1 Thursday, 4 November 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused Zupljanin not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
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 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have today's appearances,
12 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. I wouldn't be put off
13 by the serried ranks of the Prosecution this morning, it's purely because
14 we understand there is going to be a matter raised by the Defence. But
15 it's Joanna Korner, together with Belinda Pidwell, Matthew Olmsted, Tom
16 Hannis, and our case manager Crispian Smith.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
18 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Claire Plumb, appearing for Stanisic Defence
19 this morning. Thank you.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
21 Aleksandar Aleksic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence. Our client is not
22 present. He already signed a waiver.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 Yesterday, Mr. Krgovic had indicated that he had a matter to
25 raise and we told him we would reserve the first ten minutes or so of
1 this morning's session to deal with that.
2 So I suppose, Mr. Krgovic, you're ready?
3 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour. I will turn on Serbian.
4 [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the last few weeks, the Defence
5 negotiated with the OTP with a view to stipulating certain facts
6 adjudicated facts in other cases and thereby expedite this trial, because
7 it's been extended nearly twice as long as had been anticipated due to
8 the leading the evidence by the OTP. In view of that, for the Defence to
9 be able to explore and investigate all the adjudicated facts and the
10 basis on which they were adjudicated, as a result, we sent a mail a
11 couple of weeks ago in which we stipulated all the facts, and we were
12 very near reaching an agreement on the number of adjudicated facts which
13 would result in the reduction of a number of witnesses to be called to
14 appear in these proceedings. I don't need to go into the reasons why the
15 Defence did that, but we are keen to bring this trial to closure as soon
16 as possible and to reduce the budgetary costs for this Tribunal and also
17 to spare the future witnesses and victims further unpleasantness due to
18 their appearance here. But, of course, the accused are entitled to a
19 fair and expeditious trial.
20 Yesterday, the Defence received a writ from the OTP, in which
21 they request two witnesses to be added to the list. In paragraph 17 of
22 their motion, the OTP is claiming as follows and I'm going to read it
2 sorry I'm not sure it is a protected witness or can --
3 MS. KORNER: This -- can we redact, please, the last few lines.
4 Mr. Krgovic, this motion was filed confidentially, it behooves you to
5 read it carefully.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: Yeah.
7 However, the addition of these two witnesses - I will not mention
8 this name - will not require an increase of the number of witnesses to be
9 called in this case, considering that a number of witnesses are currently
10 being removed from the witness list as a result of Defence stipulation of
11 facts. Consequently, the number of witnesses the Prosecution is allowed
12 to call does not need to be amended.
13 [Interpretation] Your Honours, this method and approach by the
14 OTP represents an abuse of the goodwill on the Defence who have
15 stipulated certain facts by striving to add new witnesses and, in fact,
16 the whole procedure of stipulation and all our work has been annulled in
17 a certain way. In my country, Your Honours, if I as a counsel allow to
18 be deceived by the other side and to abuse my goodwill in order to expand
19 the witness list, I would lose my licence to work. From my position as a
20 lawyer, is something that constitutes an omission and has to do directly
21 my ethics and the code to which we abide.
22 As a result, Your Honours, the Defence informed --
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, if I might arrest you in full flight,
24 the -- in formulating your argument, mustn't you, and ignoring for the
25 moment the suggestions of impropriety on the part of the Prosecution,
1 isn't there a clear distinction to be drawn between an application to add
2 witnesses which would stand on its own footing and has to be
3 independently justified on the matter of stipulation. Isn't it -- could
4 it not be argued that it's merely a matter of coincidence that around the
5 time that there is this agreement on stipulation which would reduce the
6 number of witnesses, there is this application and the Prosecution has
7 sort of thrown in as make weight, and by the way we are increasing
8 the number of --
9 So, in other words, what I'm inviting you to do, with respect,
10 Mr. Krgovic, is to focus on the merits of the application because it
11 seems to me that it has -- it's a clean different thing from -- from --
12 from the stipulation. There's -- because of the coincidence of time it
13 is tempting to conflate the two, but aren't they separate issues?
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence deems
15 that these two issues are connected. And one of the main reasons and
16 justifications sought by the OTP for increasing the number of witnesses
17 is attributed to their claim that, due to stipulation, this number is not
18 going to be increased. In fact, they're using the Defence stipulation as
19 an argument that would allow them to add two more witnesses. We think
20 this is inappropriate and impermissible and we do not think that these
21 two issues should be linked.
22 It was not the Defence who establish a nexus between these facts
23 because it was the OTP who is using this in their rationale contained in
24 their submission, and that is why we suspended these negotiations and we
25 are contemplating a withdrawal of our stipulations.
1 This is basically a matter of principle.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, the Chamber has not had a chance to
3 deliberate on this matter, so my comments are just personal. But it
4 would seem to me that the issue of bringing these two new witnesses could
5 have arisen irrespectively of whatever stipulation might or might not
6 have taken place between the Prosecution and the Defence.
7 So, when the Presiding Judge, just a while ago, suggested to you
8 that the matters be considered separately, I would agree with that.
9 Because, as I said, the issue of bringing new witnesses has to do with
10 the burden of proof that rests with the Prosecution, and if, during
11 trial, new material, or new evidence, or new information is brought to
12 the Prosecution's attention, then any prosecution, in any trial would
13 seek permission to have this new information added in order to support
14 its case. And so the chamber will have to look at the new evidence which
15 is being proposed by introducing these two new witnesses. And if it is
16 relevant, probative, and not repetitive, the Chamber would probably
17 consider it favourably. But all of this is an exercise that is taking
18 place completely independently of the stipulation.
19 I agree that the argument that the Prosecution puts up in favour
20 of its application to have these new witnesses may not be very well
21 considered, but since we're all acting professionally here, or trying to,
22 at least, I think that it may be worthwhile to consider, again, to treat
23 these two issues differently and -- and I would be extremely sorry to see
24 that the Defence would withdraw from the stipulation that has taken so
25 long time and demanded so much energy and resources at this late stage of
1 the Prosecution's case.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, essentially I agree
4 that these are two separate issues, but the arguments put forward by the
5 OTP means that by stipulation the Defence is actually helping the
6 Prosecution to prove their case. This is the essence of the submission.
7 We don't want at any phase of defending our clients for our code of
8 ethics and the rules by which we operate, we cannot allow our stipulation
9 to be used in that manner. I don't want to put my position -- put myself
10 in a position by someone -- by judge -- by throws who judge the facts
11 that you accuse of us allowing this to happen.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
13 Ms. Korner, I confess I don't have your motion in front of me,
14 but haven't you handed the -- haven't you created a rod for your own
15 backs by posing as an argument that you can add these witnesses because
16 of the time saved by the stipulation.
