1 Wednesday, 3 November 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The Accused Zupljanin not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
13 Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Claire Plumb, appearing for Stanisic Defence
16 this morning. Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
18 Igor Pantelic, and Aleksandar Aleksic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
19 Our client is not present. He already has signed a waiver.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I announced that I have two
23 preliminary questions. One concerns the transcript of yesterday. I have
24 an intervention. Page 16774, line 7, it is recorded as words of
25 Mr. Krgovic, where in fact, it was myself who made the -- the submission.
1 The second thing, Your Honours invited us to comment on the 17th
2 motion for protective measures. Your Honours, we do oppose the motion.
3 I will briefly explain.
4 The first four witnesses which are referred to in the motion have
5 been granted the protective measures in the previous cases based on the
6 fact that they were viva voce witnesses. I am aware, and I know that --
7 that the protective measures applied in one cases proprio motu are
8 adopted in the other cases. But, in my opinion, since these -- these
9 witnesses are 92 bis witnesses, at least what our friends from the Office
10 of the Prosecutor should have done was to approach the witnesses and ask
11 them if they still insist on their protective measures based on the fact
12 that they are 92 bis witnesses in this case. And we don't have any --
13 any information in that regard.
14 The second group are two witnesses which are also 92 bis
15 witnesses and are asking for protective measures for the first time. In
16 both cases, we -- we lack the nature and the basis for -- for their
17 concerns. The first one which returned to the -- to the territory of
18 Republika Srpska and resides now in Doboj, we are inclined to -- to
19 understand his concerns to a certain extent, but, still, nonetheless, I
20 believe the witness should -- or the witness -- the Office of the
21 Prosecutor should provide a certain additional information as the nature
22 of these concerns.
23 The second one which resides outside of the territory of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the moment, talks about his concerns based on some
25 rally by the Serbs, asking to -- or asking to kill Croats and Muslims? I
1 don't think that such a thing has -- has happened in -- in Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina or Republika Srpska any time in last, at least, ten years.
3 That is -- that is for sure, that such a rally happened and it wasn't
4 made public or some measures were not taken, it's quite impossible.
5 Therefore, based on that, that fact, I don't think that we can
6 accept that as a truth. Perhaps the witness has some wrong information
7 about it, because he doesn't reside, after all, in the territory.
8 Those are the reasons why we oppose this motion.
9 Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
11 MR. HANNIS: Do you want to hear any response from us at this
13 JUDGE HALL: If are you in a position to, Mr. Hannis.
14 MR. HANNIS: Well, I'm in a position --
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we do. When I say if you are in a position, if
16 you are in a position to at this time.
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I would make a brief submission at this
18 time and then perhaps follow it up with something in writing if you need.
19 With regard to the first four witnesses, they were granted
20 protective measures in the previous case and the jurisprudence in the
21 Tribunal is those apply in other cases mutatis mutandis, and there is a
22 presumption that they apply. I know a case law that requires the
23 Prosecution to go back to a witness and ask him, Do you still want those
24 protective measures. And the fact that they are now 92 bis, the mode of
25 testimony standing by itself does not seem to be, to me, a reason why you
1 would change it.
2 Generally, the reason that protective measures are sought by
3 witnesses is because they fear if it is learned that they have given
4 testimony in a case here or against particular accused, that they may
5 suffer some consequences and if that testimony is presented live or
6 92 ter or 92 bis, either way the same concerns for the witness exist,
7 whether they are seen in court live or whether somebody reads their
8 statement or their transcript. They will know that that person has
9 provided evidence and that's generally the causes for the witnesses
10 having concerns about testifying here and being retaliated against, and
11 that's why we speak protective measures.
12 So for the first four, I don't think you have heard anything that
13 would cause you to need to deviate from the norm of allowing those
14 protective measures from previous cases.
15 JUDGE HALL: We certainly accept that, Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 With regard to the other two, I'm sorry, I'm not -- I'm not up to
18 speed on their particular situations. I will review what Mr. Zecevic has
19 said, speak with the lawyers dealing with those two witnesses, and get
20 back to you as soon as I can.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
23 If there are no other preliminary matters, could the blinds be
24 lowered so that the witness could be escorted back to the stand, please.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, Mr. Witness. It has been
3 reported to us that --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE HALL: That your health has improved over yesterday, and we
6 trust that you're able to remain with us to complete your testimony
7 today. I would only remind you, as I said yesterday, that if at any
8 point that you are in distress, you could either indicate it to us or
9 indicate it to the Court Officer and we will, of course, take a break in
10 order to accommodate you.
11 And, Mr. Olmsted, if you're ready, you may resume your
13 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 WITNESS: ST-245 [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, sir.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. I want to begin by clarifying something that you testified about
21 Do you recall, I asked you that besides the buses that brought
22 detainees to Omarska what other means were used to bring detainees to the
23 camp. And you responded that they arrived by a vehicle known as an
24 Marica. Do you remember testifying to that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you explain to us what kind of vehicle this was?
2 A. It's a blue vehicle, but there's one portion which is painted
3 white. The majority of it is painted blue. But a smaller portion is
4 white. It has protective bars on the windows.
5 Q. And who used these vehicles?
6 A. These vehicles were used by the police, and they belonged to the
7 Prijedor SJB.
8 Q. Yesterday you testified that a police officer named
9 Ranko Kovacevic typically brought detainees to Omarska camp. Would he
10 use one of these vehicles when he was doing that?
11 A. I cannot ascertain that it was he, himself, who used this
12 vehicle, but he did on a number of occasions bring one, two, or three
13 persons at any one time.
14 Q. At the end of yesterday's session, we were talking about the 175
15 detainees who were -- remained behind at Omarska camp after the rest of
16 the detainees were transferred to either Manjaca camp or Trnopolje camp.
17 Do you recall that?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. OLMSTED: May we have P668 on the screen. And this is
20 tab 18. And if we could turn to page 2 of the B/C/S version.
21 Q. We see this is a dispatch numbered 11-12-2169 from SJB Prijedor
22 to CSB Banja Luka, dated 1 August 1992.
23 If we look at the contents, we see that in this dispatch, Drljaca
24 is informing the CSB that the War Presidency of the Prijedor Municipal
25 Assembly adopted a decision to reduce the reserve police force and turn
1 over the security of Keraterm, Trnopolje, and Omarska reception centres
2 to the army. However, Drljaca writes that the army is refusing to accept
3 responsibility, and, therefore, he was not in a position to implement the
4 War Presidency's decision.
5 Now, if we could take a look at 65 ter 505, which is tab 20, we
6 see a dispatch from CSB Banja Luka to SJB Prijedor dated 4 August 1992,
7 so just a few days later, and we see in the reference line that it
8 references Drljaca's dispatch of 11-12-2169, the one we just looked at.
9 Sir, in the upper right-hand corner we see in handwriting a list
10 of names. Can you tell us who are these persons that are listed here?
11 MR. OLMSTED: Perhaps we can zoom in a little bit on the names.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I know these names written
13 here in pencil. The first one is Dusan Jankovic, then Marko Djenadija,
14 then Milutin Cadjo, and the fourth one is Djuro Prpos.
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. Can you tell us what positions they held at SJB Prijedor? You
17 could skip the first one because I think we've already heard about him,
18 but the other three, I think, are new.
19 A. I don't know which specific post Djenadija held. Milutin Cadjo
20 was the police commander in Prijedor. And Djuro Prpos was the commander
21 of the traffic police.
22 Q. So were all these persons in leadership positions at SJB
24 A. I think so.
25 MR. OLMSTED: If we could zoom out now to look at the contents of
1 the dispatch.
2 Q. We see in this dispatch that the CSB chief agrees that SJB
3 Prijedor may postpone the obligation of co-ordinating the number of
4 reserve policemen pursuant to a CSB -- a prior CSB dispatch until
5 adequate solutions are found together with the leadership of the army
6 and in accordance with the War Presidency decisions.
7 Sir, did the civilian police from Prijedor continue to provide
8 security at Omarska until the very end of the camp?
9 A. Yes, it did.
10 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, we object to that. First of all, the
12 one part of question is: Did witness ever see that and he has any
13 knowledge about this dispatches and the contents of this dispatches.
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, there is a question -- I -- I don't
15 know if -- well, I better ask the witness directly.
16 Mr. Witness, what is the significance of these handwritten names
17 to which Mr. Olmsted has referred you? It's a type written dispatch, and
18 there is certain information written in manuscript and including the list
19 of these names. What is the -- what are we to make of that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, the practice was
21 for the head of an organ, which, in this case, was Mr. Simo Drljaca.
22 Once he receives a document, he writes the names of his assistants to be
23 delivered or be given these dispatches for their information.
24 JUDGE HALL: So it is a circulation list, or distribution list?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to this, Djuro Prpos was
1 supposed to assume responsibility for the task relating to the traffic.
2 Milutin Cadjo as the commander should have taken responsibility for
3 general police work. For Djenadija I said I don't know which duties he
4 discharged and I know that Dusan Jankovic was Mr. Simo Drljaca's deputy.
