
21 Concerning P1567, this is what the focus of my questions was. I
22 won't go into any details now before the witness, but it was referred to
23 by some other witnesses.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Aleksic, with all due respect, I think we
25 have been looking into possibly each and every aspect of the log-books
1 that we possibly could. We have seen them, we have admitted some of them
2 into evidence, we have been back and forth. Several witnesses have
3 testified about it. And you are entering into an avenue of detail which
4 I really think is superfluous and unnecessary at this stage.
5 So I would strongly urge to you move on.
6 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand you, and
7 I will do so.
8 However, it was the Prosecutor who proposed this type of
9 evidence. We didn't bring this witness and not only this witness -- in
10 any case, I understand your view and I will move on.
11 Q. Learned colleague, you mentioned the necessary notifications, and
12 let us not go into any legal details. But tell me this, when the
13 competent prosecutor is asking the police for necessary notifications
14 does the competent prosecutor do that with regard to any police station
15 which he or she believes may provide it? Provide such information to
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It means, in your case for example, you, as the senior public
19 prosecutor in Trebinje, since the CSB was there, if you required some
20 information from Bileca and Nevesinje, you and your junior prosecutors
21 could turn directly to the stations in Bileca and Nevesinje; is that
23 A. I was saying that it covers the entire area covered by the
24 prosecutor's office. If there is something happening in one place, then
25 information could be requested from another place and it would be
1 processed as such. There shouldn't be any obstacles in that regard, and
2 information could be sought from local police stations, as far as I
3 recall. It could also be forwarded to the police station of Trebinje.
4 In any case, the only important thing was to have the job done.
5 Q. As far as the legal qualifications of a crime are concerned,
6 would you agree with me that a public prosecutor, when receiving a
7 criminal report, does not need to abide by that legal qualification.
8 Also, the court dealing with the case does not need to follow the legal
9 qualification of the crime concerned offered by the prosecutor. They
10 need to qualify that decision based on the facts before them.
11 A. Yes. The prosecutor need not abide by the legal qualification
13 As for the judges, they have the same discretion, provided that
14 there is no -- there are no facts on file which would indicated that it
15 was actually a different type of crime that is at issue.
16 Q. I believe we may return to this issue later on, if we have time
18 You were elected senior public prosecutor in Trebinje in August,
19 the 2nd of August, 1992
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were there general elections for prosecutor -- prosecutors and
22 judges held at that time? Were there other people elected to those
23 positions across the territory of the RS?
24 A. Specifically, I recall the area of Trebinje that this was the
25 case. I recall the area of Trebinje. It has to do with the basic court,
1 the county court, and the basic prosecutor's office. As for any other
2 areas, there isn't much I can tell you. But it is most likely as you
4 Q. At that time when you were elected, and up until late 1992, could
5 one travel from eastern Herzegovina
6 area of Banja Luka, Bosanska Krajina and other municipalities in that
7 area? And did you travel there?
8 A. I cannot answer that question. I can only tell you about my
9 experience. At the county prosecutor's office in Trebinje, we did not
10 have a vehicle at our disposal and basically there wasn't any need for us
11 to travel anywhere.
12 Q. So you --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: There is perhaps an uncertainty in the
14 translation here. But I read in the transcript where the general
15 elections for prosecutor as your question.
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] You are correct. It is unclear.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: So, can you clarify "general elections."
18 MR. OLMSTED: I was going to raise the same issue on my
19 re-examination. I don't think it is in dispute here that back in 1992
20 all judges were appointed by the Assembly at RS levels, so I'm not
21 sure --
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think it is a simple translation issue. Isn't
23 it, Mr. Aleksic?
24 MR. ALEKSIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Learned colleague, you didn't know in what
1 conditions the basic and county prosecutor's offices had to work in the
2 area of Bosanska Krajina, Banja Luka, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, et cetera. In
3 terms of personnel and such necessities as electricity, telephone lines
4 and mail, you have no direct information or knowledge of that?
5 A. I had no information regarding that, and basically there was no
6 need for me to know.
7 Q. Very well. So as not to waste too much time, concerning your
8 corrected statement and the annexes, I wanted to use the sample of the
9 basic prosecutor's office in Teslic.
10 In your statement, paragraph 23 - the latest statement - you say
11 that you came across five crime entries where the injured parties were
12 Serbs, whereas, the other side were non-Serbs.
13 A. This is what I can recall now, although to tell you anything more
14 precise than that, I would have to refer to the document.
15 Q. I believe you can take my word for it. Those entries are at page
16 35 of that statement. The perpetrators referred to in these entries are
17 Mile Stanojevic, Marijanovic, Stanko, et al, Aleksandar Kalicovic,
18 Zeljko Tomic and Milenkovic, Radivoje. If you wish to peruse it, I can
19 have that placed on the screen for you.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Perhaps to speed this up, we just hand her a copy
21 of her annexes.
22 MR. ALEKSIC: It will be the best way.
23 MR. OLMSTED: And just for the record, it's revised Annex 9 that
24 she'll be looking at.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the document please be put on the screen
1 for the sake of the interpreters. Thank you.
2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you agree? You must give an oral answer.
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we see Exhibit 2D98, which is
6 under tab 12 in the Zupljanin Defence binder.
7 Q. Do take a look at the document on the screen, please. It's a
8 criminal report filed by the SJB of Teslic on 24 December 1992 against,
9 as far as can I tell by looking at it, four persons, Dalibor Djuric,
10 Zdravko Aleksic, Jovo Petrovic, and Sladjan Cvijetic.
11 Could I please ask you to look at the document on the screen.
12 And you can compare what you see there to what you did later.
13 And at the bottom of page 1, it says there are reasonable grounds
14 to suspect that on 2 December 1992
15 is on page 2 of the English translation.
16 In the Serbian version, on page 2, which is also page 2 in
17 English, it says that the crime was committed by entering houses,
18 shooting through doors, and took some things, threatening people with
19 firearms. The injured parties are -- are Razija Dzojic and Smajo Garic
20 and some others. If you have trouble reading it, maybe we can enlarge
22 Can you confirm what I have said so far, that, in this criminal
23 report, four persons of Serb ethnicity are mentioned as perpetrators, as
24 in the description of the crime four non-Serbs are mentioned as injured
1 Can you confirm that, and the crime in question is armed robbery?
2 A. Yes, I confirm that.
3 Q. And that the offence was committed on 2 December 1992, which
4 means within the relevant period.
5 So, Madam, I'm not trying to say that you are -- did something
6 wrong. I'm merely saying that this particular criminal report did not
7 figure in the log-book given to you to work with. Do you agree with
8 that? And it cannot be found in your table either.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I wondering if the Defence could
10 provide a KT entry number for this particular case. The reason I ask
11 is -- he is asking a question that leaves open more or less an unanswered
12 assertion. Did she miss this from the log-book or did the log-books not
13 include it?
14 I mean, there is not a stamp on this document saying that it was
15 received by the prosecutor's office. I think that, you know, the witness
16 should be entitled to review the log-book and determine whether it
17 actually is in there, and it is unclear what the Defence's position is on
19 If he can give us a KT entry number, then we can always
20 cross-reference it to the log-book and see if there's an entry for it.
21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't say that it
22 was in the log-book, that it was entered. I merely said that the
23 log-book - now I'm stating my case - that the log-book is unreliable.
24 I'm not saying that the witness didn't work well. I merely -- my case is
25 that the log-book isn't reliable enough for us to get a complete picture.
1 JUDGE HALL: I suspected that that was the purpose of your
2 question. But isn't the objection or observation that Mr. Olmsted has
3 made is that, without more, the witness is -- as it were, left at sea, in
4 terms of trying to say -- to -- to connect this with anything at all.
5 And without just being shown it, to be able to -- to be expected to
6 answer in the witness box without having the -- having had the ability to
7 herself to determine its inclusion or otherwise, in the log-book. Isn't
8 it, at the end of the day, not very -- in a sense, almost unfair to the
9 witness and not very helpful to the Chamber.
10 Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Aleksic.