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour, can I take this if I may in
19 I have very little to stay because both of Your Honours have
20 actually expressed what I was going to say short -- more shortly and
21 possibly more cogently than I was going to, but I do want to deal with
22 the allegations made by Mr. Krgovic of impropriety.
23 The first, however, matter that I want to raise is not for the
24 first time in this trial we deplore the fact that the Defence declined to
25 tell us the nature of their application today. Yesterday, I understand
1 Mr. Krgovic raised it saying he had a matter to raise. Ms. Pidwell
2 directly inquired of Mr. Krgovic what this was about and got nothing more
3 than a reply, if I can put it that way, which was -- made us none the
4 wiser as to the specifics of the application; merely that it had
5 something to do with the adjudicated facts. And if Mr. Krgovic has a
6 code which he has referred to, then surely part of that code must mean an
7 obligation to tell the other side what it is you wish to raise. And
8 indeed it is possible had he told us - and I notice that Mr. Zecevic has
9 not spoken on this - we might have been able to sort this out without
10 troubling Your Honours because it's not at all clear to us what it is
11 that Your Honours are expected to do about it, other than rule upon the
12 motion which we filed yesterday.
13 Your Honours, the stipulated -- or facts or, rather, the
14 agreement of the Defence to certain facts which Mr. Krgovic says all,
15 that is incorrect. They have declined to agree to all the disputed
16 facts. Should have happened a very long time ago. It's only the fact
17 that these witnesses are now coming to tell their stories that we suggest
18 has made the Defence realise that they are not best assisted in not
19 agreeing to facts which do not directly implicate in any shape or form
20 their clients.
21 As I say, Your Honour, this could have happened months and months
22 and months ago, and indeed at the beginning of the trial Judge Harhoff
23 indicated that it should be possible for the Defence to agree matters
24 which related to the crime base evidence in this case, without any
25 success at all until quite recently.
1 Your Honours, Mr. Krgovic is, in effect, making an application
2 in terrorem, if you grant the Prosecution's application to add these
3 witnesses, then we will withdraw any agreement.
4 Your Honour, that is, of course, the Defence right and we're
5 quite happy to go on-calling these witnesses relating to these
6 adjudicated facts. This is, as both of Your Honours have pointed out, a
7 wholly separate matter which arose because, in particular, for one of the
8 witnesses, Mr. Krgovic's cross-examination of an earlier witness where he
9 produced maps without any kind of explanation other than they come from
10 this organisation called the whatever it is, for co-operation with the
11 Tribunal, the Institute for Co-Operation with the Tribunal, and put them
12 to the witness and made various suggestions. Now, as a result of that,
13 Your Honour, we applied to call the witness, and as Your Honours have
14 pointed out this is all sheer coincidence. And the second witness we did
15 not appreciate until there was a public announcement of what evidence
16 this witness had given before the State Court of what evidence he was
17 able to give.
18 So, Your Honours, we say there was no impropriety. The fact that
19 we said that, as a matter of timing, because of the stipulations there
20 will be no addition to the actual witnesses the Prosecution want to call
21 nor, indeed, on the time, Your Honour, as, indeed, Your Honour Judge Hall
22 said, we threw it in as make weight. And in hindsight, of course, had I
23 realised, Your Honour, that it was going to provoke this kind of
24 reaction, that we were behaving improperly, and you have to have a -- if
25 I may say so, without any respect at all, a fairly odd mind to look at it
1 in that way, we would have never put that paragraph in.
2 So to that extent, Your Honour, Your Honour is quite right. We
3 made a rod for our own backs simply because it never occurred to us that
4 it would be looked at in this light, but we say, as Your Honours have
5 said, these are two wholly separate issues. And as I say, we thoroughly
6 deplore the fact that the suggestion is made that we have behaved
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just one moment, please.
9 I understood the intervention of my two colleagues as trying to
10 put water on the fire. One can, of course, also put oil on the fire.
11 But I don't -- I don't think that's the best course of action for the
13 Thank you.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since Ms. Korner
15 mentioned my name in her discussion I would like to say that I haven't
16 risen so far because Mr. Krgovic took it upon him to deal with this
18 Your Honours, the Stanisic Defence will reply in writing to the
19 Prosecution's motion regarding the request dated 2 November to add two
20 additional witnesses.
21 But I must say the following. I really do not think that the
22 Prosecution, by chance, and due to a lack of understanding, included in
23 that motion what that motion contains. This paragraph is part of that
24 motion because the Prosecution, as we all understand, that the
25 possibility and the chance for this motion to be approved is much greater
1 if there is agreement on the stipulations if the both -- if both parties
2 agree. Then the trial will not be extended. That is very clear and
3 logical. So this is not about an inappropriate approach by the Defence.
4 There is a connection, and I don't wish to speculate if this connection
5 is -- has come about by chance or not, but the best way for us to resolve
6 this issue is to talk to the OTP and to continue the talks about the
7 stipulations and then we can subsequently inform the Trial Chamber.
8 As for the motion, we will reply in writing.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So I think there we have it. As
11 Mr. Zecevic has said, the -- the discussions will continue on the
12 stipulations. And it remains for the Chamber to rule on the application
13 when we would have seen the Defence response.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, my understanding is there is no
15 further discussion. There was an agreed document that was going to be
16 produced by the Defence because we had actually completed the
17 discussions. This is why it come as something of a surprise.
18 Your Honours, can I make it absolutely plain I said this all
19 along. It is for the Defence to decide whether they are prepared to
20 agree some of these matters instead of having the witnesses. We've spent
21 four days out of court at their request having discussions and our
22 understanding was that those discussion were now completed. So,
23 therefore, I am afraid, discussions which relate to any stipulations and
24 this motion are not on the table.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So could we have the witness back -- I
1 think that's as far as we can take this. Can we have the witness back on
2 the stand.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, before we do, I want to raise a matter
4 with regard to a document that was tendered into evidence yesterday.
5 And this relates to the document that was tendered at the end of
6 the day yesterday. It was Exhibit 2D122 and it was marked for
7 identification, I believe, pending translation.
8 We didn't object at that time because for one we received that
9 exhibit at the beginning of that day, and, secondly, it's a 64-page case
10 file and the witness was only shown one page of it and it hadn't been
11 translated. But after our session yesterday, I had a look -- a bigger
12 look at it, at a closer look at it, and I could see that at the end of
13 this case file were eight statements taken from non-Serbs by SJB Prijedor
14 in May and June 1992. Six of those eight statements were unsigned. One
15 is from a person known to be have been killed at Omarska, four are from
16 persons who are missing, presumed to be killed at Omarska, and one is
17 from a witness who has testified before this Tribunal previously.