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Mr. Olmsted, do you have a response to
6 Mr. -- it seems to me the document is relevant, but do you have a
7 response to Mr. Krgovic's objection?
8 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, I mean, I don't think this is the first
9 document that has been tendered through a witness who has not seen
10 necessarily the document before, but he can speak to the contents with
11 regard to staffing issues at least one of the camps, Omarska, and he has
12 also been able now to identify some of the people on the distribution
13 list. This relates to a document that has already been admitted into
14 evidence. We -- see that there is a reference number in the heading,
15 11-12-2169, which is to the previous document. So it is relevant, it is
16 probative, and this witness has been able to provide some evidence with
17 regard to it.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't see anywhere
19 in this document any mention of security of Omarska or any other centres.
20 This document purely relates to the reduction of the number of reserve
21 police officers. The Prosecutor avoided to ask the witness anything
22 about this specific item. Quite the contrary, he paraphrased the
23 document and quoted from the document something which is not written in
25 If you look at the contents carefully, it has nothing to do with
1 the security of the centres.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, those arguments go to the weight.
3 And, of course, they can be reserved for the end of this case.
4 Obviously, the Defence and the Prosecution have different positions with
5 regard to this document. But the question here is whether it can be
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber rules that the document may be admitted
9 and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this document shall assigned
11 Exhibit P1682. Thank you.
12 MR. OLMSTED:
13 Q. Sir, I now want to show you a video of -- that perhaps -- from
14 1992 that perhaps you can help us identify some individuals on it.
15 Before I do, do you recall a group of internationals coming to
16 Omarska in early August 1992?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 MR. OLMSTED: May we have 65 ter 1444 on the screen.
19 Q. This, as we can see from the bottom, is an order from
20 Lieutenant-General Ratko Mladic from VRS Main Staff dated 3 August 1992.
21 If we look at item number 1, Mladic orders that the army immediately
22 undertake measures through the MUP authorities to arrange POW camps in
23 your zones of responsibility and prepare them for the visits by foreign
24 journalists and International Red Cross team.
25 If we look just briefly under items 2 and 3, we see that Mladic
1 indicates that the plan is for the internationals to visit Omarska,
2 Trnopolje and Manjaca in the zone of the 1st Krajina Corps
4 Sir, can you tell us what preparations did the police at Omarska
5 undertake before the internationals arrived at the camp?
6 A. Well, one day before we received information that representatives
7 of the International Red Cross would be coming to visit the camp. For
8 that purpose, certain measures were undertaken in order to put this area,
9 in order where the individuals who stayed in Omarska were kept, in terms
10 of cleaning the space. We brought in additional beds. And that would be
11 more or less what we did.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
13 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
15 Exhibit P1683. Thank you.
16 MR. OLMSTED: I would now like to bring up the video. This is
17 P1357. Tabs 16 in our binder. We're not going to play the sound. This
18 has already been played for the Trial Chamber through a prior witness and
19 I'm not really interested in what is said during this footage. I'm more
20 interested in the witness helping us identify certain locations and
22 [Video-clip played]
23 MR. OLMSTED: May we just go back a few seconds. Maybe just
24 start it from the very beginning. Yes. There we go. We paused it at 13
1 Q. Sir, do you recognise this location, where these vehicles are
3 A. Yes. That should be one section of the Omarska mine.
4 MR. OLMSTED: And let's move to 18 seconds.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 Q. We saw a gate there. And yesterday you were telling us about a
7 first- and second-ring of security that surrounded Omarska camp. Would
8 this be the gate to enter the first ring or the second ring?
9 A. I think the first ring.
10 Q. Now we see an individual coming out from what looks like a booth
11 at the gate. Can you tell us what kind of shirt he's wearing?
12 A. Well, he is wearing some kind of blue shirt. A shade of blue.
13 Q. Yes. But --
14 MR. OLMSTED: Maybe we can just play a little bit of -- so maybe
15 can get a closer look at it.
16 Q. Was this a shirt that was worn by any members of any organisation
17 at the time?
18 A. Well, the policemen wore blue shirts, but they had epaulettes and
19 he should have had some insignia on them. However, I don't see any such
20 thing on this person.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Let's play a little bit further.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 MR. OLMSTED: I want to pause at 40 seconds.
24 Q. Do you recognise this person?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Who he is?
2 A. This is Mladen Radic, a police officer.
3 Q. Do you recall what position he held at the Omarska camp?
4 A. He was a policeman, but I heard from other people - he didn't
5 tell that to me personally - that he was a shift leader.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Let's continue forward and pause at 47 second.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. OLMSTED:
9 Q. This man that's in this image here, it appears that he has some
10 kind of wound on his face. And my question to you is: Did the police
11 guards bring detainees with fresh bruises or cuts on their face to the
12 interrogation rooms for interrogation? Were there instances of that?
13 A. Well, I personally saw only one such case of Becir Medunjanin but
14 he was brought in with other individuals from Kosara where the army was
15 mopping up the terrain and they were found hiding in that area.
16 As for the others, I personally didn't see them but I do not
17 rule out the possibility that there were individual cases of that nature.
18 Q. And when you say Becir Medunjanin, can you describe what you saw
19 on him, what injuries he had?
20 A. Well, he had bruises and hematoma on the face, and he had a piece
21 of gauze in his nostril.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Let's go forward to 50 seconds.
23 [Video-clip played]
24 MR. OLMSTED:
25 Q. We see now a man who appears to be emaciated. Did the police
1 guards bring detainees in this kind of physical condition to the
2 interrogation rooms?
3 A. I cannot confirm that, because people were fully dressed;
4 whereas, this person here is only in his undershirt.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Let's move forward to 1 minute and 3 seconds.
6 [Video-clip played]
7 MR. OLMSTED: Sorry, let's move back to -- I'll say when we
8 pause. Yes, that's fine, right there. At 1 minute and 2 seconds.
9 Q. Can you tell us what kind of uniform this person with the rifle
10 is wearing?
11 A. He has an epaulette on the shoulder with some insignia, but I
12 cannot discern the colour. It might have been the jacket that he is
13 wearing, because there were not enough uniforms, so I cannot recognise
14 the colour. I can only see that he has some insignia on the shoulder
15 which should indicate that he was a policeman.
16 Q. What colour were the reserve policemen's uniforms during this
18 A. There was no uniform pattern because there was shortage of
19 uniforms. A number of reserve police officers had incomplete uniforms.
20 They either had a shirt or the trousers; whereas, the active-duty
21 policemen had full uniforms.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Let's move -- fast-forward to 1 minute and 40
24 [Video-clip played]
25 MR. OLMSTED: We can pause, yes, there, 1 minute and 40 seconds.
1 Q. We see two individuals here. Do you know these persons?
2 A. This gentleman is Simo Drljaca. I don't know the other person,
3 but I know that she worked as a translator for journalists and for the
4 people from the Red Cross.
5 Q. Do you recognise this office?
11 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, I can -- well, I thought I saw Judge Harhoff
12 reaching forward. That probably should be redacted that last answer. I
13 didn't anticipate that he would provide that information in that detail.
14 And may we just go briefly into private session, so I can ask a
15 follow-up question.
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
17 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
8 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can move forward -- I think we can just
9 fast-forward to 2 minutes and 29 seconds.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 MR. OLMSTED:
12 Q. We see three men in camouflage. The one in the middle is wearing
13 a blue beret. Can you tell us who that person is?
14 A. That is Mr. Zeljko Mejakic, the commander of the security in the
15 Omarska camp.
16 Q. We see a man in a blue camouflage uniform. Do you know who he
18 A. This is, although I don't see his face fully, but I think it is
19 Vokic, Radovan, who was a driver and he also an escort for
20 Mr. Simo Drljaca.
21 Q. And we see a man in a camouflage uniform to the right of
22 Mr. Mejakic. Who is that person?
23 A. There's Mr. Simo Drljaca, and the other person in the camouflage
24 uniform, I don't see him that well, and I really cannot identify him.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Let's just move forward a little bit.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 MR. OLMSTED: Pause.
3 Q. Now we see that third individual in the camouflage uniform. Can
4 you -- do you know who he is?
5 A. This is an a military officer, but I don't know him personally.
6 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir.
10 A. Good day.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I suggest we go in a private session, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 16798-16801 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. So in the big cafeteria at Keraterm, because there was a shortage
21 of offices, interviews were conducted simultaneously in four different
22 corners with four different individuals. Statements were being taken
23 from them. And for each of the interviews, there would be two
24 operatives; am I right?
25 A. Yes. And it went on for about one or two days, because we stayed
1 there for two days only.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, I think this had to be redacted,
7 Your Honour.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Yes, please go on, sir. Do try and not mention
9 the names who were there with you. You are a protected witness.
10 A. We had an office that was on first floor, and there were three of
11 us there.
12 Q. During your time in the Keraterm building during the interviews,
13 did you go from office to office? Did you enter the cafeteria where
14 interviews of several individuals were conducted simultaneously?