11 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, if I may just jump in very
12 quickly. I will note that the Teslic log-books are in evidence, and
13 therefore the Defence, at time of argument, can review the log-books and
14 tell us or assert whether there is an entry for this particular case or
15 no. We don't need this witness here to do that. If they want to take
16 this course, it would require us to take probably a 30-minute recess,
17 hand about a thousand pages of log-book for her to quickly review to
18 determine whether this particular case was in that log-book.
19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will move on to
20 another topic.
21 Could we please see 65 ter 2758 from e-court, please, which is
22 P1361, item 0 -- or .06.
23 Q. You spoke about this exhibit yesterday during the
25 This case is included in your overview, so I moved on to
1 something else. I believe that you saw the entire file, didn't you?
2 Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So this is a request to conduct an investigation submitted by
5 the -- by the public prosecutor's office in Teslic against 16 persons for
6 the most serious crimes. That is, the Mice case, as it is widely known.
7 Do you remember?
8 A. It's entry 149/92 in the KT log-book, and it's tab 1.
9 Q. Yes, indeed.
10 So please take a look at the bottom of page 5 in the Serbian
11 version and then the entire page 6. In English, the relevant pages are
12 5, 6, and 7. In that part of the document, we can see the proposals made
13 by the prosecutor to the investigative judge.
14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page 6 in
16 Q. Can you see? These are proposals to examine witnesses. And if I
17 am not mistaken, we're speaking about 52 witnesses in all here.
18 Can you confirm that?
19 A. In this case, the prosecutor, having received the criminal
20 report, which is entered, and there's also the date of the report and
21 against whom it is being filed, and the prosecutor also stated the date
22 of the request to launch an investigation, so none of that is in dispute.
23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see page 7 in the
24 Serbian which is probably also page 7 in English.
25 Q. Can you see item 5, Roman V, the Roman numeral V, where it says
1 that the public prosecutor proposes that detention be ordered for all the
2 accused pursuant to Article 191, paragraph 2, items 2 and 4 of the Law on
3 Criminal Procedure; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, that's what it reads.
5 Q. And to avoid further reference to the Articles of the Law on
6 Criminal Procedure, do you agree with me when I say that item 2 is based
7 on the fear that the accused, if they remain at large, will interfere
8 with witnesses and with the course of justice. And that with regard to
9 the circumstances of the commitment of the crimes, the public would be
10 upset and weren't. And the -- these crimes are punished by ten years in
11 prison or more?
12 A. As far as I remember the provision on the Law on Criminal
13 Procedure with regard to ordering detention, you are right.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please see 2D88, which
16 is tab 20.
17 Q. This is about the same case. This is a document of the basic
18 court in Teslic dated 21 July, and it says that the investigating judge
19 releases the aforementioned persons from detention, and detention was
20 ordered ten days earlier.
21 Can you confirm that?
22 A. Yes, that's what follows from this ruling.
23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 2 of this document,
24 both in Serbian and in English. Page 2.
25 Can we enlarge it?
1 Q. In the second paragraph on this page, we read that the public
2 prosecutor of Teslic agreed to release the individuals named in the
3 disposition from custody; is that correct?
4 And in the following paragraph, we read that the court
5 particularly considered the request put forward by -- some military
6 command and concluded that the accused would not be able to impact
7 criminal proceedings by influencing witnesses who have not yet been
9 Can you confirm that?
10 A. That's what it says. But I'm not here to give opinion about
11 court rulings or proposals submitted by public prosecutors, and so on.
12 As far as I understood, I came here to speak about what I did.
13 Q. But, Madam, earlier you spoke to Mr. Zecevic about binding
14 instructions and authorisations -- or, rather, the powers that you as
15 senior prosecutor had over subordinate prosecutors and so on.
16 This is what I'd like to discuss with you. Here in this case, on
17 11 July, a request to launch an investigation was filed, and 52 witnesses
18 were -- were supposed to be examined because there were many indictees.
19 And it follows from this ruling that many witnesses were not examined,
20 and detention had been ordered based on items 2 and 4. And the public
21 prosecutor accepted that and acted in accordance.
22 Isn't this a flagrant example of unlawful behaviour of a public
23 prosecutor and an investigating judge? Detention was cancelled after ten
24 days without a large number of witnesses having been examined?
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this --
1 JUDGE HALL: Assuming, Mr. Aleksic, that the witness is able to
2 answer that question, what is the relevance of that to -- to our
3 proceedings? Apart, as the witness answered in your previous question,
4 the purpose for which she was called. I suppose outside of that you're
5 permitted to explore her credibility and whatnot, but the motive of
6 the -- or competence of the prosecutor in a particular case, how is that
7 of assistance?
8 JUDGE HARHOFF, And, anyway, the document is in evidence.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, and, Your Honours, I don't think the Criminal
10 Procedure Code is in question here. And this witness has no personal
11 knowledge of this case. So how can she give an opinion as to whether the
12 prosecutor in Teslic, in 1992, was doing his job or not or anything else
13 unless she has time to review through the entire case with file, get
14 familiar with it, get familiar with the facts of the case and then give
15 an answer.
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do agree that the
17 reason this witness came here was to go over the log-books, as requested
18 by the Prosecutor. However, this witness has worked as a prosecutor for
19 35 years, and she answered questions of Mr. Zecevic concerning the powers
20 and authorities of public prosecutor and what could possibly be done in a
21 particular case. Based on her entire professional experience, I asked
22 her to give me an answer in this case, and if the Chamber should want us
23 to move on, we will do that.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
25 I simply wanted to say that I know what I would have done in a
1 particular case, and I can tell you what I would have done as a
2 prosecutor. I would have not acted in this way, and if any of my junior
3 prosecutors did something like this, I know what I would have done. But
4 as I sit here now, I cannot assess the work of the prosecutor in Teslic.
5 It is not my job here to give comment on particular cases. I came here
6 to provide information and insert it into tables, as requested.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Gacinovic.
8 Yes, Mr. Aleksic, please move on.
9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can you tell me, if we can summarise as follows: As you have
11 said to Mr. Zecevic, you did not go over the log-books of military courts
12 and military prosecutors, right?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. You also didn't go over log-books concerning minors.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. You also didn't go over cases, be it cases of courts or cases of
17 prosecutors, except for the very limited number of cases provided to you
18 by the OTP.
19 A. Correct. Only where needed, where we couldn't conclude anything
20 based on the log-book.
21 Q. Will you agree with me that the quality of log-books and data
22 entered into log-books is something that depends on -- or that is subject
23 to human error, because these log-books are filled out by humans, by
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: What sort of question is this, really,
1 Mr. Aleksic?
2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in dozen instances or
3 so, the witness, in her statement, said that in particular cases it could
4 not be established who the perpetrator was due to insufficient
5 information in log-books and that a clear picture would only be obtained
6 if one looked into the entire case file, both cases of courts and cases
7 of prosecutors. That's what the witness said.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I was once chastised by this
9 Trial Chamber for asking a question that begged common sense, and I think
10 human error is present in everything, so I don't -- I agree with
11 Judge Harhoff that this doesn't need to be pursued further.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if I may add, I think this evidence has
13 already been brought to the Court two or three times on exactly the same
14 point, so I think we can skip it for now.
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise to you. I
16 am a recent arrival, relevant recent arrival in this case, so it is
17 probably my mistake. I will move on.
18 Q. Madam, based on everything you discussed with Mr. Zecevic and me,
19 would you agree with me that log-books, on their own, are insufficient to
20 gain a complete picture of how things were during this period of time,
21 how the prosecutors' offices, courts, and police, worked from the 1st of
22 April until the 31st of December; and that in order to have a complete
23 analysis, one would need to have everything else that you lacked in this
24 case, namely, information from the military court, military prosecutor's
25 office, et cetera. That one would need all of that in order to have a
1 complete and accurate picture?
2 A. When I worked on this task, when it came to log-books that did
3 not have complete data, all of that was reflected in table 4. If one
4 wanted to have a complete picture about all of the crimes committed,
5 then, naturally, one would need to have all of the log-books of the
6 military prosecutor's office and all other prosecutor offices to have a
7 realistic picture for the entire territory.
8 As for the log-books that I analysed, in a lot of instances we
9 came across data indicating that some of the cases reported to the basic
10 prosecutor's office were later transferred to the military prosecutor's
11 office, and I marked that particular information in relevant tables.