18 This raises the same issues that we raised yesterday with regard
19 to the two exhibits that Mr. Zecevic attempted to tender through the
20 witness. And I will note that one of the statements in this exhibit was,
21 in fact, one of the statements that Mr. Zecevic showed the witness and
22 attempted to tender into evidence.
23 As we said yesterday, we strongly object to this -- these
24 statements coming in, if they're coming in for the truth of the matters
25 asserted within those statements. This is because, one, they are very
1 unreliable, given the circumstances in which they were taken; and,
2 secondly, they do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 92 bis.
3 We, therefore, once again, ask the Defence to specify whether
4 they're tendering these types of statements -- tendering these types of
5 statements for the truth of the matter asserted or for some other
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just one moment, please.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, we needn't hear you in reply because it
12 strikes us that the -- we've heard what Mr. Olmsted has said. But, of
13 course, we labour under the disadvantage of not, ourselves, being able to
14 assess the document which has not yet been translated. And one of the
15 reasons why the -- it was marked for identification is, A, pending
16 translation; and following from that, to see what, in fact, the document
17 comprises. And that's where we stand at this point. It's -- it -- it
18 has no status higher than an item being marked for identification so we
19 don't lose track of it.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours. I
21 absolutely agree with you. And I haven't risen to speak about this
22 document. The document is a -- is a judicial document and consists of
23 several other documents. It was introduced by the Zupljanin Defence, and
24 they should speak about it, if the Trial Chamber should deem it
1 I just wanted to focus your attention on one fact. I, too, after
2 the trial yesterday, contemplated, just like Mr. Olmsted. Yesterday,
3 during the cross-examination of this witness, the Trial Chamber took the
4 position that the documents I tried to show to the witness for the
5 reasons stated already - I don't have to deal with that - do not provide
6 for sufficient grounds for these documents to be admitted to -- to be
7 admitted into evidence. But there's another aspect to these documents
8 which I consider very important, and I failed to mention it yesterday.
9 However -- or, rather, in paragraph 11(g) and 21 and 23 of the
10 indictment, the accused are charged with knowing or having reason to know
11 that their subordinates have committed or are about to commit the crimes
12 mentioned in this indictment but failed to take necessary and reasonable
13 measures to prevent them or punish the perpetrators.
14 Your Honours, the role of the Ministry of Interior, as well as
15 the CSB with regard to the stations in the -- in -- on the ground, is
16 instructive and a function of control, so these documents are not
17 important only for their form and their content but for the fact that
18 they exist. Here is why. They matter with regard to the accountability
19 of our clients, because, if an inspector goes to Prijedor in the relevant
20 time-period to conduct an audit and he is shown or told, here are the
21 reports about the interviews with 3.100 people, out who 1466 for so many
22 there's grounds for suspicion that they have committed the crime of armed
24 With all due respect, Your Honours, this is a very important
25 element for the -- for deciding upon the mens rea and the intentions of
1 both of the accused. It's about whether, in this case, the obligations
2 and the duties of the superiors in the ministry was, indeed, honoured
3 when we speak about their relations toward their subordinates.
4 This is very important in these documents, not going into the
5 question whether they're -- they contain the truth or not because back
6 then, Mico Stanisic or any of the superiors, could have been expected to
7 know or to find out whether these facts are true or not. But, anyway,
8 that's not for the police to do. That's up to the courts to establish
9 whether the grounds for suspicion can be proven or not and whether there
10 was armed rebellion or not and there's such evidence, too.
11 I wanted to have this on the record for this reason to explain
12 this to the Bench and to apologise. I failed to do so yesterday. But I
13 consider -- but I think that Mr. Olmsted opening the story about these
14 documents gave me opportunity to say this.
15 Thank you very much.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, if I may just briefly comment.
17 Again, our objection -- our primary objection with regard to
18 these statements is if they're being admitted for the truth of the
19 matters asserted within them.
1 We're in open session.
2 Anyway, we have testimony from this witness with regard to this
3 issue and I think that evidence is sufficient for the point that the
4 Defence is trying it make. What don't want to do is open the door to the
5 Defence submitting a stack of these statements and then us being in a
6 position of either presenting our own statements that contradict those
7 statements, or, secondly, calling the witnesses to establish that this
8 information was not obtained voluntarily and is untruthful and that is
9 what our primary concern is.
10 With regard to Judge Hall's suggestion, we agree that a
11 translation will obviously be helpful, but in the past when I have raised
12 an objection on this type of issue the document was admitted into
13 evidence without us having an opportunity to re-raise our objection, and
14 so we would ask that simply be marked for identification at this stage
15 not pending translation but marked for identification, and if the Defence
16 wants to tender it into evidence that they submit a written submission on
17 that so that we can respond and it can be properly argued between the
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic, you have something to add?
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to say why I led
21 these documents.
22 The two parties have different positions. The purpose of my
23 leading this document is to show the entire procedure. I haven't
24 finished examining the witness about this document because we adjourned.
25 This basically is not about statements, Your Honours. That's the
1 point. It's not about statements of detainees. It's about Official
2 Notes made by the investigators. These are different categories. The
3 witnesses did not sign the statements, most of them. Perhaps a couple of
4 Official Notes were. Because these were Official Notes taken by the
5 investigators during the interviews than -- that contain their
6 observations. This -- it's not about the statements made by the
7 detainees which may have been given under pressure.
8 I wanted to show the entire procedure, how a criminal file was
9 put together, and what followed, and so on. But I don't want to go into
10 this now. I'll show it later by examining the witness.
11 MR. OLMSTED: If I understand Mr. Krgovic correctly, and he's
12 stating that they're not seeking to tender these statements for the truth
13 of the matters asserted within those statements, then it's likely that we
14 will not object to the admission of these exhibits. Obviously we want to
15 see the translation first.
16 But perhaps Mr. Krgovic can correct me if I'm wrong about this
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let's make it clear
19 immediately. These are not statements; these are Official Notes. And
20 that's an important distinction. That's why. I'll go through them with
21 the witness, he will be able to read it, and you will have a comment.
22 This is the purpose. Because this is what the investigator noted.
23 Whether what the persons interviewed made truthful statements or not, is
24 not anything that matters to me at this moment.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we will see where we go.