15 A. If I had enough time, yes.
16 Q. Have you noticed any incidents of physical abuse, of mistreating
17 by investigators against people interviewed?
18 A. Not during the two days that we were there.
19 Q. After the two or maybe three days, you again faced the problem of
20 insufficient space, bearing in mind the number of people that were to be
22 A. That's just my assumption. I did not make such a decision. I
23 don't know what the reason was.
24 Q. Thank you. However, it is a fact that on the last day of May, or
25 about that date, you moved to the offices and the buildings of the
1 Omarska mine.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You're aware that on the 30th of May an attack occurred, an armed
4 attack, against the town of Prijedor during which several people were
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. The attack was carried out by Muslim units; am I right?
8 A. Yes. Primarily Muslim, but there were also individuals who were
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Olmsted stood up.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Again, I'm going raise the same objection. I did
12 not lead any evidence on any attack on Prijedor. Just regarding -- I
13 just led evidence on what was occurring at Omarska camp itself. All this
14 evidence -- we don't know where he is getting this information from,
15 whether it's first-hand knowledge, whether it's from the interrogations
16 conducted at the facilities. But my main objection, of course, is, you
17 know, where is the adjudicated fact that this particularly goes to?
18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, again this is -- this is simply
21 I would appreciate if Mr. Olmsted be reminded that he is not
22 supposed to laugh while I'm talking. Thank you very much. This was the
23 second time. First time I didn't intervene. This is the second time
24 and I don't think that is appropriate behaviour for a counsel in the
1 Your Honours --
2 JUDGE HALL: I understood your explanation about context in terms
3 of the first intervention but could you assist me with this one? I --
4 this seems to be completely outside --
5 MR. ZECEVIC: It's the same reason, Your Honours. They are
6 moving from the SJB building because it was inadequate for the number of
7 people. They're moving to Keraterm.
8 Now, in the meantime when they are in Keraterm, there has been
9 attack on Prijedor, and another number of people has been arrested during
10 that -- or post that attack. Because of that, again, for the purposes of
11 inadequacy, they are moved from Keraterm to Omarska to investigation
12 centre or the Omarska mine. That is precisely the context I want to
13 explore with the witness, nothing more, nothing less. But I'm perfectly
14 willing to ask the witness whether he has first-hand information about
15 these attacks or -- specifically about this attack on Prijedor on the
16 30th of May. But I didn't thought that that was -- that was a contested
17 issue, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
19 MR. OLMSTED: I don't want to such a question --
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on.
21 Exactly, Mr. Zecevic, since this is not contested, I think it is
22 clear and I fully understand the point where you are going, but the fact
23 that they moved from Keraterm to Omarska, the witness has already
24 explained it, and the reasons why they moved is clear already in the
25 witness's testimony. So I'm just wondering if you have any specific need
1 to repeat this evidence.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, it was one
3 question: Is he aware of the attack on Prijedor on the 30th of May?
4 That is the only question I wanted to ask. Mr. Olmsted objected, and ...
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please proceed.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, from the moment when you moved to Omarska,
8 and I should say that you stayed there from the very beginning until the
9 very end; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I think that yesterday you said that -- but please, if you're not
12 feeling well, do tell us and we'll take a break. I don't want to put any
13 pressure on you.
14 A. Yes, it's all right. You can continue for a period of time.
15 Q. Ten minutes would be all right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I think that yesterday you said that you and the teams of
18 inspectors who conducted the interviews worked at Omarska from the
19 morning until late in the evening; is that correct?
20 A. That was the case for a number of days. However, our standard
21 working time was from 8.00 until 4.00 p.m. But since over the period of
22 some days, large number of individuals were brought in, the chief,
23 Simo Drljaca, ordered us to work until 8.00 in the evening.
24 Q. If I understood you correctly, your evidence on page 16750 of
25 yesterday, I believe that you said that eight investigating teams
1 conducted concurrently interviews with certain individuals.
20 A. Yes.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Yesterday, my learned friend showed you document P1560. That's a
24 decision on the setting up an investigation centre signed by
25 Mr. Simo Drljaca and the centre was to be established in Omarska.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] So can we please have P1650.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the document.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. You remember it?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to page 2, item 13.
7 Q. And I'd like to ask you this.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] So in English that should be page
9 three, and page 2 in the Serbian.
10 Q. Can you see here that under item 13, the chief of the public
11 security station emphasises that all the authorised officials in -- at
12 this collection centre "shall observe the positive legislation and rules
13 of service. In particular, they must keep official secrets ..."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. Since you said that you hadn't seen this document
4 before yesterday, let me ask you this: Were you aware of what is stated
5 under item 15, which is on page 3 in the Serbian, that the chief of the
6 public security station strictly forbade divulging any information
7 without his approval.
8 Were you aware of that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you acted in compliance with that. We heard that both you
11 and your colleague who was in charge of the inspectors from the public
12 security went to the SJB every morning, in order to submit daily reports
13 to the chief of the SJB, the late Mr. Simo Drljaca.
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I know that the
16 witness said that he was able to cope, but, judging by his facial
17 impressions, I think that this would be a good time to take a break.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you -- thank you, Mr. Zecevic. Yes.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: We would rise for a half-hour. Thank you.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I discussed with the Registrar, and I
25 just wanted to inform, and ask the permission of the Trial Chamber,
1 because of the condition of the witness, we were told that the doctor
2 suggests that his back is at the 90 degrees and therefore he has a
3 problem when -- when he is moving over to see the documents on the
4 screen. So I propose that I -- that we print out all the documents that
5 I intend to show him so he can have a file in front of him, in order that
6 he be able to -- to -- to check the contents of the documents while
7 sitting normally and doesn't --
8 JUDGE HALL: If that's more convenient. Certainly, Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: And also, if he wants to stand up every once in a
12 while, he can just do that. Please tell him so.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, would Your Honours give him that instruction
14 or shall I instruct him?
15 JUDGE HALL: Well, there is something else I am about to inform.
16 So I could tell him at the same time.
17 Mr. Witness, we have determined that we will take a break after
18 ever 60 minutes rather that going to the usual 80 minutes and counsel has
19 indicated that to minimise the necessity for you to lean over to see the
20 screen, they're going provide you with paper copies of documents. But in
21 addition to that, if it is more convenient for you to stand rather than
22 sit at any point during your testimony, please feel you are at liberty to
23 do so.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue, Your Honours?
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Sir, yesterday, at page 16751 of your testimony, you said that
4 initially, if I understood your evidence correctly, you divided or
5 categorised people that you interviewed based on the place that they
6 hailed from.
7 Did I understand you well?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And, again, if I understood you correctly, you divided them into
10 people who came from Gornja Puharska, from Donja Puharska, from
11 Hambarine, from Kozarac; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Tell me, please, how long was this categorisation in place? A
14 week, ten days?
15 A. Up until we concluded preliminary interviews with everybody.
16 Q. And when you concluded preliminary interviews, then you
17 categorised them into three categories; right?
18 A. Yes. But it was possible to transfer somebody from the second
19 category into the first category, if we received good information about
20 his negative activities.
21 Q. Just to clarify, so you would conduct a preliminary interview
22 with a person, and the person would deny that he participated in an armed
23 rebellion, for example, following which you would categorise him as the
24 second category. However, following him, a next interviewee would come
25 along and confirm that the previous person was, for example, a company
1 commander, indicating that the first person lied, based on which you
2 would transfer that person from category 2 into category 1.
3 Did I understand you well?
4 A. Precisely.
5 Q. Thank you. And I suppose that the three categories that we
6 discussed, that that system was formulated some time in late June,
7 roughly; right?
8 A. Yes, roughly.
9 Q. Tell me, in your testimony, you said that about 3.000 or 3.100
10 persons went through the Omarska investigation centre and that all of
11 them were interviewed; right?
12 A. Yes. Except that a small number of people was interviewed twice.
13 Precisely for the reasons you mentioned earlier. Because the witnesses
14 were not frank. I apologise, not witnesses, but interviewees.
15 Q. Thank you. You confirmed to us that the first category in that
16 system of categorisation that you had was housed in that white house on
17 the side, that some of them were housed there, and also, in the hangars
18 in the garages that were located under the offices where you conducted
19 interviews; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Could you please look at the photograph 65 ter 2234.
22 You saw this photograph yesterday. Remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you marked this photograph.
25 A. Yes. To the extent that I was able to understand this
2 Q. Now, please, if we could mark something that wasn't marked
3 yesterday. I hope this will not present a huge problem for you.
4 Could we ask for the assistance of the usher to help you mark the
5 white house.
6 Could you mark the white house by number 1. Just a moment,
7 please. They need to prepare everything before you mark it.
8 Just a moment, please. The Court Usher will prepare the screen
9 for you.