12 Q. Thank you, Ms. Gacinovic.
13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation], Your Honours I have no further
14 questions for this witness.
15 JUDGE HALL: Re-examination.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
18 Q. I want to go back first, Ms. Gacinovic, to a question that was
19 raised by Mr. Zecevic today. He was asking you questions about
20 Article 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if you may recall, and he
21 phrased his question as such: If a prosecutor hears a rumour that a
22 criminal offence was committed, the prosecutor will act himself and act
23 autonomously, if he can.
24 Can you tell us, back in 1992, did the prosecutor have the means,
25 the resources, to investigate a criminal offence, to locate a
1 perpetrator, to collect evidence at this pre-trial phase?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Mr. Olmsted. I was quoting the law. I
3 wasn't suggesting to the witness anything about the investigations or
4 anything like that.
5 If you would know the Law on Criminal Procedure, you wouldn't
6 have asked such a thing. But I was quoting the law. And I asked the
7 comment of the witness.
8 So, therefore, I wasn't suggesting anything of -- concerning the
9 investigations because it is known, Your Honours, who is in charge of the
10 investigation and who conducts what, in accordance with the criminal
11 procedure which is -- existed in the former Yugoslavia in 1992.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Well, two points.
13 First of all, I'm quoting directly from Mr. Zecevic's question
14 which was really an assertion. And secondly, I think we're entitled to
15 know what the reality of the situation was back in 1992 as his question
16 clearly suggested that there's a need to explore this issue.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I would -- I would welcome if I could get the
18 reference for -- for my question.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, it's page 4 of today's transcript. It's right
20 at the end of page 4, beginning of page 5.
21 JUDGE HALL: If properly understood, Mr. Olmsted's question is,
22 notwithstanding the law and the context of the law, what was the reality
23 on the ground. I think it's a permissible question.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, I'll ask it again. When a prosecutor -- back in
1 1992, if a prosecutor heard a rumour that a crime was committed, did the
2 prosecutor have the resources, the means, to conduct his or her own
3 investigation into that potential crime?
4 A. The law specified Article 153, or perhaps 151, paragraph 2, I
5 can't remember now, that if a prosecutor received a rumour, then he could
6 act on his own or act through organs of the interior.
7 However, according to the old Law on Criminal Procedure, the
8 prosecutor could never act on his own. He always had to act either
9 through police organs or authorised officials or through judges or state
10 organs. And the prosecutor could also call in the person filing the
11 criminal report. Otherwise, the prosecutor could never do anything on
12 his own, as is possible now, under the law.
13 In paragraph 1, it says that the organs of the interior are
14 duty-bound to act at all times, whereas, for the prosecutor it wasn't
15 possible. There was no instrument allowing the prosecutor to act on his
16 own, to call in witnesses, so summon them for interviews and so on. They
17 couldn't carry out any other activities. They always had to act through
18 other organs, even though the law said otherwise. But prosecutors lacked
19 mechanisms to do that without the assistance of other organs.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, but please, Mr. Olmsted, instruct the
21 witness to repeat her question [sic] and slowly -- her answer and slowly,
22 because none of she said was properly recorded, I believe. Because she
23 was speaking so fast I couldn't follow in Serbian.
24 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Gacinovic, the -- you would have heard what
25 Mr. Zecevic has said and just -- just to remind you, everything has to be
1 interpreted so if you could pace your -- your responses so that we can
2 all keep up.
3 And perhaps for clarity, Mr. Olmsted, you better -- you -- you
4 should ask the question again and allow the witness to repeat her answer.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Very well.
6 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, if you could just repeat your answer with regard
7 to the resources that the prosecutor had back in 1992 to conduct an
8 investigation on his or her own.
9 A. In 1992, as well as prior to that, even though the Law on
10 Criminal Procedure says that the prosecutor can, on his own, via organs
11 of the interior, via investigative judge or other organs, carry out
12 investigative activities, the prosecutor himself had no instruments
13 available to him to do it on his own. He always had to act via these
14 organs. He had to act via organs of the interior, state organs, or
15 investigating judges or he could also summon the person filing the
16 criminal report for these purposes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have up on the screen P1318.23.
19 Q. And if you recall, Mr. Zecevic showed you this document earlier
20 today. It's the report on activities of the Ministry of Justice and
21 Administration in May through October 1992 period dated 16 November 1992.
22 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to page 3 of the B/C/S and page 4
23 of the English.
24 Q. Now, unfortunately, I can't read Cyrillic. But I think it's the
25 third paragraph, not the second one which is relatively short but the
1 third one which reads:
2 "The activities of judicial organs so far have not been
3 sufficient particularly regarding the newly established organs. We face
4 the fact that a large number of criminal acts have been carried out in
5 the Republika Srpska. Official organs have filed a small number of
6 criminal reports to the judicial organs."
7 Ms. Gacinovic, based on your own experience back in 1992, did you
8 experience something similar where you were receiving a relatively, very
9 small number of cases being filed with the prosecutor's offices?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry, Your Honours. It has to be
11 compared to something. I mean -- because it is only logical that the --
12 the -- that the office of the prosecutor receives the criminal complaints
13 where the criminal act occurs so ...
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Olmsted, that -- that's obvious.
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. Well, compared to what you have learned subsequently over the
17 years with regard to what was happening in that region, the types of
18 crimes that were being committed, you mentioned in 1998 you learned about
19 a number of crimes, do you agree --
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, but this calls for speculation.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, you should have anticipated that
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 MR. OLMSTED: Okay. I'm just going move on then.
25 Q. I want to clarify something that Mr. Zecevic also raised during
1 his cross-examination, and this was at page 15. He --
2 MR. OLMSTED: Can we have the witness's statement on the screen.
3 This would be 10530.
4 And if we can turn in the original document to page 12. That
5 would be the English version. And then in the B/C/S version, if we could
6 turn to page 20. I'm interested in paragraph 62.
7 Q. And you may recall, Ms. Gacinovic, that Mr. Zecevic was asking
8 you some questions regarding the Kajtez case, and he put to you that the
9 entry in the log-book pertained to the transfer of the case from the
10 civilian prosecutor's office to the military prosecutor's office. And
11 I'd like you to look at paragraph 62 and see if that refreshes your
12 recollection as to what the entry, KT entry 2294, in fact specified.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And I think the clarification I want to make is, in fact, the
15 1994 KT log-book specified that the case was transferred from the
16 military court to the civilian prosecutor; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. There -- then there has to be some kind
19 of misunderstanding between -- or there is misinformation stated in --
20 in -- in the -- in the document which was given to us yesterday, which is
21 the additional information -- additional addendum to the 2nd of June 2010
22 witness statement. It concerns the -- the Appendix 18, question
23 number 4. It's -- I'm not sure which -- which page it is. It is -- it
24 is concerning the -- the log-book of the -- of Sanski Most prosecutor --
25 or basic prosecutor's office and may this be shown to the witness for
2 MR. OLMSTED: Certainly. I think this will be helpful for the
3 Defence to understand better how to read these tables.
4 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, if you could turn to the revised Annex 18, table
5 4. Do you have that in front of you?
6 A. Yes, I've reviewed it.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, in the first column is -- for the first entry
8 which is the one we're concerned it, it has the number KT 22/94. That's
9 a reference to the 1994 KT log-book for Sanski Most; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, two -- the third column it says:
12 "Court log-book entry number."
13 And it says:
14 "Military prosecutor's office, Banja Luka."
15 Is that where this particular report came from?
16 Or, in other words, that's where the prosecutor's office received
17 that file?
18 A. The -- it follows from the log-book that, in the basic public
19 prosecutor's office of Sanski Most, the case was filed under KT 22/94,
20 and it was received from the military prosecutor's office, Banja Luka.
21 The file reference is VTK-461/92. I concluded from that that the basic
22 public prosecutor's office in Sanski Most received it from the military
23 prosecutor's office. But I was unable to tell to which military
24 prosecutor's's office it was forwarded because the only entry that we see
25 here is from whom it was received and what the registration number or the
1 entry number was.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness gave the answer -- the -- the
3 different answer than it was recorded on page 50, line 12, what she was
4 unable to tell.
5 MR. OLMSTED:
6 Q. Could you just repeat for us what you were not able to tell from
7 the log-book.