1 Could the witness be brought in, please.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, good morning to you, sir. I trust that
4 your health is still holding out. I indicated yesterday that your -- the
5 continuation of your testimony would have been slightly delayed because
6 we had some preliminary matters with which to deal. Unfortunately, as is
7 not uncommon in courts from time to time, those preliminary matters took
8 a lot longer than we anticipated, so we apologise for the inconvenience
9 of your having to wait for so long before you were brought back into
10 court. But we're ready now to continue.
11 And I would invite Mr. Krgovic to continue his cross-examination.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
13 WITNESS: ST-245 [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]
16 Q. Good morning, sir.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Yesterday when we broke off, I was showing you a document which
19 was part of an investigation against a number of persons, and you said
20 about them that they were at Omarska. I will now deal with a
21 professional matter, to call it that.
22 Mr. Zecevic, yesterday, showed you something, and I'll show you
23 part of this document.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness
25 Exhibit - just a second - 1D04-3405. I don't know what the
1 identification number is. I have a photocopy of this document here.
2 Could I ask the usher to assist me, please.
3 Q. While we're waiting for the usher, sir, yesterday you were
4 speaking about Official Notes and statements. You will certainly agree
5 with me when I say that when an authorised official who conducts certain
6 activities, he can do so in two ways. He can take a statement off that
7 person or make an Official Note of the interview; right?
8 A. Yes. In the Public Security Service, that was the practice.
9 Q. Please take a look at this. I'll just give you a page reference.
10 It is page 04 -- 0041-5335. It's towards the end. Toward the end of
11 this file. It says 0041-5335, in the left-hand corner?
12 A. The last three digits are 305?
13 Q. 335.
14 A. Oh, 335.
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, we're advised the document in e-court
16 only has three pages.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D04-3408. I do not have the MFI
18 number here.
19 2D122, MFI.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: That is 1D04-3408.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] That's the document that
23 has been MFI'd yesterday.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 Q. It's the statement of Hamdija Hodzic, or, rather, an Official
2 So it's 5335.
3 A. 5335, that's the last page. Authorised officially, Hamdija
4 Hodzic ...
5 Q. Yes, you found it. Please look at the top. It's dated 7
6 June 1992 and we see the signature block. It mentions official --
7 authorised officials, but there's no signature. When somebody is
8 interviewed usually the investigators who interviewed the person or the
9 operatives, if you call them that, they usually sign the Official Note;
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you recognise any signature that you see here?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Now, please, look what it contains. It contains notes from the
15 interview with this person, Hamdija Hodzic; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the information they got while interviewing the person;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now please take a look again at the following Official Note.
21 It's the one dated 27 May. And look at the last page of the statement.
22 Again, we see the signature of a -- of an authorised official.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] ERN 0041-5338.
24 Q. You can see again that it only reads "authorised official."
25 A. Well, actually that is not really a signature. It's the initials
1 of the official without his full name.
2 Q. Can you please look at the next statement.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Which has ERN number 0041-5340.
4 Q. And take a look at the last page, with the last four digits 5342.
5 It also contains the signature of an authorised official; is that
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. One question, speaking about this issue, from this criminal file,
9 it stems that a number of persons were put in custody or in detention.
10 Can you tell me what happened with those people who were to be detained?
11 Did they remain in Omarska or were they sent somewhere else?
12 A. Those who were decided as people to be detained were sent to a
13 detention unit. As for the others, I don't know. I know about only one
14 such case.
15 Q. Were there any instances in which people were sent off to
17 A. Not to my knowledge. They were not sent to Gradiska.
18 Q. So, basically, sir, these Official Notes were used, so to speak,
19 by operatives in order to collect information about the rebellion, the
20 potential crimes, and the individuals who participated in those
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Later on, upon presenting evidence and upon evaluating the
24 probative value of this evidence, it was the court who took the final
1 A. Well, according to the procedure in place, the police, or an SJB
2 writes a report which is then sent to the Office of the Prosecutor. It
3 is then up to the Prosecutor to accept it or to not accept it. If
4 there's insufficient element -- elements, it can be returned for
5 amendment or it could be rejected altogether. I'm not a lawyer by
6 profession, but I know that that was the practice.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we move into
8 private session for the next question, please.
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
10 [Private session]
11 Pages 16877-16882 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Chamber would like to clarify an issue that
5 was raised by Mr. Hannis just before the break; namely, the purpose for
6 which these notes are being sought admitted into evidence.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Chamber is of the view that they cannot and
9 should not be admitted as statements proper for the simple reason that
10 they do not fulfil the requirements of 92 bis. But we will admit them as
11 what they appear to be, namely, as official notes. And so we will
12 consider not only the procedure that these notes seem to establish but
13 also the contents of the findings that were made by the interrogators.
14 As for the weight which we will give to the contents, that, as usually is
15 the case, will remain a task for the Trial Chamber at the end of the
17 So this is just to clarify that we will consider these Official
18 Notes, both for the form and for the contents, and, thus, not consider
19 them as statements. But we can only do so for those notes that have not
20 been signed by the detainees. So if one of these, or some of these
21 notes, appear to have a signature by which the interviewee, or the
22 detainee, has put his signature, then we would say that these would, by
23 virtue of the signature, appear as statements, and that is exactly what
24 we do not wish to admit.
25 So we will only consider those Official Notes that appear as
1 nothing but Official Notes; that is to say, without any signature by the
2 detainee. Those notes which have a signature, and, thus, could be
3 understood to be statements, in our view, would not fulfil the
4 requirements of 92 bis and, therefore, will not be considered.
5 Is that clear?
6 Thank you.
7 MR. HANNIS: I'm ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: And should I add, as I was just reminded by the
10 Presiding Judge, that we're not inclined to admit all of these Official
11 Notes but a small representative sample, a small number of them that show
12 sort of -- the pattern in them we will accept. I'm not sure of how many
13 are included in the two exhibits that we have admitted so far, that is to
14 say, 2D122, and 2D123, but I understand it's a limited number and we
15 should just, you know, keep it limited.
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 I'm sorry, I wasn't -- I wasn't clear. So is it the Trial
19 Chamber's position that you're going accept some of these Official Notes
20 and not only for the fact that these Official Notes were taken but for
21 the content; is that correct? For the truth of the contents?
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Not necessarily for the truth. But we will
23 consider the contents. We're not saying that we will establish that this
24 was the truth, but we will consider the evidence that they contain and we
25 will give whatever weight needs to be given to them at the end of the
2 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: So this is evidence, in our view. We will not
4 necessarily accept this as the truth, but it is important evidence for
5 the Defence case.
6 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I have a question then. Because
7 as I understood part of what you said earlier was that if it has a
8 signature of a detainee, you're not going to take that.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: That is correct.