10 Please mark the white house by placing number 1 next to it.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Also, the garages where your offices were on the left. Could you
13 mark it by placing number 2.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Now tell me, please, the building in front of the building where
16 your offices were, where you conducted preliminary interviews, I suppose
17 that that is the dining-room.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you put number 3 next to it.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. Yesterday, when asked by His Honour Judge Delvoie, you explained
22 that some of the persons from the second and third category stayed in the
23 large building which, on the ground floor, had the garages for the large
24 mining trucks. The persons used the -- the persons were in the offices
25 that had previously been used by the workers on the first floor of the
1 building; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you mark it by placing number 4.
4 A. [Marks]
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And if there are no objections, I
6 would tender this into evidence.
7 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
9 Exhibit 1D393. Thank you.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, can I just put one follow-up
11 question on this photograph with the markings.
12 Mr. Witness, the building you marked with number 2, I understand
13 you did your work on the offices on the first floor. And I hear now that
14 on the second floor -- on the ground floor of that particular building
15 there were garages; is that right.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the one side, yes, there were
17 garages. Under the floor where we worked.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: okay. Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Sir, in the premises that were located under the offices where
22 you conducted preliminary interviews, this is where the people from the
23 first category stayed; right?
24 A. Yes. I think that's how it was, although it was the security
25 commander who was in charge of that. He and his people were supposed to
1 allocate premises where people would be placed, but I think that you
2 were -- you are right.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown P5670.
5 That is the document you saw yesterday and I have a question for you.
6 Q. This is a letter - I don't know if you remember it - this letter
7 by Simo Drljaca dated the 5th of August, 1992, where, in the second
8 paragraph, it says that the -- by way of investigation it was established
9 that 1.466 people are criminally liable and there is valid documentation
10 to support it and that they will be transferred under guard to the
11 Manjaca military camp on the 6th of August, 1992?
12 Do you remember that these people were transferred to the Manjaca
13 camp some time in early August?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Sir, please look at the document.
16 A. Thank you for providing the document.
17 Q. Have you looked at the document?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What I'm interested is something to which you already replied.
20 Tell me, please, if I understood your evidence well, after these people
21 were taken to Manjaca, the people belonging to categories 1 and 2, and
22 the people in category 3 were transferred to Trnopolje, some 175 persons
23 remained also from category 1. They were the ones who remained at
25 A. You mean Omarska.
1 Q. Yes, I apologise. I mean Omarska.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And these people were also subsequently transferred to Manjaca in
4 late August 1992; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Sir, if my calculations are correct, given that 3.000 or 3.100
7 persons went through the Omarska investigation centre, that means, if we
8 accept that they were transferred to Manjaca on the 6th of August, to
9 Manjaca, Trnopolje, that means that within some 65 working days, you
10 interviewed all 3.100 individuals. You conducted preliminary interviews
11 with 3.100 individuals; right?
12 A. As far as I remember, we worked sometime until the 3rd of
13 August doing these preliminary interviews and then organising the
15 Please go ahead.
16 Q. So maybe even less, some 62 or 63 days, and some people were
17 interviewed more than once; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. If my calculations are right, that would mean that you
20 interviewed over 50 persons per day.
21 A. Yes. It's quite possible. We had ten teams. Some interviews
22 were shorter. We didn't take long with some individuals because they did
23 not present -- they were not -- they did not have any relevant security
24 information to provide. And sometimes we worked until 10.00 p.m.
25 Q. Sir, the need to conduct preliminary interviews with these
1 individuals was based on the intelligence that those individuals had been
2 involved in commission of some crimes; right?
3 A. Yes. This is what the rules of service of police set forth.
4 Q. When I say "crimes," I'm referring to preparations for armed
5 rebellion, murder, causing public danger, unlawful possession of weapons
6 and the like.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So these people were interviewed because, in accordance with the
9 laws in force at the time, there were grounds to believe that they had
10 committed a crime; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Sir, the persons you interviewed were not interviewed only
13 because they were Muslims or because they were of Muslim faith.
14 A. No, not solely because of that. It was mostly because of their
15 criminal activities.
16 Q. You told me earlier, that in relation to each individual, there
17 were grounds to believe that they were involved in some crimes, that
18 there was intelligence indicating that.
19 A. Yes. But through further investigation and through intelligence
20 gathered afterwards, it was established that that could not be proven in
21 relation to some individuals.
22 Q. However, sir, before you conducted these preliminary interviews,
23 you couldn't have known whether this intelligence would be subsequently
24 confirmed or denied. It was only after an interview that you could
25 assess whether there were, indeed, reasonable grounds to suspect somebody
1 or there were no elements to suspect them of having been involved in some
3 A. Yes. I said yesterday in my evidence that our position, the
4 position of our group which conducted that work, was that documents need
5 to be provided supporting these reasonable grounds in relation to these
6 individuals. However, documents did not arrive in relation to each
8 Q. And this is why you had to conduct preliminary interviews with
9 these persons in order to establish whether there were, indeed,
10 reasonable grounds to prosecute them or not.
11 A. Yes. We did that, and we categorised them.
12 Q. It is a fact, isn't it, that while conducting preliminary
13 interviews and while assessing the outcome of these preliminary
14 interviews, you established that some of these individuals were clearly
15 involved in armed rebellion; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that the individuals in questions [as interpreted] were
18 organised into some military or quasi-military structures.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. They had their commanding officers, lower-rank officers, and the
21 entire command structure; am I right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. These individuals were involved in carrying out combat operation,
24 armed attacks.
25 A. Yes. Some them, some groups were involved in the attack against
2 Q. They were captured during military operations.
3 A. Many of individuals from that category were.
4 Q. Sir, we've seen in the previous document, or, rather, on the
5 photograph, that you were located in the offices within the building you
6 marked with number 2. In -- if you feel the need to stand up ...
7 A. No, it's okay. I'm fine.
8 Q. If at any point you feel the need to do something -- you've been
9 told also by the Trial Chamber that you shouldn't hesitate to say so.
10 A. No, it's not a problem. Thank you. You can carry on.
11 Q. So the offices were on the first floor of the building you marked
12 with number 2. In the same building, as you told us, there were eight to
13 ten investigation teams doing preliminary interviews. Most of the
14 offices were on the first floor, with the exception of two offices that
15 were on the ground floor.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And, according to your testimony yesterday, when you talked about
18 an incident during which you heard wailing of someone from a different
19 room, adjoining room, you entered that room and saw the individual on the
20 floor and then concluded there was physical abuse and mistreatment of
21 this individual behind that.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So the fact is that, if I understood you well, that on that floor
24 you could hear and in each such incident, of course, if there were any,
25 you could also hear how the interviews were being conducted, whether
1 there was any physical abuse or mistreatment of the individuals; am I
2 right in saying that?
3 A. Well, one could hear but not from all the offices, because this
4 office was next to ours. And talking about the physical abuse, through
5 conversations between us, we have gathered that these would take place
6 after we'd left, in the afternoon hours, for the day.
7 Q. In other words, during the time when you were conducting
8 interviews, such instances, such incidents were very rare. You talk
9 about this one case, but these people were not physically abused during
10 the time while you were there.
11 A. We would have short meetings during the working day in the hall,
12 first the two -- three of us then the two of us, during which we would
13 inform our inspectors that they should act according to what they're
14 authorised to do, after which they would go and conduct the interviews.
15 I mentioned this case because the office in question was adjacent
16 to the one where we were; whereas, the other offices were lined up along
17 the building from there.
18 Q. But if I understood you correctly, you told us now that you,
19 although held those briefings every day, that you advised your inspectors
20 that they should act properly and comply with the authorisation that they
21 had, and that incidents like the one you have described to us, where
22 physical abuse took place during the interview, that such instances were
23 rather rare?
24 A. Well, I know only of that case.
25 Q. You did confirm that such incidents were rare and that you do not
1 know of other such incidents?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told us a moment ago that the physical abuse would take place
4 during the afternoon hours, after your departure from the investigation
5 centre; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, I want go back to the previous
8 question and your conclusion you did confirm -- well, firstly the witness
9 answered to one of your question, "Well, I know only of that case."
10 And then you say, "You did confirm that such incidents were
11 rare ..." Is that --
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- a statement he made somewhere else or is that
14 something you conclude from his previous answer?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, my question to the witness was, "And
16 that incidents like that," this is page 40, line 5:
17 "Incidents like that, the one you had described to us where
18 physical abuse took place during the interview, that such instances were
19 rather rare?"
20 And the witness answered yes: "I know only of that one case."
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well the transcript --
22 MR. ZECEVIC: It wasn't recorded properly and that is why I asked
23 another question to clarify that.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you say the answer was yes, I know only of
25 this case.
1 And not, well, I only know of this case.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct. He said yes, I know only of this
3 case and that is why I returned again to the question again and he
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Sir, just for the transcript, you answered in affirmative to my
8 question. You told us that there was just one such incident that you
9 knew of?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Could you please tell us, sir -- just a moment, please.