8 A. I could not tell -- or, rather, I could tell that the file
9 arrived at the basic prosecutor's office in Sanski Most from the military
10 prosecutor's office in Banja Luka. But I was unable to tell whether the
11 case was opened by the military prosecutor's office in Banja Luka
12 possibly another police station sent it to Banja Luka and Banja Luka
13 forwarded it to Sanski Most. I believe that is clear. And I was unable
14 to tell from this who the injured parties are. That's why I stated
15 several persons and that's why it is included in table 4. Because, it is
16 possible that the military prosecutor's office in Banja Luka opened the
17 file, but it is also possible that a police station or another natural or
18 legal person opened the file against Danilusko Kajtez. That's how things
19 stand under the law, so I was unable to tell from the log-book who drew
20 up the criminal report. I could only conclude that the criminal report
21 was filed against Danilusko Kajtez, that it was received by the public
22 prosecutor's office in Sanski Most, and that it was entered as entry
23 number KT 22/94, and that it was received from the military prosecutor's
24 office in Banja Luka, where the number is VTK 461 and that there are
25 several injured parties.
1 So we know about the type of offence and when it was committed.
2 That's why it is included in table 4. I hope that it was clear this
4 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, just another intervention in the
5 transcript, 51, 5 and 6. Just for the consistency of the -- of the
6 transcript, it says here opened the file against Danilusko Kajtez. I
7 believe so far we translated as filing a criminal report or filing a
8 criminal complaint.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. OLMSTED: I think this -- this is matter has been
11 well-covered now so I think we can move on to something new.
12 Q. Yesterday Mr. Zecevic showed you Article 119 of the SFRY Criminal
13 Code, the one pertaining to serving with the enemy army. Do you recall
14 that? I'm not going to put that up on the screen again.
15 A. Yes, I remember.
16 Q. Now yesterday Judge Harhoff asked you to shed some light on these
17 kinds of cases that were filed in Teslic in 1992, and I want to endeavour
18 to try to do that by first turning to the Teslic KT log-book.
19 MR. OLMSTED: If we can have that on the screen. It's P1365.
20 And I'm interested in page 4 of the B/C/S and page 2 of the English.
21 And I think we need to zoom in on entry 126. Yes, that's --
22 that's the one right there, 126.
23 Q. And we see the first three perpetrators in what you'll see is to
24 be a six-perpetrator case. Can you just tell us quickly the ethnicity of
25 these three perpetrators?
1 A. Judging by their first and last names, I can conclude that they
2 were Muslims. Rifat Sahic, Asim Isic, Rasid Isic, as far as I'm able to
3 read the handwriting.
4 Q. And if you can look over to the column where it lists the charge
5 that they have been accused of. Actually, please don't scroll over.
6 You can see it from where it is. Can you tell us, what were they charged
8 A. Perhaps we could scroll over for me to see if they are indicted
9 or perhaps another ruling was adopted in this case.
10 Can we scroll right a bit more?
11 I can't see the top of the column. Yes, this is good.
12 I think that these cases were forwarded to the military
13 prosecutor's office in Banja Luka.
14 MR. OLMSTED: If we can scroll back down. Yeah, we don't need to
15 zoom in.
16 Q. Is it possible -- can we look at the column. Is it -- scroll
17 over now. Scroll over. It's difficult to read, but is it possible they
18 were -- they were transferred to the higher prosecutor in Banja Luka
19 superior prosecutor in December 1992?
20 A. Since the superior prosecutor's office was authorised to act only
21 in second-instance proceedings under the -- after the amendments of the
22 law. On 14 December 1992
23 jurisdiction over all criminal offences. My conclusion would sooner be
24 that the case was transferred to the military prosecutor's office because
25 crimes under Article 119 and others fall under the jurisdiction of
1 military prosecutor's offices, that is, military courts actually.
2 Q. Thank you. Now I want to get back to my original question which
3 is --
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, it's time for the break. So that if
5 this is a convenient point ...
6 Ms. Gacinovic, when there's a document up on the screen, I'm
7 asked to remind you that if you put your finger on the screen, you would
8 be zooming in continuously on the exhibit.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
10 JUDGE HALL: So could we take the break now, Mr. Olmsted?
11 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. And just so you know, I am
12 nearing my end.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Recess taken at 5.21 p.m.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MR. OLMSTED:
19 Q. We're still looking at P1365 which is the 1992 Teslic KT log-book
20 and I don't want to spend much more time on this particular document.
21 But, Ms. Gacinovic, if you can look at column 9 for entry 126.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Perhaps we can zoom in a little bit into that.
23 Q. And I just want you to confirm what they were charged with, these
24 three Muslims: Rifat Sahic, Asim Isic and others.
25 A. It follows from the log-book that a criminal report was filed
1 against them, and that it was entered under KT 126, and that the grounds
2 for the criminal report are Articles 119 and --
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the other
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the Criminal Code of the SFRY.
6 The criminal report was filed on the 25th of May, 1992, but it
7 seems that the file was forwarded to the military prosecutor's office.
8 However, at that time, the higher prosecutor's office did not have
9 jurisdiction over such offences. They were under the jurisdiction of the
10 basic prosecutor's office. The higher prosecutor's office could only act
11 in second instance cases. However from the entry here, I cannot tell
12 whether an indictment was issued against these three persons. I believe
13 that crimes that fall under Article 119 and 124, it was the military
14 courts that had jurisdiction.
15 Q. And if we look at the third column, I just want to you take note,
16 the KU or the police crime register number for this criminal report is
17 108; is that right?
18 A. Yes. 108 and the date is 16 June 1992.
19 Q. There are three more --
20 MR. OLMSTED: If we could just flip ahead two pages, just to show
21 that there are three more perpetrators. There we are.
22 Q. At the top, we see the three other perpetrators of this
23 Article 119 crime?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 10531.
1 Q. What we have before us is a criminal report submitted by the
2 chief of the SJB Teslic to the Teslic public prosecutor's office dated 16
3 June 1992
4 a KU number, 108. Can you confirm that this is the criminal report for
5 the entry we just looked at?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if you can just take a look at the information regarding the
8 perpetrators. Can you tell us, the alleged perpetrators, where were they
9 from in Teslic?
10 A. Among the personal information about the indictees, we can see
11 that they all have permanent resident at Gornji Rankovic which is in the
12 municipality of Teslic, except for one who it says now is a fugitive, but
13 even he has permanent residence at Gornji Rankovic.
14 Q. And just to clarify, there is not an indictment, this is a
15 criminal report; is that right?
16 A. Yes. It's a criminal report submitted by the SJB of Teslic to
17 the basic public prosecutor's office in Teslic, and it was entered into
18 the KT log-book, as we have seen.
19 Q. And this is typical of criminal reports, but it also lists, in
20 addition to the names of the perpetrators, or alleged perpetrators and
21 where they are from but where they are employed, and in this case where
22 it is indicated, it shows that these individuals were unemployed at the
23 time, right?
24 A. In criminal reports when they are submitted by the police or the
25 police either in police station or in Security Services Centre, it is --
1 it was usual to mention the basic personal information about the -- all
2 the persons mentioned therein. The date of birth, the place of person --
3 permanent residence, the names of their parents, their occupation, where
4 they work, et cetera. It is also mentioned what they're being charged
5 with and what evidence has been collected until that time that
6 corroborate the allegations that they have committed the crime they are
7 charged with.
8 Q. And if the perpetrators were members of the military, this is
9 also where that would be specified?
10 A. When the police draws up a criminal report, it mentions the basic
11 information. They needn't mention everything. But the prosecutor does
12 have, when he or she issues an indictment. The police always mentions
13 the most important personal information about the persons against whom
14 the criminal report is submitted.
15 Q. Let's turn the page in both the B/C/S and the English.
16 And we can see that these six individuals were accused of digging
17 holes of approximately 1 metre in diametre during the conflict in
18 Gornja Rankovic, based upon the instructions of Suljo Beganovic.
19 Ms. Gacinovic, without more, would this be sufficient grounds to
20 charge someone with an Article 119 crime?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry, I don't know how the witness can
22 answer this question. The fact is that they have been charged or they
23 have been -- the criminal complaint have been filed. I mean, the
24 prosecutor charges by filing the -- the indictment with the charges. So
25 I'm not -- I'm not really sure I follow how would the witness be able to
1 answer to this question.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, I'm just asking her based on
3 her experience, her long experience as a prosecutor. She sees the facts
4 laid out here in the criminal report filed by the police. Let me make
5 my -- my statement, please.