10 MR. HANNIS: And if it has a signature of under the blank that
11 says authorised official you will accept that?
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: But not as a statement.
13 MR. HANNIS: Not as a statement.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's an Official Note with a certain content.
15 MR. HANNIS: Okay. And in terms of authenticity, will you
16 require some evidence about whose signature that is and whether he or she
17 was actually an official at the time; and whether or not this was an
18 official document that was submitted or merely a draft?
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 MR. HANNIS: I guess those are all arguments that go to weight.
21 All right.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officers confer]
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, just in response to your question of
25 whether we will accept the authenticity of these documents, the Chamber's
1 view is that we don't think we need that. We will consider the evidence
2 and give the weight that we find appropriate to it.
3 Already at this point --
4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, authenticity is always going to be an
5 element of probative value, and I think you're always going have to
6 consider whether documents presented by either side are authentic --
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: But --
8 MR. HANNIS: -- before you can give them any weight.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- this witness, Mr. Hannis, this witness who we
10 have here has already provided evidence that goes to show that there were
11 indeed notes taken by this or that member of the team and that would seem
12 to us to suffice.
13 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, for the ones where he indicated he
14 recognised the -- the official. I think the last two he was shown he
15 said that's -- that's not a signature. That's an initial. And the other
16 one he said, I don't recognise that signature. So ...
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Does that mean that you're challenging the
18 authenticity of those two, Mr. Hannis?
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. HANNIS: If they're going to be offered for the truth of the
21 contents of those documents, yes we are. Because we don't know who
22 prepared them or when.
23 To the extent that this witness can say, yes, I recognise this
24 signature of a member my team and he was working with me at the time,
25 then, yes. I'm -- that's sufficient authenticity. But if he looks at
1 one and says, I don't know who that is, then we do challenge it. But
2 maybe -- maybe you still accept it but to give it less weight because
3 you're not certain who it was and when it was written.
4 JUDGE HALL: In any event, Mr. Hannis, this is only a suggestion,
5 having regard to what Judge Harhoff has already indicated to Mr. Krgovic
6 that he would select those on which he wishes -- that he finds useful, he
7 may wish to explore those where the witness is unable to identify the
8 signature, that may be the answer to the possible problem that you raise.
9 And as for distinction between an initial and a signature, I -- I don't
10 know that, for evidential purpose, there is any such distinction that we
11 need to concern ourselves with.
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't want to take any
13 more time with the witness here. We may submit something in writing, if
14 we feel it necessary.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE HALL: And, Mr. Krgovic, if you understood all of that, you
17 may proceed.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, I just wanted to
19 show some examples. When we speak about these statements, I just showed
20 the witness those statements that were signed by authorised officials but
21 not by persons from whom the information was elicited; in other words,
22 the Official Notes that were made. And in my examination so far I
23 haven't shown one where the -- a signature of the person who was
24 interviewed. I just have one or two more. And as for the document which
25 was marked for identification yesterday, I would like to remind the Bench
1 that in previous cases when we discussed the criminal complaint again the
2 Mice and the one relating to Koricanske Stijena and the one Vrbas, we
3 showed some documents because that all goes to show the procedure that
4 was in place.
5 So Koricanska Stijena and the murder at Vrbas and all other cases
6 where the relevant documents contain such Official Notes. That was not
7 contentious when the OTP led such evidence. Now that we are tendering
8 such documents for the same purpose, then, suddenly, that becomes
10 This would be an observation of mine expressing my attitude, but
11 I will no longer -- I will take no more of the Trial Chamber's time.
12 Q. Sir, please look at 1D04-3388, which is tab 14 in your binder.
13 That is, the Stanisic Defence binder.
14 A. I found number 14. It reads: Official Note.
15 Q. I apologise, 1D04-3388.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's tab 18.
17 MR. KRGOVIC:
18 Q. [No interpretation]
19 A. Could you please repeat the number.
20 Q. 1D -- or, rather, you can see in the lower corners, 041544.
21 That's at tab 14.
22 A. 00415441?
23 Q. 44. Look at tab 14, the blue one.
24 A. But that's what I found a minute ago.
25 Q. It's an Official Note dated 6 June 1992; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We turn to page 2, please. It's ERN 0041-5445.
3 A. I found it.
4 Q. You can see the initial of the authorised official and you see
5 the investigator's opinion. I consider it necessary to continue the
6 interview with Sabahudin Jakupovic. This is basically the format of the
7 Official Note as those taken at Omarska; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And it confirms what you said that always, other, rather, as a
10 rule there was also a statement of opinion of the interviewer as to the
11 future course of action; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE HALL: Again, this is -- this would be marked for
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 2D124, marked
18 for identification.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. And now the last document I want to show you from this set. It's
21 a document that was shown by you by Mr. Zecevic, 1D04-3379, which is
22 tab 10.
23 A. I've found it.
24 Q. Please look at the first page. You can see the initial at the
25 beginning, or, rather, at the bottom.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The initial of the interviewer and there's a similar initial.
3 Turn the page, please. It reads "authorised official" and you see his
4 initial; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you confirmed to Mr. Zecevic yesterday that this was the
7 format of such statements, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the last
10 document from this set that I will tender, so I seek to tender it -- or,
11 rather, have it marked for identification.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: That was the one that was not admitted while --
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Because the purpose of
14 tendering was not clear. We only seek to tender it for the purposes as
15 outlined by Judge Harhoff.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'm looking at the initials on the
17 first page or if that is what it is, it looks like a scribble to me. I
18 don't know if the witness has verified that that is the initials of the
19 inspector, and if you look at the end of the document it looks like it's
20 just an X where the name of the purported inspector would be. So is --
21 this is an unsigned by both the interviewee and the interviewer it looks
22 to me, at least, so we object on that ground.
23 JUDGE HALL: Except, Mr. Olmsted, if you look at the previous
24 page, lines 11 through 13, the question and answer, the witness accepted
25 the question as posed by Mr. Krgovic, that the -- the -- the initials on
1 the front -- on the two pages.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I see here in the record it says the initial
3 of the interviewer and there's a similar initial, and then he says just
4 turn the page please.
5 So it seemed like to me that Mr. Krgovic was providing the
6 evidence as to whether this is the initials of the interviewer. But, of
7 course, I defer to the Trial Chamber.
8 JUDGE HALL: But the witness did say yes.
9 But, Mr. Krgovic, for the sake of tidiness, could you ask the
10 specific question of the witness.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness yesterday
12 said, answering Mr. Zecevic's question, that often both the first and the
13 last pages were signed. That is why I showed these initials. I didn't
14 want the witness to identify the initials or use him as an expert. So
15 that was my only intention.