12 Was this mistreatment that took place in the afternoon hours
13 after your departure from the investigation centre, was that in any way
14 related to the content or requirements related to the preliminary
16 A. I cannot claim that that prompted it, but it is possible.
17 Q. This is why I'm asking you this. For instance, in the morning,
18 you interview one or several individuals, individuals who, during the
19 interview, say they were not involved in any armed rebellion. And after
20 your departure in the afternoon, somebody physically mistreats that
21 person, would that be because the person who physically mistreated an
22 individual was caused by the fact that this person had said something or
23 had not said something during the interview?
24 Can you confirm this in any way?
25 A. Well, it is possible, but I -- I cannot confirm that for you.
1 Q. In any case, as far as you were concerned, and your inspectors,
2 the operatives, the abuse that may have taken place in the afternoon was
3 not something that had been initiated by you or your people.
4 A. I think I can say that it wasn't. I believe that it wasn't done
5 by my inspectors.
6 Q. You did talk about one case where not only physical abuse but
7 elimination of 18 persons was initiated by a state -- public security
8 inspector. You told us about it yesterday.
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. During the preliminary interviews, could you tell us what kind of
11 methodology was applied? Would the person be interviewed and then asked
12 to write a statement; or was the statement based on the notes taken by
13 the inspectors during the interview?
14 A. The inspectors would be drafting Official Notes. We would go
15 through them, and once we would assess that an Official Note was of
16 security interest, we would then draft a statement based on it, and the
17 inspector who conducted the interview would sign the statement.
18 Q. So the inspectors would conduct a preliminary interview with an
19 individual and would take notes, Official Notes during the interview.
20 After the interview would be finished, they would release the person and
21 bring the Official Notes to you for you to make an assessment whether
22 there's anything of security interest in the Official Note; is that
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And upon determining there is information of security interest or
1 intelligence in a note, then a statement would be typed. Let's go step
2 by step.
3 First, the statement would be typed; am I right?
4 A. Yes. And then the individual would be brought in to sign the
5 statement. The authorised officer would also sign the statement and that
6 would be it.
7 There were cases, though, where some people would not be
8 completely frank, and then we would repeat the interview and either make
9 an addendum to the original statement or take a new statement.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I just need an
11 information. When do we need to break, because I'm a bit confused? I
12 don't remember when we started.
13 JUDGE HALL: I was thinking it would be noon.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HALL: Ten minutes before ...
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE HALL: We would break at 11.50 until 12.10.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, with the help of the usher, I'd like to
21 hand a document over to you. It would make it easier for you to go
22 through these printed versions, hard copies.
23 I'll show you some documents that we have, some Official Notes
24 that we have in our files, and I would like to ask you to confirm whether
25 these are Official Notes taken in the Omarska investigation centre.
1 As you can see, on the right-hand side, there are the blue tabs,
2 and I'll identify documents using the tabs. I'll first ask for the
3 document to be put on the screen and then tell you where it is in this
5 The first document I want to show to you is 1D00-3275, which is
6 tab 33.
7 A. Yes, I have it.
8 Q. We have to wait for it to appear on the screen.
9 This is a list including 195 individuals. We cannot tell who is
10 the author of this document. There are no indications with the exception
11 of the title saying: "Aggressors on Prijedor."
12 I assume it -- what's meant by it is the people who took part in
13 the attack on Prijedor.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. As can you see here, the names Slavko Ecimovic, Mehmed Okic and
16 so on, do you recognise these names as names of individuals who had been
17 interviewed in investigation centre Omarska?
18 A. I know about some of them, yes. Under 1, it is Ecimovic, Slavko,
19 who was a leader of one group that was involved in the attack against
21 Q. All right. Let me ask you this --
22 A. Kemal Alagic led another group on the attack in Prijedor.
23 Q. You mean number 24, Kemal Alagic?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. Tell me, sir, one question: Is it your recollection that some
1 200 persons participated in the attack on Prijedor and that you conducted
2 preliminary interviews with them?
3 A. According to our information, four groups took part in the attack
4 on Prijedor. They had the task to capture vital facilities in Prijedor
5 municipality. Through our investigation, we learned that one group was
6 supposed to take the Municipal Assembly group -- building. The other
7 group was supposed to take "Kozarski Vjesnik" newspaper building and take
8 over all the media. The third group was supposed to take up the railway
9 station to take up positions there. And as for the fourth group, I can't
10 remember. No, they were supposed to capture the post office, the PTT and
11 telecom building.
12 Q. Tell me, please, these four groups, how strong were they roughly?
13 A. I can't give you the exact number, but whether it's the number
14 that you mentioned, I can't confirm that. But those were large groups
15 and an armed conflict erupted where a large number of MUP staff was
16 killed and a number of civilians.
17 Q. When you say "a number of civilians," are you referring to the
18 residents of Prijedor?
19 A. Yes. I know that Bosko Zujic was killed on that occasion. The
20 driver of the ambulance was wounded, Dragojevic. He was gravely wounded.
21 Q. I have a suggestion, during the break, which should be quite
22 soon, could you take the documents binder with you and go over the
23 documents so that we can save time. So if you could go over the names
24 and see which names you recognise and can provide additional information
25 and let's proceed that way.
1 And, in the meantime, I'll put another question to you.
2 We saw a bit earlier the letter of the 5th of August. I think
3 that's P670, where Mr. Drljaca says that it has been established that
4 1.466 persons, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they
5 committed crimes that are punishable under the law; right?
6 A. Yes, that's the data from the SJB. But I think that that
7 included also persons who were outside of the Omarska investigation
8 centre. Because the police conducted their work throughout the
9 municipality, and I can't say that it was precisely that number of people
10 related to the Omarska investigation centre. I think that that data
11 applied to the entire territory of the municipality, to the entire
12 territory under the jurisdiction of that SJB.
13 Q. And can you tell us, roughly, how many people there were? We
14 heard how many people went through interviews at Omarska investigation
15 centre. It was 3.100 persons. Out of that number, based on your
16 recollections, for how many of them it was confirmed that there were
17 reasonable grounds to believe they had committed crimes?
18 A. Well, those were mostly people from the first category, and there
19 were other 1.000 of them. The first and second category.
20 Q. For the sake of the transcript, 47, line 2, I think you said from
21 the first and second category, which was over 1.000 persons; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The transcript reflected only the first category, and that's why
24 I asked you.
25 You told us that some people were prosecuted or proceedings were
1 instituted against them by military organs; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I will read out some names for you. Sead Cirkin. Do you
4 remember that that person was prosecuted by the military judicial organs?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Yes, Muhic, Asim.
7 A. I know of a person from the military with the last name of Muhic
8 but I'm not sure it's the same person. Based on our investigation, we
9 were able to establish that that Muhic took part in the attack on
11 Q. You mentioned Kemal Alagic. Do you know that he also was
12 prosecuted by the military judiciary.
13 A. It's possible because the army arrested him when clearing up the
14 terrain, after the attack on Prijedor, sometime after that.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I think it's a good time to have a
17 break so that the witness could go over these documents and that would
18 significantly shorten the time needed for cross-examination.
19 JUDGE HALL: Very well. So we would return in 20 minutes.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Lower the blinds.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes, you may escort the
24 witness from the courtroom. We're just waiting ...
25 --- Recess taken at 11.51 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Can we continue, sir?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue, Your Honours?
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please, Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, I have a few questions for you. First of
11 all, you have had years of experience as an operative in the service of
12 the State Security Service; am I right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You explained to us what methodology was applied in the course of
15 the interviews that were conducted within the Omarska investigation
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So once you've been through the Official Notes drafted by the
19 inspectors and after the statement would be drafted, a statement that was
20 signed by the interviewee and the authorised official, this signature by
21 the interviewed individual was there to confirm the accuracy of the
22 contents of the statement.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. While you were going through the Official Notes before drafting
25 the statement, you would, on occasion, bring the individual in to give an
1 additional statement.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In fact, you would cross-reference information received from
4 several individuals, verify them, and try to determine the truth, based
5 on that work.
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. After a statement regarding an individual was drafted, the
8 individual would be presented with the statement and asked to sign it; is
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The individuals who were signing the statements, were they being
12 forced to sign or whether they did it on a voluntary basis?
13 A. According to my information, they were not forced to sign the
15 Q. So, according to your information, they were not forced to sign
16 the relevant statements.
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Bearing in mind that you cross-referenced, verified the
19 information, the facts that would be contained in a statement would be
20 something that would have a confirmation in the fact -- facts that could
21 be found in statements by other people interviewed.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. In other words, according to you, there were no reason to doubt
24 the truth of the statements.
25 A. In regard to those statements that were taken in my presence or
1 where I was involved, you're right.
2 Q. If I understood you correctly, in the office we had seen in video
3 footage recently, you analysed all the Official Notes and documentation
4 you'd get from the inspectors.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And on the basis of the notes, you cross-referenced the
7 information, verified it, and then drafted the statements.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that applied to all the statements taken during your time in
10 Omarska investigation centre.
11 A. Mostly, yes.
12 Q. When you say "mostly," that was precisely what I referred to as
13 well. In your view, all the statements, there is no reason to doubt the
14 accuracy, the truthfulness of the statements; am I right there?