6 She can read this criminal report for herself, see the facts as
7 laid out by the police in this case and, as a prosecutor with many years,
8 experience, tell us whether this would be sufficient information for her
9 to proceed on an Article 119 case.
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, had you an objection as well?
11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when I was asking
12 similar questions to the witness concerning a particular case, the answer
13 was that the reason for her coming here was the work she did and that she
14 cannot comment on a case which wasn't hers and which she isn't familiar
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Aleksic. Yes,
17 Mr. --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I? The question was put to me
19 and I can't seem to get a chance to answer it. If I were to work on this
20 case, I would probably file a request to start collecting statements from
21 the -- these persons pursuant to Article 143. Apart from that, we see
22 here that there -- this is an annex to this letter which is an
23 Official Note. We don't know its content. I cannot tell based on the
24 criminal report itself what to do, but I don't think I could issue an
25 indictment. Only upon perusing the entire case file I would be able to
1 decide. I didn't comment on the work of the prosecutor in question or
2 anybody else but I would either return this to the police to interview
3 the concerned persons or if that had been done, I would have filed a
4 request to launch an investigation. But based on this criminal report
5 alone, I couldn't make a decision whether or not there are sufficient
6 grounds to issue an indictment.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this document is not on our 65 ter
8 list. It has been disclosed to the Defence, I believe in March of this
9 year, so they've had it for quite some time. Prior to yesterday when
10 Judge Harhoff raised some questions regarding these types of cases, we
11 didn't anticipate this would be extremely probative but now having heard
12 some of the questions and some of the issues, we would move to first
13 admit it on to our 65 ter list and then admit it into evidence.
14 JUDGE HALL: But, Mr. Olmsted, as Mr. Aleksic has correctly
15 observed having regard to the purpose for which this witness is called,
16 and it's your case, you're reexamining, why are we going down this path?
17 How does it assist in terms of the -- -- the -- what the evidence -- what
18 the testimony of this witness has been? Why ...
19 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, with regard to a previous witness
20 where the Defence admitted a number of criminal reports, that witness,
21 ST-210, had never seen before, had no personal knowledge of, it was
22 relevant to put the results of that witness's analysis of the log-books -
23 in that case it was the crime registers - into context. And
24 Judge Harhoff had asked a number of questions trying to understand
25 these -- serving with the enemy army charges that were filed in Teslic,
1 this is just an example of one of them to help the Trial Chamber better
2 understand that issue.
3 So we do think it is a probative document that would be very
4 useful for this Trial Chamber to understand this witness's reports and in
5 particular these types of crimes that were charged in Teslic.
6 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, we object, based -- first of all, we
8 know what are the guide-lines is for amending the 65 ter list, and that
9 is -- that is number one.
10 The second, obviously this is the first time the -- the witness
11 sees this. There's no nexus.
12 And the third and the most important, I'm now -- I'm having a
13 problem. I seem not to understand the Prosecutor's case anymore.
14 Maybe -- maybe the Prosecutor can enlighten us what is their case in this
15 respect. This was not -- this -- this wasn't the matter which was in
16 dispute between the party. It was not the issue in the case, as far as I
17 know so far.
18 Now, if the -- Judge Harhoff posed the question, I tried to
19 assist by showing the criminal -- the criminal law of the SFRY in order
20 to explain what the Article 119 is. Now the Prosecutor, for some reason,
21 wants to expand their case in this area. It has not been charged. It
22 has not been in their pre-trial brief. This is the first time we ever
23 hear any -- any talk about this serving -- about this article and serving
24 in the enemy's army, as -- as an issue in this case.
25 So, therefore --
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Zecevic -- Mr. Zecevic, in all fairness,
2 you were the one who drew the Chamber's attention to Article 119 and that
3 sparked my questions. And -- and the -- the -- the idea of prosecution
4 of civilians who are asked to perform work for the Muslim army, such as
5 digging trenches, still strikes me as surprising. If I were to put an
6 additional question to the witness, that would be whether the witness had
7 any knowledge of any Serbs being prosecuted for a similar crime.
8 But I may get back to the witness on that.
9 But I think that there is some probative value to this document.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. ZECEVIC: But, Your Honours, just for the record, I -- it was
12 Your Honour's question to the witness during the -- the direct
13 examination of Mr. Olmsted, and I tried to assist by posing the question
14 for -- because I thought that Your Honours did not understood [sic]
15 her -- her answer, and that is why I brought up the -- the -- the
16 criminal law. It wasn't my intention at all. I tried to be of
17 assistance to the Trial Chamber, as I think is our duty.
18 So, therefore, I didn't raise this issue, and -- and so far, what
19 I'm saying is, so far we are not -- we were not aware that this is a part
20 of the Prosecutor's case.
21 Now, of course, if the Trial Chamber is -- is interested in -- in
22 some of the aspects of this Article 119, and some other things, of
23 course, the witness may answer. But my problem was that Mr. Olmsted is
24 offering a document to be admitted, and I gave my reasons why I object
25 for that.
1 Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I accept that.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: By majority, the Chamber is of the view that this
5 document is -- should not be admitted as it is irrelevant, dealing with
6 the collateral issue.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, I understand your ruling, but if I may
8 say one more thing in favour of our position.
9 We have heard evidence from witnesses from this municipality who
10 talk about this very issue of these types of cases being filed in Teslic,
11 why they were filed, what happened to the people who were -- the charges
12 were filed against. So it is relevant in that regard --
13 JUDGE HALL: No, we have ruled. So we move on, Mr. Olmsted.
14 MR. OLMSTED: May we have P1284.07 on the screen.
15 Q. And this is the final topic I want to cover today.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I object, Your Honours. I don't see how does this
17 come out of the -- the cross-examination. We never raised the issue of
18 the military courts or the Law on Military Courts. It was the witness's
19 answer which referred to the military courts, but it wasn't raised by us.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Precisely, Your Honours, but the Defence, just as
21 the Prosecution, must take the answers that the witness gives to their
22 questions, and I have the right to re-examine a witness on one of her
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] ... that came up in
1 MR. OLMSTED: Precisely, Your Honour.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: It seems to me that even if the witness volunteered
4 an answer, since it came out of the cross and it appears to be relevant,
5 you may proceed, Mr. Olmsted.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you.
7 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, during cross-examination, you mentioned that the
8 Law on Military Courts specifies when the military courts have
9 jurisdiction over a crime.
10 Do you recall stating that?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. OLMSTED: If we can turn to the next page. And focus on
13 Article 13.
14 Q. Article 13, we see, enumerates the circumstances in which the
15 military courts have jurisdiction over civilian perpetrators; is that
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn the page yet again.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. I still -- I still don't
20 see what -- what -- I -- if -- if I thought that there was enough
21 foundation to bring this issue to this witness, because this witness is a
22 civilian prosecutor. It is not the military prosecutor. We had the
23 military prosecutors over here, and we have all the answers from the
24 competent person on the record. I -- I -- I really don't see how -- what
25 is the foundation for asking the questions of -- that -- the witness can
1 answer the questions which -- which pertain to her -- her job which is
2 Law on Criminal Procedure and the criminal law but not on the military --
3 military courts because she was not the military prosecutor or a part of
4 the military judiciary system.
5 Therefore, there is no -- there is -- there's no foundation
6 for -- for asking her, and she's not an expert, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, before Mr. Zecevic rose, I was about to
8 ask how far are you going with this. Because, as Mr. Zecevic has
9 correctly pointed out, the -- if -- if -- if -- where you now seem to be
10 leading, is to get an opinion from this witness in terms of an area of
11 law which is not her -- within her field of expertise. Then it is
12 obviously irrelevant.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honour, it was interesting objection
14 because the Defence have asked a number of prosecutor's and judges who --
15 civilian prosecutors and judges who have testified here this very line of
16 questions, and I am simply following suit with this witness. And I think
17 you'll see that I will not take it very far. I just have a few questions
18 regarding this, and it all -- you'll see pertains directly to what she
19 stated during cross-examination.