16 JUDGE HALL: I think that's as far as we can go. Yes, it's
17 marked for identification.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 2D125, marked
19 for identification.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Sir, speaking about these Official Notes and the information
22 contained therein, at the regular meetings that you had in the morning
23 hours at the SJB of Prijedor, you basically informed Mr. Drljaca about
24 your work, and certainly he had this -- Official Notes in front of him.
25 These notes were sent to him as well as the reports on the interviews
1 conducted; correct?
2 A. Yes. The Official Notes and other documents were successively
3 sent from the Omarska investigation centre to the Prijedor SJB, and the
4 officer was acquainted with that.
5 Q. Speaking about the assessment of your work, that is, the body to
6 which you belonged to, if your immediate superior were to audit your
7 work, he would proceed based on these Official Notes and other documents
8 gathered during the process; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you confirmed in your earlier evidence that, during the
11 interrogation process, at least as far as people on your team were
12 concerned, that all the laws and regulations were abided by and that
13 these Official Notes were drafted in accordance with the rules and
14 regulations in force; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. By reviewing this large number of documents and Official Notes,
17 it was possible to establish what you did and how you went about it;
19 A. Yes, that was possible.
20 Q. The Prosecutor asked you, in the examination-in-chief, about the
21 list of persons to be brought in for interviews at the Omarska
22 investigation centre.
23 Do you remember the Prosecutor's question to that effect?
24 A. You mean the persons who we suggested to Chief Drljaca?
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. Yes, I remember that. During the day, analysing these Official
2 Notes, we identified a number of persons who were interesting from the
3 security point of view. There were suggestions made by the operatives,
4 and we forwarded them to the chief of the SJB of Prijedor. He entered
5 them in his diary, work diary. And once the persons were found, they
6 were taken to the investigation centre but for the exclusive purpose of
7 interviewing them in order to corroborate the information that we had
8 collected so far.
9 Q. So the purpose of drafting that list was to establish whether or
10 not some persons could be suspected of taking part in armed rebellion or
11 supporting it, and -- not only due to the fact that they were reputed
12 persons in Prijedor and the surrounding areas?
13 A. Yes. The suggestion drafted by our team had that purpose.
14 Q. Among those persons, and I'm not going to show you the document
15 again, were individuals from Prijedor itself who were suspected of
16 supporting the rebellion or of providing information to the attackers on
17 Hambarine and Kozarac?
18 A. Yes. That was the majority of the cases.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now please be shown
20 Exhibit P1560, 1-5-6-0.
21 Q. Sir, the Prosecutor showed you this document yesterday. And
22 could you please look carefully at item 5 of this document.
23 You said that you hadn't seen this document before, that is to
24 say, in 1992; is that correct?
25 A. No. I didn't have an opportunity to see it before.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please zoom in on item 5.
2 Q. This is the document shown to you by the Prosecutor as well as by
3 Mr. Zecevic. And it says that:
4 "... investigated persons shall be escorted together with the
5 relevant reports to the remand prison in Banja Luka or Stara Gradiska for
6 further criminal processing."
7 You confirmed earlier that you don't know that anyone was taken
8 to Gradiska and that only one person was placed in custody?
9 A. I know nothing about Gradiska. As for Banja Luka, there was one
10 person in detention there.
11 Q. But to your knowledge it wasn't you who sent those people to
12 Gradiska or Banja Luka. Rather, after the processing procedure was
13 completed, they went to Manjaca; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And now, look at item 4. It says that you were working from 0 to
16 24, which is virtually around the clock. That's not what you said. You
17 said that sometimes you worked overtime; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 3 on this
21 Can you please zoom in on item 17.
22 Q. The Prosecutor showed and read out to you item 17, which says
24 "The supervision or the implementation of this order shall be
25 supervised by police chief Dusan Jankovic in collaboration with the Banja
1 Luka Security Services Centre."
2 And when asked by the Prosecutor about this, you confirmed that
3 this is right. However, you did not have any contacts with
4 Dusan Jankovic, he did not co-ordinate your work, and he never came to
6 A. Yes, that is correct, I had no contacts with him and he never
7 came to the Omarska centre.
8 Q. And you know nothing about him performing any co-ordinating work
9 in compliance with this order?
10 A. I personally know nothing about that.
11 Q. And, finally, sir, the job that you did at Omarska, was not
12 basically regular work that your service carried out.
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. And your work and the existence of the Omarska investigation
15 centre resulted from a large number of armed conflict and a large number
16 of people brought in in relation to these armed conflicts; is that
18 A. Well, there were armed clashes and a large number of people were
19 involved in that. But also brought in were people for whom there wasn't
20 such kind of information available.
21 Q. And you established that in the course of screening and
23 A. Yes, exactly. We didn't know the facts at the beginning, so we
24 did it through the interrogation process.
25 Q. So basically that was the purpose of your job, to establish the
1 truth and the truthful situation, and to establish the status of the
2 people who were brought to Omarska.
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Thank you, sir.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
6 questions for this witness.
7 JUDGE HALL: Re-examination?
8 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
10 Q. I'd like to start with one of the first questions that -- or one
11 of the last questions that Mr. Krgovic put to you with regard to Dusan
13 On the first day of your testimony here, you stated that you were
14 aware that Dusan Jankovic was appointed co-ordinator in the
15 implementation of the order establishing Omarska camp --
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Objection. That's not what witness say. And it's
18 MR. OLMSTED: It's not leading, and it -- if you -- it is what he
19 said, but I'll get to the point of my question.
20 Q. Were you aware that Dusan Jankovic was the co-ordinator for the
21 implementation of -- the co-ordination and implementation of Omarska
23 A. I knew that Dusan Jankovic was Simo's deputy. However, as to the
24 specific job that he was assigned to at that point in time, when Omarska
25 began its work, I knew nothing about.
1 Q. Just to clarify, did you hear from anyone while you were working
2 at Omarska camp that Dusan Jankovic had some role as far as co-ordinating
3 the work at the Omarska camp?
4 A. I personally heard nothing to that effect. I honestly cannot
5 remember any conversations about Jankovic. Because, basically,
6 throughout the whole period, I only communicated with Simo Drljaca.
7 MR. OLMSTED: May we have, what has been marked for
8 identification, 2D123 on the screen? And if we could just turn to the
9 last page.
10 Q. This is one of the Official Notes that you were shown by
11 Mr. Krgovic.
12 If you can look at the lower right-hand corner, the signatures at
13 the bottom, do you recognise either of those signatures?