15 A. You are.
16 Q. Very well. Sir, did you have time to go through the binder I
17 gave you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Have you found any Official Notes or statements you can recognise
20 as those taken in the Omarska investigation centre?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. Let's deal with that. 1D04-3379, tab 10 in our binder.
23 This is an Official Note made on the basis of interview with
24 Mehmed Jakupovic drafted on the 29th of May, 1992. I assume that this
25 note could not have been drafted in the Omarska investigation centre
1 because of the date, 29th of May. That was from before establishment of
2 Omarska as an investigation centre but it should have been taken in
3 Keraterm. Can you recognise this document?
4 A. Yes, this is the -- a format that we used for such
5 Official Notes.
6 Q. So there is the format of Official Notes.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I would like to ask to you take a look at page 2 of this
9 document, where we can see the initials of the authorised officer.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you recognise whose initial this is?
12 A. I cannot tell you with any certain.
13 Q. What we see here is that there is no signature by the
14 interviewee, Mr. Mehmed Jakupovic. However, it is a fact, isn't it, that
15 the Official Notes were drafted and then several copies would be made of
17 A. Official Notes were typed in, yes, several copies, that's
19 Q. In how many copies; can you remember?
20 A. I think in two copies. It all depended on whether they would be
21 also submitted to some other organisational units. One would go to the
22 archives that were kept within the public security station; and the other
23 copy would stay with the inspector, the operative, who ...
24 Q. And the individual with whom the interview was carried would sign
25 just one copy. The other copy would be the one for the archives; am I
2 A. The information that would be transferred from an
3 Official Note -- actually, each page of the statement would get an
4 initial. The statement would contain information from Official Notes and
5 then it would be signed, and only such signed version would be legally
7 Q. Very well. In any case, can you recognise this Official Note as
8 an example of the format of Official Notes taken at that time, either in
9 SJB Prijedor or Keraterm, for the three days, and, later on, in Omarska.
10 A. Yes. This is a standard format for Official Notes.
11 Q. Do you know this person, Mehmed Jakupovic?
12 A. No, I don't know him personally but there was a hamlet in Kozarac
13 area where many people had that surname. From the note you can see that
14 there are many people with the same surname.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document was
16 sent for translation and I would like to tendered it and MFI it.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution would ask for a
18 clarification. Is this document being tendered just to show as an
19 example of the procedure that was followed for taking Official Notes or
20 written statements by persons in the custody of the SJB?
21 If that's the case, then I'm not sure if it is even necessary to
22 admit because I don't think there is any contention between the parties
23 that Official Notes or official statements were taken from various
25 If it is being sought to be admitted for the truth of its
1 contents, I do have a strong objection to that, and -- but I will first
2 seek a clarification from Mr. Zecevic on that.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we are talking here about the
4 knowledge of this witness on taking the Official Notes and the statements
5 of the interviews during the time that he performed that in SJB Prijedor,
6 Keraterm, and Omarska investigation centres.
7 I offer these documents for two purposes: For the purpose of
8 showing the form, how it was; and for the truth of its contents.
9 Absolutely, yes. The witness confirmed that.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Then, Your Honours, I would ask that the witness
11 remove his headsets so that we can have some argument on this particular
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Could the witness remove his head phones.
14 Mr. Zecevic, it seems to me that, as Mr. Olmsted has said in
15 terms of showing what happened in terms of method that we already need
16 the -- this is an exhibit, but I'm curious as to the basis on which you
17 would be seek to be tendering this for the truth of its contents.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, the witness confirmed that a
19 certain procedure was followed in accordance with the rules of the --
20 of -- of -- the rules that guide the police according to the law in -- in
21 the process of getting the official statements and the statements by the
22 people who are interviewed during these interviews.
23 I think I sufficiently established the opinion of this witness
24 that most of the -- of the statements taken, which he saw, were
25 cross-referenced, were analysed, were created, and then they were signed
1 without any pressure, which means voluntary. And that he, himself,
2 doesn't have a doubt about the truth of its contents.
3 JUDGE HALL: If I might interrupt you there. That last point is
4 really irrelevant, isn't it, the witness's opinion as to a particular
5 item of potential evidence. So that would strike me as being the weakest
6 plank in your platform.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, he is the officer that took the
8 statements. If he says the statements were given voluntarily that the
9 statements were cross-referenced, analysed, and checked and were
10 confirmed by other statements of other interviewees, I -- I don't think
11 that that I can move anywhere further in that -- in that -- in that
12 respect, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Zecevic, since the Chamber is unable to
14 immediately appreciate the contents, my question is: What is this
15 document, really? Is that one of the statements that was signed by a
16 detainee after being interrogated, or is it -- what is it? I can see
17 some names and the word pistol. So is that a list of weapons found with
18 certain persons or ... what is it? Can you clarify it?
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I understand the problem because -- but
20 unfortunately, we do not have translation for this particular document.
21 This is the Official Note of -- of the -- of the talks with one
22 Jakupovic, Mehmed, in which this person explains what happened in the
23 village of Kevljani in the wider area of Kozarac, and who of the -- of
24 the persons had what kind of a weapon. And it refers to Kevljani and the
25 village of Poljaci.
1 JUDGE HALL: But, Mr. Zecevic, this would be a number of -- we
2 know from the testimony of this witness about interviews being conducted.
3 Indeed, the bringing up a particular document doesn't, to my mind,
4 advance the strength of his testimony in terms of the procedure. And it
5 must follow logically that a part of this process is that some analysis
6 would be done. What I am completely at a loss to appreciate is why you
7 would seek to tender this particular document, because it doesn't advance
8 us any way beyond what we already know from what -- from the witness's
9 testimony or what can reasonably be inferred from the witness's
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I must say, I do agree with Your Honour.
12 This -- this particular document does not. But there has been a number
13 of occasions during this trial when we wanted to introduce the statements
14 of the witnesses who testified before Your Honours for -- in -- in --
15 given to the officials of the -- of the MUP in 1992 or in 1991. In each
16 and every situation, the -- the objection was raised by -- by our friends
17 from the Office of the Prosecution as allegedly these statements were
18 taken under duress. And for these reasons, these statements were not
20 Now, we have a situation here that, among these -- some of these
21 documents, we will have the statements of the witnesses who hadn't
22 appeared before this Trial Chamber but will appear in the future. And
23 that is why I think, or -- or -- at the very least, there a motion
24 pending to include those witnesses to the OTP case. That is why I -- I'm
25 using this opportunity to introduce some of these statements, if the
1 Court allows me to do that, of course.
2 JUDGE HALL: Well, is this of a witness who - to use your words -
3 will appear?
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Not to my knowledge, Your Honour. But it might be
5 relevant because I don't know what the witness will say. He might be
6 able to give some evidence about these two villages, and then this
7 statement might turn out to be relevant, or this Official Note. I'm just
8 doing this out of the caution, no other reason.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 MR. OLMSTED: I don't know if Your Honours want to hear from me.
11 It was my original objection, but ...
12 I think Your Honours are on the same wave length as I am, as far
13 as the problems with this. This witness does not remember this person
14 being a detainee at Omarska, does not remember this individual. This is
15 it an unsigned statement. The witness has testified that he can only
16 vouch for the Official Notes that he, himself, was present when the
17 person signed them as to whether those statements were signed voluntarily
18 or not. And we don't know how many of those and we certainty don't know
19 that this particular one was presented to this witness.
20 Mr. Zecevic is trying to get around Rule 92 bis. This person,
21 Mehmed Jakupovic, has testified before this Tribunal. What he is
22 essentially doing is opening the door for us to call Mr. Jakupovic in
23 order to testify as to whether this particular statement was voluntary or
24 not, and we don't want to go down that route at this stage on these
25 proceedings. But that's the way we would have to go because really that
1 is what is required, is to hear from the person who actually gave the
2 statement as to whether it was voluntary, whether it was truthful, as he
3 will have that direct knowledge of that. There is evidence that's
4 already been presented, that's already here, there's adjudicated facts as
5 to what was happening in Omarska during this time-period. So even if
6 this witness was in Omarska and gave this statement in Omarska, it is
7 going to be highly suspect and open to questions of reliability given the
8 circumstances in which that statement was given.