20 JUDGE HALL: But, Mr. Olmsted, insofar as if there's a
21 controversy about the effect of a particular law, and the meaning of --
22 the interpretation of a particular law, isn't the side who is inviting a
23 particular conclusion by the Trial Chamber obliged to call a person who
24 purports to be an expert on the law in question.
25 And the problem with this witness is that the law with which we
1 are presently confronted is not something that she is apparently
2 competent to speak to.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honour, first of all, I think that issue
4 that you have raised certainly goes to the weight of the evidence that
5 the witness can give on this issue. Can I ask some foundational
6 questions regarding her familiarity with an interaction with military
7 courts over the years. Obviously there has to be some co-operation
8 between the civilian prosecutor and the military prosecutor when -- as
9 we've seen already with this witness, some cases get transferred to the
10 military prosecutor and vices verse. We saw the Kajtez case where a
11 military case went from the Banja Luka military prosecutor's office or
12 military court and went to the Sanski Most civilian prosecutor's court.
13 So there is an interaction between the military judicial system and the
14 civilian judicial system.
15 But I'm not really asking her questions that would require her
16 expertise. I really -- if I may just ask my next question, I think you
17 will see that it relates to what she told us during her
18 cross-examination. I'm not going to delve deep into this.
19 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed.
20 MR. OLMSTED:
21 Q. Ms. Gacinovic, if you can look -- we're still looking at
22 Article 13, but I want you to look at the last paragraph of Article 13,
23 which states that:
24 "The military court try prisoners of war for any committed
25 criminal act and for crimes against humanity and international law."
1 Is that the provision that you were referring to during
2 cross-examination as to when the military courts have jurisdiction over
3 such crimes?
4 A. This provision of Article 13 - I don't know which paragraph - is
5 quite clear; namely that military courts have jurisdiction over all
6 crimes committed by prisoners of war as well as crimes against humanity
7 and international law under Articles 141 to 155 of the Criminal Code of
8 the SFRY. And I said something very similar when I looked at that case
9 from 1992. I said that it was the military prosecutor's office which had
10 jurisdiction over that case because we saw earlier that Article 119
11 specified that the military court had jurisdiction over those cases.
12 So if the persons filing the criminal report concluded that it
13 was the military court that had jurisdiction for a particular case, then
14 the entire file would be sent to the military court. And similar applies
15 in this particular case. If it was a crime for which military courts had
16 jurisdiction, then the case would be sent to the relevant competent
17 military court.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours, and I refer Your Honours to
19 paragraph 13 to her 2 June 2010
20 this. Once -- if it is admitted into evidence to save some time here.
21 And at this stage, I have no further questions. And if the --
22 Your Honours don't have any questions, I would move to admit her 92 ter
23 package which would include the addendum to her 2 June 2010 statement,
24 that's 65 ter 10530, into evidence.
25 So that would be 10527, 10528, 10529 and 10530.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic [Microphone not activated].
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm glad Mr. Olmsted
3 reminded Your Honours to paragraph 13 of the -- of the statement which he
4 is now trying to introduce into the -- the evidence, and it is quite in
5 contradiction with witness said just a couple of minutes ago, looking at
6 the -- at the actual law, so I ... I'm not sure what is the position of
7 the -- of the Office of the Prosecutor in relation to this.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, I think it is consistent, but I
9 could bring it up and have her confirm what she states in paragraph 13 of
10 her 2 June 2010
11 jurisdiction when it was a military person, obviously, and as well as if
12 the -- the perpetrator was a prisoner of war. She's distinguishing when
13 the civilian courts have jurisdiction or when the civilian prosecutor
14 would have jurisdiction. And she covers this not only in that
15 paragraph but throughout her statement. She notes where the civilian
16 prosecutor's office had particular cases that are relevant.
17 JUDGE HALL: To the extent there may be an inconsistency, isn't
18 this a matter that we would deal with at the end of the day. It isn't
19 something that we need concern ourselves with at this point.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I agree, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: I have a question about not to -- of the witness
22 but Mr. Olmsted. You mentioned four documents in the 92 ter package --
23 and going till 105030 and what 105031? If I'm not wrong?
24 MR. OLMSTED: Is it 10531 the one that --
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: 10531, I'm sorry, yes.
1 MR. OLMSTED: We'd move to admit that one as well.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Pardon? That's the one we refuse.
3 MR. OLMSTED: That's the one you refuse.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Sorry about that.
5 Questioned by the Court:
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam, just to round this issue up about the
7 crime which we have dealt with here most recently, you may already have
8 told us but it just slipped my attention. And my question is: Can you
9 offer an explanation as to why this case about the six Muslim gentlemen
10 who were charged for violation of Article 119 for having drug trenches
11 for the Muslim army, you told us that this would been a military -- a
12 case for the military court, yet it ended up before the civilian court or
13 the civilian police. Why was that; do you know?
14 A. Could Article 13 of the Law on Military Courts be put back up,
16 MR. OLMSTED: Certainly. If it will help the Trial Chamber. Let
17 me look at the -- the -- the exhibit number.
18 I don't think there is any question that Article 119 cases fell
19 within the jurisdiction of the military court, to save some time there.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: That was clear. But it just appeared to me that
21 this particular case ends up before the civilian authorities, and I just
22 wasn't sure of how that happened. If it was originally a case for the
23 military police and the military court, then why did it end up before the
24 civilian authorities?
25 A. Based on the log-book. I concluded that it didn't end up with
1 civilian courts. The proceedings were begun but it is possible that the
2 Law on Military Courts was not in force yet, and as soon as it entered
3 into force, it was the military court and the military prosecutor who had
4 jurisdiction. Based on the log-book, I would say that it was sent to the
5 military prosecutor's office.
6 Article 13 lists specifically in which cases when perpetrators
7 are civilians would the military courts have jurisdiction and that
8 includes crimes under Article 119. Based on the log-book, we can see
9 that in December 1992, the case file was sent to the relevant military
10 prosecutor's office.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Madam. I didn't catch that during the
12 course of events, and I apologise.
13 And thank you for your answer. I have no further questions.
14 JUDGE HALL: So the 92 package is admitted. And, Ms. Gacinovic,
15 We thank you for your assistance to the Tribunal. You are now released
16 and we wish you a safe journey back to your home.
17 Thank you, ma'am.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 THE REGISTRAR: And just for the record, Your Honours. The
21 92 ter package 65 ter 10527 will be Exhibit P1609.1, 65 ter 10528 will be
22 Exhibit P1609.2, 65 ter 10529 will be P1609.3, and 65 ter 10530 will be
24 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, Ms. Pidwell will be leading the next
1 witness, so if I may excuse myself so she may occupy my seat.
2 JUDGE HALL: You may withdraw, Mr. Olmsted.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. I informed that I would
4 have one so-called housekeeping matter before the witness is brought in,
5 so if I may at this point.
6 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we received yesterday's decision
8 about the -- the -- the experts, the Office of the Prosecutor experts.
9 Now we were told by our friends from the -- from the Office of the
10 Prosecutor side is that according to the plan, they -- they intend to
11 call expert Ewan Brown, the military expert for the Office of the
12 Prosecutor between 20th and the 22nd of October.
13 Your Honours, if I may remind Your Honours, on the 26th of
14 September, on pages 14087, 088, and further 14152, 153, we made the --
15 it's -- it's -- I believe it's the 2nd of September, I'm sorry, I
16 mispronounced the date. We made the submission concerning our problems
17 with the disclosure of the Mladic material. Now, the Mladic material has
18 been disclosed to us last -- the Friday before the last, so immediately
19 before our site visit.
20 Your Honours, myself, I am -- I am the one who will be
21 cross-examining the -- Ewan Brown expert for the Office of the
22 Prosecutor, but due to reasons which are beyond my control,
23 Mr. O'Sullivan and myself are -- are flying to Canada on a mission for
24 preparation of our case tomorrow, and we will not be here for the whole
25 week. And there -- there wasn't anything we could do about it because I
1 have to apply for the visas with the Canadian authorities and they gave
2 me a certain date when I can enter Canada
3 Therefore, we have to leave -- we have to leave tomorrow.
4 Your Honours, having in view the amount of the material which has
5 been disclosed to us from the Mladic diaries and the relevance of that
6 material for the cross-examination of Ewan Brown, the -- the military
7 expert, I can -- I can inform the Trial Chamber that we are not going to
8 be ready to cross-examine him on the 20 -- on -- on these date, 20th or
9 22nd of October.