14 A. Well, I cannot give you the full names of the operatives. But
15 these are the signatures, and the content of this Official Note indicates
16 that these were the interrogators who worked at the investigation centre.
17 Q. I understand that. My question is: Do you recognise those
18 signatures? Do you personally recognise whose signatures those belong
20 A. Well, if I say I do, I should give you their full names, but I
21 can't do that.
22 Q. All right.
23 MR. OLMSTED: If we can just turn to the first page.
24 Q. This Official Note mentions the name Asim Dergic. Do you recall
25 whether he was at Omarska?
1 A. Well, the family name of Dergic is common in the area the
2 Prijedor. There are quite a few people with that name. I did not know
3 Asim personally, but there were a few Dergics at Omarska investigation
5 Q. Yesterday you were asked a few questions about the date when
6 Omarska camp began operating, and I want to see if I can clarify this a
7 bit more.
8 In response to a question by Judge Delvoie, you stated that, for
9 a time, you used the Prijedor-Banja Luka main road to arrive at Omarska
10 camp each morning. At some point, did you have to take another route or
11 detour to get to Omarska camp?
12 A. Yes. That happened immediately after the attack on Prijedor. I
13 think the attack was carried on the 30th of May, if I'm not mistaken.
14 That morning, we didn't leave at the usual time, which is 8.00, for
15 security reasons. Later on, at around 10.00 or 11.00, we took another
16 route which is a local road that leads to the Tomasica mine which is also
17 part of the Ljubija mines, i.e., Omarska.
18 Q. And before then, before the 30th of May, did you take the main
19 road to get to Omarska?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You were asked yesterday by Mr. Zecevic whether the preliminary
22 interviews of Omarska detainees were based on intelligence that these
23 individuals had been involved in the commission of crimes.
24 On your first day of testimony, you told us that one of your
25 complaints about the arrests of detainees was that the police were
1 bringing them to the camp without any documentation; do you recall that?
2 A. Yes. There were cases of that nature. And that is exactly why
3 we set up this third group, because we thought that these people should
4 be released and set free to go home.
6 Now whether there were two operatives from the SJB working
7 together, I -- I can't confirm with any degree of certainty, although it
8 is possible.
9 Q. Yesterday Mr. Zecevic asked you whether all detainees at Omarska
10 were interrogated by the interrogation teams, to which, if I understand
11 it correctly, you said that was the case.
12 Can you tell us how do you know that you interrogated each and
13 every detainee that was held at the camp?
14 A. Well, our task was to conduct interviews with all the people who
15 were brought in.
16 Q. Yes. I understand that. But did you ever go down to the
17 detention rooms and physically check, do a roll-call, to make sure that
18 you have, in fact, interrogated every one at that camp?
19 A. Well, there was a roll-call, and the detainees were brought in to
20 offices for interrogations. And also roll-call was made at the time when
21 they were transported to Manjaca.
22 Q. Yes, and I don't think you're understanding my question.
23 My question is: Did you -- did the inspection teams or the
24 investigative teams, did they -- to make sure that they've interrogated
25 each and every detainee at the camp, did they participate in the
1 roll-calls or go to the rooms and make sure that they had, in fact,
2 interrogated every single detainee at the camp? Did they perform any
3 checks like that?
4 A. Well, sometimes a person would be called, his name would be
5 called, but he wasn't there at that moment.
6 Q. All right. I'm going to move on.
7 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have 1D04-3484 on the screen.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, it would be of assistance if we
9 could get a tab number.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. This is tab 28 in the Stanisic binder.
11 Q. And I'll note that this is actually a document that's contained
12 within MFI'd Exhibit 2D122. However, it has an English translation, so
13 I'll use this one so that we can follow along.
14 Sir, I'm going to hand you this document so that you can just
15 look through it yourself without bending over.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the witness has it in the binder.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Oh. Well, this may be just easier if I just hand
18 it to him.
19 Q. Sir, yesterday, in response to questions by Mr. Krgovic, you
20 identified three of the alleged perpetrators in this case, this case
21 against Muhamed Cehajic and others, who you personally recalled as being
22 detainees at Omarska and I just want to confirm who they are.
23 First of all, number 3, Esef Crnkic; number 4, Husein Crnkic; and
24 number 11, Muhamed Cehajic. And you also, I think in responses to one of
25 my questions, stated you recall seeing number 12, Becir Medunjanin, at
1 Omarska camp.
2 Sir, if you can just take a quick look at the other names, can
3 you tell us whether you are certain whether any of these other persons
4 were at Omarska?
5 A. I am positive about the four, but it is possible that some others
6 were there, but I cannot confirm that because I don't know them
8 Q. Yes. And we can see that under I think all -- almost all of them
9 that we haven't mentioned, it says that they are currently at large. So
10 we don't know if they were ever, in fact, arrested; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, there were instances like that. For example, number 1,
12 Mirza Mujagic was not brought there at all because he was on the run at
13 the time. He was the president of the municipal branch -- or the
14 Municipal Board of the Party for Democratic Action in Prijedor. He was
15 not arrested and therefore could not have been brought to the centre.
16 Q. Let's --
17 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, perhaps I should tender this
18 into evidence since he has now talked about it. I know it is part of the
19 other document, but we have a translation here and just for clarity's
20 sake may I seek to admit this into evidence.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I thought -- hold on a minute, Mr. Zecevic.
23 I thought that you were opposed to admitting these notes or
24 documents, but in any case it seems to me that it is already within the
25 package that is contained in 1D -- 2D122.
1 So it's already there. So why do we need to have it admitted
2 once again?
3 MR. OLMSTED: That's fine. I just wanted it for
4 cross-referencing purposes, but I trust that Your Honours will be able to
5 do that at the end of the day.
6 I will note -- and I apologise I usually provide the title of the
7 document that I'm showing him. This one's entitled: "Decision to
8 Conduct Investigation," dated 5 June 1992. It's by the lower court of
9 Prijedor. It is not an Official Note. It's not a witness statement. It
10 is actually a court document.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
12 Mr. Zecevic.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, of course, I do not object because that
14 document was in my binder and I decided not to use it because the Trial
15 Chamber took the position based on the objections from the Office of the
16 Prosecutor of yesterday. Now we see that they are changing their
17 position. But nonetheless, I think that I wanted to intervene because I
18 think that the witness with his last question, it wasn't properly --
19 probably interpreted to the witness. I believe the witness didn't
20 understand the focus of the question of my learned friend. Maybe it
21 should be repeated again.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
23 Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may clarify. Yeah, the document says that
25 the -- some of these people that the witness confirms have been in
1 Omarska, in this document dated 5th of June, it says that these people
2 that the witness confirmed were in Omarska were at large, according to
3 the -- according to this document. And that is the part which I don't
4 think the witness understood. Maybe that should be clarified with the
5 witness. That's the point.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Well, I think from his answer it seemed like he did
7 understand the question, but I guess can I ask it again.