9 And so our position -- and I also have to note that this is a
10 sampling -- these are the ones that the Defence want to use as part of
11 their case, but they're probably a large number of these statements that
12 would show the opposite, that would disprove the information contained in
13 this particular statement. And are we going to open the door for the
14 Prosecution now to go through, say, a thousand statements and pick out
15 the ones that it believes supports what actually happened in Prijedor in
16 April and May of 1992.
17 So we object to the admission of this document or any others that
18 the Defence intends to show this witness.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I'm sorry, I still have not quite
21 understood what this document really is. Can you clarify whether the
22 person mentioned at the end of the document, Mr. Jakupovic, was he a
23 detainee or was he someone who conducted an investigation about the
24 weapons found in that village?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I would love to be able to give that you
1 information, Your Honour. However, I don't -- I don't know whether he
2 was a detainee. I just have this -- this is the official recording of
3 his interview. And I wasn't aware that the person has testified before
4 this -- this Tribunal at all. It is probably from some of the other
5 cases, which were not disclosed to us.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, still, my question is: Was Mr. Jakupovic
7 the guy who took the interview from someone else; or was he the guy who
8 was being interviewed and gave this information?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: No. Mr. Jakupovic was the interviewee, so the one
10 who gave the interview to the -- it says here the authorised official
11 person. On the second page, there is some kind of a signature of the
12 authorised official person.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: The decision of the Trial Chamber is that the
15 document should not be marked for identification because, in terms of the
16 contents, until it is interpreted, it isn't clear as to what -- it
17 isn't clear -- apparent to the Trial Chamber as exactly what it seeks to
18 convey. And in terms of the method and system to which it speaks, the
19 testimony of the witness sufficiently establishes that.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I understand.
21 In that case --
22 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Sorry.
23 I should have indicated when we started that, balancing the need
24 to maximise as much time for today as possible with the needs of the
25 witness, what we would do is break at 1.00 and then resume at 1.15 and
1 then sit for an additional half-hour.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honour.
3 Your Honour, I have one of the documents -- well, a couple of
4 them, actually that have the translation. Maybe -- maybe that will help
5 the Trial Chamber. I'm not trying to revisit the -- the issue. I know
6 what is the ruling of the Trial Chamber but I just wanted to show this --
7 another document to the witness, and in order that the Trial Chamber will
8 have a full appreciation of the document maybe, if I may proceed
9 [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 JUDGE HALL: I see Mr. Hannis on his feet.
11 MR. HANNIS: Yes, if I may make an intervention now. I don't
12 know if it will save time later on or not. But if Mr. Zecevic is going
13 to attempt to introduce a written statement of a detainee at Omarska that
14 was taken in 1992, we have an objection to all of those.
15 We see this as a attempt to subvert the provision of Rule 92. He
16 is trying to introduce a document for its contents, for the truth of its
17 contents, of a witness who is not present. And that written statement
18 doesn't conform with the requirements of the Rule of how they are
19 supposed to be taken. In addition, we have an adjudicated fact in this
20 case already. I think it is Fact 347, which says prisoners, after their
21 interrogation, were often made to sign false statements regarding their
22 involvement in acts versus Serbs.
23 So unless he can ask this witness about a specific statement of a
24 specific person that this witness was present for, we object to any
25 attempt to introduce any of those other went written statements. If he
1 wants to call some of those witnesses in the Defence case, say, Yes,
2 that's my statement and I made it and it was true and it was not under
3 duress, then he can do it then. But otherwise, you should not permit
4 this to go forward.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE HALL: It seems to me, Mr. Zecevic, that Mr. Hannis has
7 succinctly and accurately stated the position in this matter about the --
8 I don't -- the particular document that you had indicated you are moving
9 on to, how is that different from the last one? And how is it -- how --
10 how is it different from the point that Mr. Hannis has just addressed?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honour, we definitely challenge the
12 Fact 347. We say -- we say that that these statements were accurate,
13 were not false statements and were not given under duress or anything
14 like that. And that is what the witness basically testified to.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yeah. Fair enough. But is the statement that
16 you're about to move to, as I understand it, one that this witness would
17 have taken?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, we -- the
19 witness denied the -- his willingness to meet with the Defence. So this
20 is the Office of the Prosecutor's witness. I gave him the binder. The
21 only thing I can do is ask the witness whether he was present at any of
22 these -- when any of these statements were taken, which I gave him in the
23 binder, and I can proceed from that. Otherwise, I have no other way of
24 knowing that, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes. We'll --
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Sir, I apologise for this interruption, but we had to have this
6 After you have reviewed the documents contained in the binder
7 that I gave you, did you find in it any statement or Official Note for
8 which you know in what way it was taken, or maybe you were present there;
9 or did you do anything with relation to that note, or were you present at
10 the time when the interviewee signed the statement?
11 A. At the moment, I cannot remember being present while -- when this
12 person signed this statement. I just went through the documents very
13 quickly. I didn't have an opportunity to read them and familiarise
14 myself with any details.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: May I ask one or two follow-up questions,
16 Your Honours?
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you know a certain Edin Mrkalj?
20 A. I recognise the family name. There was a Mrkalj who was a member
21 of the public security station. Now whether that's one and the same
22 person or whether it's this policeman or not ... anyway, I know the
23 family name of Mrkalj.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
25 would just like to show one more document to this witness. This document
1 has been translated, and depending on the witness's answer, I will decide
2 whether I will tender this document into evidence.
3 So can the witness please be shown 1D00-3623.
4 Q. That's tab 29 in your binder.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. This is an Official Note dated the 2nd of June, 1992. On page 3
7 is the signature of an authorised official. I don't know if you can
8 recognise the signature.
9 A. No, I cannot be positive about whose signature this is.
10 Q. This is an Official Note relating to an interview conducted with
11 Edin Mrkalj, and it says here that his profession was a police officer.
12 Therefore, he was formerly employed with the SJB Prijedor, exactly the
13 one that you mentioned earlier.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know if this person, Edin Mrkalj, was at the Omarska
16 investigation centre and if an interview was conducted with him?
17 A. I cannot confirm now whether he was at the Omarska investigation
18 centre or not. All I know is there was a policeman by the name of
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, bearing in mind that
22 the remaining questions that I intended to put to this witness refer
23 mainly to this set of documents, and, as I understand the position of the
24 Trial Chamber is as it is, then, in that case, I have no further
25 questions for this witness.
1 Q. Thank you, sir.
2 A. You're welcome. Thank you, too.
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
4 Mr. Krgovic, it is -- as I indicated that we would have taken a
5 break at 1.00, and it's just a minute or so before that, so we could --
6 we could take the 15-minute break and then we would resume, and then you
7 would have a half-hour available to you before we rise for the day.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, it is a convenient time for the
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] So we return in 15
13 --- Recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.
15 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, while the witness is on his way in, we
17 were alerted to the ten minutes that you needed to deal with some
18 procedural matter, and what we are thinking is that the most efficient
19 course would probably be to do that first thing tomorrow morning, and the
20 witness who we probably aren't going to finish today could be instructed
21 to return ten minutes into tomorrow morning's sitting.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: I agree, Your Honour. It was in relation to
23 adjudicated facts negotiations, so that is all I wanted to raise.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir.
2 A. Good day.
3 Q. My name is Dragan Krgovic. On behalf of Stojan Zupljanin
4 Defence, I will be putting questions to you in relation to your testimony
5 before the Tribunal. I will try and shorten my cross-examination of you
6 today so that we would finish by the end of the day, but if you have any
7 problems, please tell us so and we will make another break.
8 The Prosecutor asked you how many criminal reports were
9 submitted, or drafted by you, because you were not the ones who actually
10 signed the reports; am I not correct?
11 A. That's correct. We weren't authorised to sign those. It was the
12 duty of the senior officer of the organ. And in the initial stage, we
13 prepared three criminal reports for -- against multiple individuals,
14 charging them with armed rebellion and arming of population. I cannot
15 remember what the third one was. It did involve Cirkin, Sead, but that
16 was transferred to the army later.
17 Q. This last issue you discussed. I'd like to show you a document
18 it's 2D103 --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Krgovic repeat
20 the number, please.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, the interpreters would need you to
22 repeat the number, please.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 2D03-1189.
24 Q. Sir, you can find it under tab 35 in the Stanisic Defence binder.
25 If you'd prefer it that way, I can hand over the document to you.
1 It will be at the very end, number 35.
2 A. Yes, I have it. This report is in relation to Asim Muhic, also
3 Kemal Alagic, and then there's another group of individuals mentioned
4 below. Is there any need for me to read them out?
5 Q. No, there's no need. You told us that in relation to military
6 investigation organs, that they dealt with the individuals that were
7 somehow related to the army. You did mention the names of Alagic and
8 Muhic as persons who were involved in the attack in commanding capacity.
9 Do you remember saying that?
10 A. Kemal Alagic was a commander of one of the groups that took part
11 on the attack on Prijedor.
12 Q. Would you please take a look at the last page of this document.
13 A. On the last page we see the signature. Is that what you're
14 asking me about?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. So it was signed by the Lieutenant-Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja, who
17 was the commander of the Prijedor Brigade, 13th Brigade.