10 We suggested to our friends from the Prosecution that the only
11 other option that -- that we see is that they call this witness at the
12 end of their case. Because, Your Honours, on the 2nd of September, we
13 asked -- I asked myself for two weeks' adjournment in order to be able to
14 deal with this -- this amount of material from the Mladic diaries. And
15 if I may remind the Trial Chamber, in all other case in this Tribunal,
16 the adjournment of at least two weeks was giving [sic] to the parties to
17 get -- to read and analyse the material of Mladic diaries.
18 I -- I'm afraid to suggest that now, because I see Your Honours'
19 determination to keep on the pace as scheduled, but I would -- I -- I --
20 I felt it was my obligation to -- to put the Trial Chamber on notice of
21 the problem that we are having. Because, definitely, what I can say at
22 this point is we are not going to be able to prepare the
23 cross-examination for this witness by the -- by the end of October.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, am I wrong by thinking that your
1 request that you withdrew your request for two weeks stay?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honours, I'm just -- I'm just not
3 repeating it. It's on the record, and I stick to it, but I'm not
4 repeating it because I'm pretty sure if I would repeat it now, the
5 Trial Chamber will not grant that request. That is my opinion, with all
6 due respect.
7 Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Pidwell, are you counsel with responsibility for
10 this witness?
11 MS. PIDWELL: Kind of, Your Honour. I can address you on this
13 Good evening. Firstly, if I can kindly request the Defence to
14 raise these procedural matters at the end of the day, rather than the
15 time when we got a witness waiting outside, in the future, I would
16 appreciate that.
17 Secondly, the -- this matter was discussed approximately a month
18 ago, and the -- to give you a little bit of a chronology, there's two
19 issues here. There's the Mladic notebooks which have been ruled upon and
20 there's the audio files and video files. We disclosed the notebooks and
21 68 audios on the 23rd of July. That was the first portion of the audios
22 which had been processed through the OTP.
23 There was a second batch which comprised 52 audio and video
24 recordings which were disclosed to the Defence on the 15th of September.
25 Now accompanying that disclosure of the 52 audios and videos was
1 a spreadsheet, an internal Office of the Prosecutor spreadsheet, which
2 had a summary of each and every audio from not only those 52 but the 68
3 previously disclosed advising the Defence, well, it was an OTP product,
4 but advising the contents of the tape. Some of them are birthday
5 parties, some of them are French lessons, some of them are meetings, and
6 so we have done a revision and that spreadsheet has been disclosed to the
7 Defence to assist them in reviewing this material.
8 Of the audios and videos that we have reviewed, we have
9 identified two audios and one video which we consider possibly could fall
10 within Rule 66(B), not 58, possibly within Rule 66(B), if it is
11 interpreted widely. And we identified these when they were disclosed and
12 this information was passed on to the Defence. We did not consider that
13 they needed to disclose the others, because we didn't consider they fell
14 with any of the Rules but we did upon their request.
15 This should not be grounds for an adjournment when we have
16 disclosed information to them upon their request, which, in our view, is
17 not relevant to this case, but they seem to be wanting to use this as a
18 method to extend the -- well, prolong the testimony -- the -- the length
19 of case or not have this expert appear.
20 If we go back, Your Honour, every single expert that we've
21 scheduled to testify in this case we have he had to move because the
22 Defence have not been ready at the first moment that we're scheduled them
23 to testify. This expert is our second-to-last one, and to coin a phrase,
24 he cannot be moved from the schedule. Even if we put him at the end of
25 the case and we are currently looking at the -- if we don't have to --
1 well, the 92 bis witnesses aside --
2 JUDGE HALL: If I may interrupt and inquire, Ms. Pidwell, can --
3 if he -- although he can't be moved, can he be divided in terms of
4 separating his cross-examination, postponing that to a later date.
5 MS. PIDWELL: If the later date is the new year, then the answer
6 is yes.
7 We anticipate finishing our current witness list at the end of
8 November. But he cannot be brought forward. He has obligations which
9 cannot be shifted.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Ms. Pidwell, the --
12 assuming that there not been this indication of the problems of the
13 Prosecution had, according -- the Defence had, according to the witness's
14 convenience how long was he scheduled to be here?
15 MS. PIDWELL: He is scheduled to be here for three days, so he
16 would --
17 JUDGE HALL: Would that have been sufficient?
18 MS. PIDWELL: Well, to testify, sorry, in court. His court time
19 would be three days and we would bring him on a weekend and anticipate
20 that he would leave on --
21 JUDGE HALL: That's what I'm asking, whether the three days that
22 he was booked to be here whether that would be sufficient to cover his
23 testimony in its entirety, in any event.
24 MS. PIDWELL: We hope so. That's the estimate that we've been
25 provided -- for the cross-examination estimate that has been provided to
1 us from the Defence.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course, Your Honours, as -- as Ms. Pidwell says,
3 this is what -- this was the estimate. After we reviewed the Mladic
4 books we might -- we might ask for additional time to -- to cross-examine
5 this witness. That is the precisely the point which I'm trying to -- to
6 explain to Your Honours.
7 MS. PIDWELL: There is just one additional point for Your Honours
9 My learned friend said that in other Trial Chambers, the Defence
10 have been given adjournments for approximately two weeks to review this
11 material. It's correct that some Prosecution teams have been given
12 adjournment to review the Mladic diaries or notebooks, but in my -- on my
13 information that I have, I don't understand any trial teams or Defence
14 teams have been given additional adjournment time to review the
15 audiotapes which have been subsequently disclosed and the notebooks were
16 disclosed way back in April.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL: Anyway, to minimise any further inconvenience to the
19 witness waiting outside, we have heard the Defence's application -- not
20 an application, but we have heard the comments that both sides have made
21 and it's something that we -- we're obviously going have to consider
22 outside of court. And if we need further information from counsel, we
23 would revert to you.
24 So could we have the witness who is waiting in, please.
25 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, the Prosecution calls Witness ST-184.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Pidwell, is he -- is he a viva voce witness
2 for the moment?
3 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, he was -- he was one who was subject to our
4 discussion and your ruling a couple of days ago. We had asked -- he was
5 previously 92 ter. We switched him over to viva voce because of the
6 problems with the audiotaped interviews.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, than means six hours for the Prosecution; is
8 that it?
9 MS. PIDWELL: That's correct. Except I don't anticipate taking
10 that long.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the Defence will take how long, Mr. Zecevic,
12 for this witness, cross-examination?
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe my friend, Mr. Cvijetic informs me that
14 we will take one session, maybe two hours at the maximum, yes.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honours, we indicate 2 hours, but I think it
17 may be less.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. First of all, to
20 you hear me in a language you can understand?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can hear you.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give your
23 testimony. You are about to read the solemn declaration by which
24 witnesses commit themselves to tell the truth. I need to point out that
25 a solemn declaration that you are about to make does expose you to the
1 penalty of perjury should you give misleading or untruthful evidence to
2 this Tribunal. Now, then, would you please be kind enough to read aloud
3 the solemn declaration.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
5 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: SIMO MISKOVIC
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, sir. You may sit down.
9 And, sir, could we begin by asking to you state your full name,
10 your date and place of birth please.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Simo Miskovic, born on
12 the 7th of March, 1945, in the village of Donji Ratkovo, Kljuc
13 municipality, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what is your ethnicity, please.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a Serb.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Your today's profession?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have been retired for 20 years.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: 20 years. So you were already retired in 1992?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I retired in 1991, starting on the
20 1st of January, 1991.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is this your first testimony before this
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before any court.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before any court, okay.
25 Let me then explain you briefly how the procedure will go on in
1 this Tribunal.
2 You have been called as a witness by the Prosecution who is
3 sitting on your right, and the Prosecution has asked for, all together,
4 six hours to examine you in-chief. After that, counsel for Mr. Stanisic,
5 sitting on your left, has asked for more or less two-hours to
6 cross-examine you. And when Mr. Zecevic is through, the
7 cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic for Mr. Zupljanin will more or less take
8 two hours equally.