18 Q. In other words, in addition to the preparations of reports that
19 you drafted, there were also reports drafted by the military?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. They also used materials and notes from preliminary interviews
22 you conducted about the attacks by Muslim and Croatian units against
24 A. Well, that was part of the duties of our service. Namely, if
25 there were any information that would fall under the jurisdiction of the
1 army, we were duty-bound to submit them to the relevant military organs.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I -- we object because I don't think
4 it is established that any of these perpetrators were at Omarska.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you would be so
6 kind to look at the last page of this report, one can see listed there
7 Official Notes that resulted from interviews with these individuals. And
8 during his testimony, the witness told us about Kemal Alagic being in
9 Omarska and that he knows of the case, if I haven't mistaken myself
11 MR. OLMSTED: I don't believe that was the witness's testimony.
12 If it is, I think that needs to be clarified.
13 And with regard to the persons at the end of the document, with
14 regard to the written statements, again, we don't know whether those
15 individuals were at Omarska.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Sir, you mentioned Kemal Alagic during your testimony.
18 A. I did mentioned Kemal Alagic. I mentioned him as the commander
19 of the group that took part in the attacks against Prijedor. After the
20 attack, he was at large for a while until he was arrested by the military
21 in the area of Hambarine and the forest of Kurevo. So Alagic was not in
22 Omarska, as far as I know at least.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Since these individuals were somehow linked up with the army, the
1 entire documentation relevant for them was transferred to the military
2 investigation organs, and they were in charge of it?
3 A. That was the usual practice. If the persons were under the
4 military jurisdiction, we would submit documentation to them, and vice
5 versa also applied.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm tendering this
7 document for another reason. This document shows that in addition to the
8 reports that had been submitted and drafted in Omarska, other reports had
9 also been drafted. This shows that there was legal basis for detaining
10 certain people.
11 MR. OLMSTED: But again, it does not apply to Omarska. This is a
12 witness who is testifying about Omarska, and therefore he is not a
13 witness that can say anything about this criminal report other than yes,
14 he is aware that these persons were alleged to be leaders of groups that
15 attempted to take over Prijedor on such and such a date.
16 We are not getting further with the authenticity -- well, we
17 don't challenge the authenticity of this document, but the relevance of
18 this document has not been established, certainly not through this
20 JUDGE HALL: I confess, Mr. Krgovic, that I'm inclined, and I put
21 no higher than that. At this point, I agree with Mr. Olmsted's
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
24 JUDGE HALL: Before you continue, we could mark it for
25 identification, pending introduction through another witness.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the only
2 witness through whom we can introduce this one. I spoke about the work
3 of the organs and how the whole job of interviewing and dividing people
4 into three groups involved military organs as well. This particular
5 criminal report was produced by military organs but there were also
6 reported prepared by the civilian services involved in the procedure.
7 This document is definitely relevant, because it speaks about the
8 reasons and the ground for detention. The adjudicated facts about the
9 categorisation of the detainees, and this the subject of the
10 Prosecution's submission, and that is that people were detained at
11 Omarska on the basis of their position in the Muslim community and on the
12 basis of their standing, not on the basis of their taking part in an
13 armed rebellion.
14 This document, this criminal report, speaks completely contrary
15 to that, and one should include the supporting material. That is
16 something that both Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Stanisic should have known
17 about. If an inspector would come there to conduct auditing and to check
18 why these people were detained, he would have looked at these reports and
19 he would have realised that that constituted a basis for their detention.
20 Therefore, all these documents contain the knowledge and the
21 information that the accused in this trial could have had at their
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, again, could you clarify the
25 relation between the witness and this document?
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Sir, can you please look at this document once again? And I do
3 apologise. Page 2, tab 35.
4 A. I have found it.
5 Q. Can you please look at page 2? Not the last one; the one after
6 the first page.
7 In response to the question posed by Mr. Zecevic, you spoke about
8 the groups that attacked Prijedor. You mentioned one of those groups led
9 by -- look at paragraph 3 from the top. So the Slavko Ecimovic,
10 Muhic, Asim, is leading a platoon that has one of the most delicate tasks
11 to perform, which is an attack on the building of post office and police.
12 And after that, other groups are mentioned, which is consistent
13 with what you testified about. They took different routes of attack.
14 And this is information that you had and this information is contained in
15 this criminal report.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you submitted them to the military investigating organs as
18 would be the case if the situation were reverse?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that I have
21 established a sufficiently solid link between this document and this
23 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we would disagree with that. We
24 don't think a link has been established at all. We have a criminal
25 report. We don't have any indication that any of the perpetrators or
1 manes listed in this report were detainees at Omarska. We have no
2 indication that this witness had any involvement with the military
3 prosecutor in drafting this criminal report. We have no idea what the
4 outcome of this particular case is.
5 The Defence is trying to tender this -- this criminal report to
6 establish a particular event, an attack on Prijedor and who -- what
7 happened on that particular day, and I don't believe this is reliable
8 information to establish it, nor is this the appropriate witness to do it
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that
12 witness ...
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, is this report written by the
14 military police or by the civilian police?
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it was signed by the
16 brigade military commander. And the witness confirmed that the basis for
17 that was received from the organs who did the investigation at Omarska,
18 because not only detainees were the subject of investigation at Omarska.
19 They investigated the broader context. People who were not detained were
20 also questioned, and later on, they were apprehended by the army. This
21 is what we are trying to prove by refuting the adjudicated facts, and
22 that is that Omarska was an investigation centre, not a centre intended
23 to categorise people into groups to be executed or something like that.
24 So through this line of questioning, we are seeking to refute the
25 adjudicated fact for which this witness has been called. And this,
1 relates to an armed rebellion. The major reason for the people being
2 detained was an armed rebellion, and it should have been prosecuted by
3 military organs since, at that time, the military organs were not
4 operational, all of this was submitted to civilian organs and, later on,
5 passed on to the military judicial which has already been confirmed by
6 this witness today.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if I may make one more point. This
8 criminal report is based upon three Official Notes that are listed at the
9 end of this criminal report. We haven't established that any of those
10 written statements were by interviewees or perpetrators who were at
11 Omarska. So we do not have the link to the work that this witness did at
12 Omarska and this criminal report that was filed by the military
13 prosecutor, or by the military authorities with the military prosecutor.
14 JUDGE HALL: And if I may add that, Mr. Krgovic, it seems to me
15 that even if, for the reasons that you have just stated, that this report
16 may be admissible as relevant, I still don't see the nexus between it and
17 the witness who is, at present, on the stand. That's the difficulty
18 that -- that I have.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Plus, if I may add, the criminal report bears
20 evidence of investigations done by the military authorities about a -- an
21 armed rebellion or an armed attack that was carried out in Prijedor by
22 members of Muslim and Croat forces, but that does not, in my view,
23 undermine the facts that you are seeking to challenge. So the -- the
24 purpose for which you seek to have this document introduced simply does
25 not appear from the document.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will abide by the
2 Chamber's ruling, and I will proceed with this witness.
3 Q. Sir, let me put you a direct question. You said that you took
4 part in the preparations of a number of criminal reports that were filed.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D04-4308,
6 tab --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Krgovic please repeat the number of the
8 document and the number of the tab.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Look at 26 but I think it should be 27, in fact. And if you --
11 look at the page which has ERN 0041-5310.
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues] ...
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise 1D04-3408.
14 Q. Please move on. It's some dozen pages later. In the bottom, you
15 will find the ERN 0041-5310.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I think it's page 6.
17 Q. It says: "Criminal report."
18 A. To the military court of Banja Luka?
19 Q. Yes -- no, no, I'm sorry. We should go further.
20 You have gone too far, I think, in the binder. 415310 in the
21 upper right-hand corner.
22 A. 4153?
23 Q. 415310.
24 A. I cannot find my bearing.
25 Q. Maybe you should better look at tab 26.
1 A. Number 26 is the report -- oh, I'm sorry.
2 Q. The next one, please. Yes, that's the one, Muhamed Cehajic
3 et al.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the purposes of the record, it's page 29
5 in e-court. Thank you.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. You can see written on the top 4th of June?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. This is a criminal report against Muhamed Cehajic, Mirza Mujajic
10 and a number of other individuals. Is that one of the reports that you
11 worked on?
12 A. I think it is. I recall these names, Esef and Husein Crnkic, for
13 example. And I think that these two were in Omarska. Muhamed Cehajic
14 was in Omarska as well.
15 Q. Now you can see that, later on, this case was deferred to the
16 military prosecutor's office and that they instituted proceedings; isn't
17 that right?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can an exhibit number
20 be given to this entire file? Or, rather, could it be first MFI'd,
21 pending translation.
22 JUDGE HALL: I suppose it should be marked for identification,
23 pending translation. Which brings us to the end of today's sitting.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document be assigned Exhibit
25 2D00122 marked for identification. Thank you.
1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, unfortunately, your testimony is not
2 yet at an end, so we will continue with -- tomorrow morning, and we
3 expect to wrap up shortly after that.
4 We would resume your testimony a little after the court itself
5 resumes, so although we're going to take the adjournment to 9.00 in the
6 morning, you wouldn't be escorted in until 9.10, or thereabouts.
7 So if the usher would lower the blinds so that the witness could
8 be escorted out.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] I suppose we have to
11 raise the blinds again to take the adjournment. Thank you.
12 So we resume to tomorrow morning, and I believe we're still in
13 this courtroom.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 4th day of
16 November, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.