9 After that, the Prosecution will have the floor again for -- to
10 put some more questions to you in re-examination, and the Judges could
11 have questions of you as well.
12 As a practical matter, we sit in the afternoon until 7.00,
13 starting at a quarter to 2.00. And in the morning, if we sit in the
14 morning, we sit from 9.00 to a quarter to 2.00 in the afternoon, we start
15 quarter past 2.00. But we all only sit mornings or afternoons, never the
17 So one other matter, we take breaks for technical reasons. Tapes
18 for the audio have to be changed, and so on. We take breaks every 90
19 minutes. If for any reason, for any reason you should need an extra
20 break at any time, please let us know and we will accommodate you.
21 That's what I had to say. I thank you very much.
22 And I give the floor to Ms. Pidwell for the Prosecution.
23 MS. PIDWELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Examination by Ms. Pidwell:
25 Q. Good evening.
1 A. Good evening.
2 Q. Sir, we heard you say that you were born in the municipality of
3 Kljuc. Where were you raised?
4 A. My father was a police officer, so after the Second World War he
5 had to move around. For a while, I lived at Sanski Most where he was
6 transferred. After that, he was transferred to Kozarac, where he was
7 chief of the police station. We lived in Kozarac, and I attended
8 second -- through the seventh form of primary school there. After that,
9 my father was transferred to Prijedor, where we have lived since 1957.
10 Q. And after you completed your schooling, you then did your
11 compulsory military training, did you not?
12 A. Yes, I did. It was compulsory for all able-bodied men.
13 Q. And after that, you commenced a nine-month police course in
15 A. Yes, at Vrace.
16 Q. And after completing that course, you then commenced work as a
17 police officer in Banja Luka and remained there from 1968 to 1973; is
18 that correct?
19 A. That is correct. From 8 January 1968 through 1 April 1973, when
20 I was transferred to Prijedor to the same position.
21 Q. And what position was that?
22 A. I worked as a police officer. First a police constable. Then I
23 worked in the crime police -- crime prevention, that is, after which I
24 became a squad commander at Omarska, and later I was a police commander
25 at the centre in Prijedor.
1 Q. You were the squad commander in Omarska from 1978 to 1992. Does
2 that sound right?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. And from 1982, you were the Deputy Commander in the Prijedor SJB.
5 A. 1992, oh, no, no, actually 1982. Yes, correct.
6 Q. And from 1982 until your retirement in January 1991, you
7 remainder in the Prijedor police.
8 A. Yes. I was Deputy Commander of the -- the police, and I mean the
9 general police, because there was also the traffic police.
10 Q. And at the date of your retirement, who was your commander?
11 A. The commander of the police station was Fikret Kadiric [phoen].
12 Q. And what was his ethnicity?
13 A. He was a Muslim.
14 Q. Do you recall who the chief of the police -- the Prijedor police
15 was at the time?
16 A. At that moment -- well, I can't really remember. No, I can't
18 Q. I don't think it's a contention issue, if I suggest a name.
19 Hasan Telundzic, would that refresh your memory, sir?
20 A. I think that he came later. After the multi-party elections, I
21 think. But I wasn't with the police anymore, at the time.
22 Q. So you retired shortly after the multi-party elections?
23 A. Well, at the end of 1990. As of 1 January 1991, I was a
24 pensioner already.
25 Q. Now, during your time working in Banja Luka, did you know the
1 accused Stojan Zupljanin?
2 A. No. I don't think that he had started his police career then.
3 Q. Sir, if I could have you look at the map, please.
4 MS. PIDWELL: It's P1526.
5 Q. You'll see -- it will come up on your screen in a few minutes.
6 A. Yes, I can see it.
7 Q. That's a general map of the municipality of Prijedor
8 A. Yes, it is. With all local communities.
9 Q. Would you agree that the town of Prijedor is the largest
10 settlement in the municipality?
11 A. Yes, it's a fact.
12 Q. And on that map, we have a -- what looks like a railway line
13 running through approximately half of the municipality. Was there a
14 railway line that connected the town of Prijedor to Banja Luka?
15 A. That railroad line was built long ago. I think it was in
16 Austro-Hungarian times. It runs from Bosanski Novi through Prijedor,
17 Banja Luka, and it goes on.
18 Q. And the main road south east of Prijedor follows largely the
19 course of that railway; is that correct?
20 A. That road was built in the early 1970s. Before that time there
21 was an old unpaved road which ran through Kozarsko Zavosko [phoen]
22 Kozarac, and so on, Kamcani and on toward Ivanska. It was an unpaved
23 road. Whereas the tarmac road which runs parallel to the railroad line
24 was only built in the early 1970s.
25 Q. Now, sir, before the multi-party elections in 1990, would you
1 agree that there was ethnic tolerance in the municipality of Prijedor
2 that there were mixed marriages and friendships and it was a peaceful
4 A. Well, that's a fact. It was like that in all of Yugoslavia
5 including Prijedor.
6 Q. Just looking at this map again, sir, you've got there's some
7 towns marked on it. And perhaps can you use that to assist in describing
8 the police substations that were -- existed in Prijedor, or exist in
9 Prijedor. We know about the main Prijedor station which is located in
10 Prijedor town. But can you please describe the -- where the other
11 station -- substations were located?
12 A. Yeah, well, we called them branch police stations. They were
13 branches of the police stations proper. They could be found at Omarska
14 and --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the name of the other
17 MS. PIDWELL:
18 Q. Sir, the interpreters didn't quite get the last town that you
19 mentioned where the police branch was located. They caught Omarska but
20 not the other one.
21 A. Kozarac and Omarska, whereas Ljubija was a police station but
22 later it -- it became a branch station. That is -- which is a unit at
23 lower level.
24 Q. And when you say it's a unit at a lower level, does that mean
25 that it is essentially a reserve police station?
1 A. No. No. The police stations were in Ljubija and in Prijedor,
2 whereas, the branch police stations or substations, as you call them, are
3 branches of the Central Station, whereas Ljubija was a -- an autonomous
4 police station, but due to the small population and the absence of
5 greater problems, they were reduced to a branch station. They were no
6 longer a police station proper.
7 Q. Sir, can you please explain the -- what I will call Prijedor 2
8 station, where you subsequently became the commander in 1991?
9 A. Well, first, you must understand the organisational structure in
10 that Yugoslavia
11 In socialist Yugoslavia
12 there were active police stations and reserve police stations. They also
13 had a wartime assignment. Everybody had a wartime assignment, some with
14 the police and some with the military. So the police had their reserve
15 force and, of course, the army did as well. And that is unrelated to the
16 peacetime structure and organisation. In those stations, people were
17 trained because they had other peacetime jobs, and only in case of need
18 they could be called up to perform police duties and everybody knew their
19 wartime assignment where they were supposed to work in case of war.
20 These are the wartime police stations, reserve police stations which
21 didn't function daily as the regular ones that operated 24/7.
22 Q. So Prijedor 2 which was stationed at -- well, where was that
23 stationed when it was activated?
24 A. It's at Urija, above the railroad line and the highway. It's
25 actually a suburban settlement which now has grown, but it used to be a
1 smaller settlement. Nowadays, it is part of the town of Prijedor
2 Q. And the area that the Prijedor 2 police station covered when it
3 was activated was what?
4 A. Not only when it was activated, they already had their wartime
5 assignment and the territory where they had jurisdiction was defined.
6 And that territory was mostly Brezicani, Cejreci, Puharska, Palanciste,
7 and those areas above the railroad line. But there was also the police
8 station Kozarac which covered that territory and another in Ljubija which
9 had jurisdiction over another territory and so on. Apart from the active
10 police stations.
11 MS. PIDWELL: I wonder if that's a convenient time, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
13 Mr. Miskovic, we have reached the point at which we must adjourn
14 for the day. We will resume in this courtroom tomorrow morning at 9.00
15 when your testimony will continue.
16 Having been sworn as a witness, you cannot have any communication
17 with counsel from either side in this matter; and in such conversations
18 as you may have with persons outside the courtroom, you cannot discuss
19 your testimony.
20 So we rise now, to resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 1st of October,
25 2010, at 9.00 a.m.