8 Q. Sir, we were talking about the other 12 persons listed in this
9 decision to conduct an investigation, and we were noting that a
10 significant number of them state that they are -- these perpetrators or
11 alleged perpetrators are currently at large. And my question to you is,
12 so we do not know, in fact, whether these persons were ever arrested or
13 detained; is that correct?
14 A. I know that for sure, Mirza Mujagic was not apprehended nor
15 brought to the investigation centre. I know that for sure. And I also
16 know for sure that these four were at the investigation centre.
17 As for the rest, I said it is possible that they were there, but
18 I cannot confirm that.
19 Q. Very good. Let's --
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, I don't know how much longer you intend
21 to be, but I intend to take a break at noon.
22 MR. OLMSTED: I think I have about ten more minutes. Perhaps we
23 should just break.
24 I note that the next witness we're going to have to do voice
25 distortion, so there is going to be a 20 minute delay before the next
1 witness as well, but I think I have only about -- yeah, I would say ten
2 minutes left. 15 at most.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: So we'll take the break. 20 -- thanks. 20 minutes
6 We will try 20 minutes. And, again, could the witness be
7 escorted out first, please.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. Just that the record
9 shows that Stanisic Defence has been joined by our intern, Jessica Lacey.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So noted, Mr. Zecevic. Thank you.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 12.23 p.m.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, you may continue, Mr. Olmsted.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 May we have Exhibit 2D122, marked for identification, on the
20 Q. Sir, this is the case file in the Muhamed Cehajic case that
21 Mr. Krgovic had shown you earlier.
22 MR. OLMSTED: If we can please turn to page 3.
23 Q. Now, we don't have an English translation, so perhaps you can
24 help me out. I believe this is a request to initiate an investigation
25 sent by the Prijedor Public Prosecutor the lower court in Prijedor on 4
1 June 1992.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And we see under number 3 and number 4, two of the alleged
4 perpetrators that you recall were detained at Omarska, Esef Crnkic and
5 Husein Crnkic.
6 Sir, right to the left of their names there is some handwriting,
7 there is a handwritten word. Can you tell us what is written there?
8 A. It says "died." Both under 3 and under 4.
9 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 4. And if we can look
10 at number 12 --
11 Q. We see another of the alleged perpetrators that you recall was
12 detained at Omarska, Becir Medunjanin. And we also see the same word
13 written to the left of his name as well; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, if the purpose of this
16 exercise is what I'm -- what I understand it is, Mr. Olmsted and all of
17 us should be aware that this is a case file, so maybe these notes were --
18 were added in 2002, for example. That is the purpose of my observation.
19 JUDGE HALL: It's a useful observation but it doesn't prohibit or
20 inhibit the question, line of questioning, Mr. Olmsted is pursuing.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I understand, but I was just --
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Zecevic.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, I would consider it more of a piece of
24 evidence than an observation. But, anyway --
25 Q. My question is, sir, did you know whether these three Omarska
1 detainees died? Were you aware that they died?
2 A. I personally was not aware of the fact that they died. I know
3 that they were there, but I didn't know of their death. But I have
4 mentioned what happened with regard to one inspector. So I don't
5 rule out the possibility that he acted the same way even earlier. I
6 can't prove that. I do have evidence for the latter case, though. It is
7 possible that he behaved in the same way even before that instance when I
8 observed him committing inhumane acts and violating the law as well as
9 going beyond his legal powers and authority.
10 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to page 55 of this document.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Witness, were you able to recognise the
12 handwriting of those additions that had been made to the criminal file
13 that we have just seen, now it's no longer on the screen, but the word
14 "died" apparently was written by someone.
15 Do you know who wrote it?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot tell based on that
17 handwriting who wrote it.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
20 MR. OLMSTED:
21 Q. You were shown this -- I suppose we've agreed on the term
22 Official Note earlier today. And it pertains to a person by the name of
23 Ibrahim Denic. Do you know who he was?
24 A. I don't know the man personally, but Denic is also a common name
25 at Kozarac. But I have no particular information about him.
1 Q. Did you know of a former police officer by that name?
2 A. There was one by the name of Denic, but I forget his given name.
3 Q. Do you recall seeing this police officer, Denic, that you do
4 recall at Omarska camp?
5 A. I can't be sure of that, really.
6 Q. We see in the upper right-hand corner there's something
7 handwritten. Can you tell us what it says?
8 A. It says "got killed."
9 Q. Do you recognise the handwriting?
10 A. I really don't. I was in no position to watch the colleagues
11 from public security write anything. We were separate before this
12 investigation centre was set up, and we really couldn't watch each other
13 drafting notes.
14 Q. Yesterday, in the context of Mr. Zecevic's questions regarding
15 first-category detainees, you mentioned Sead Cirkin. Do you know for
16 certain whether Mr. Cirkin was detained at Omarska camp?
17 A. The military did that. It was Lieutenant-Colonel Majstorovic who
18 started processing that category. Whether the person involved was Cirkin
19 or somebody else, I really couldn't say.
20 Q. And just to clarify your answer. If I understand you correctly,
21 you don't know for certain whether Sead Cirkin was Omarska camp, detained
22 at Omarska camp?
23 A. I have said that I'm not sure. It is possible that he was there
24 though. The family name of Cirkin is also rather common. So I do know
25 the name of Cirkin, but whether the military was processed -- or, rather,
1 whether the military processed Sead Cirkin, I don't know. An
2 investigation was conducted in Kozarac, and we found out that he -- his
3 task was to organise the military component, that is, to establish
4 platoons, companies, detachments. This is the intelligence collected by
5 the investigation centre.
6 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honours.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, yesterday you told us -- and I'm
10 referring to the beginning of your investigations, in general, yours and
11 your colleagues' investigations in Omarska. You are confronted with a
12 number of people brought in and you have to investigate on them. And it
13 was put to you, and you answered to the positive, that: There was, at
14 the beginning, intelligence about these people's involvement in criminal
15 activities, armed rebellion or whatever, and that your mission was to
16 confirm that there were good grounds for these suspicion or to establish
17 that there were no grounds.
18 You remember -- you remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Today, we came back to this issue on, I think,
21 two or three occasions, and at one occasion you said:
22 "There were armed clashes and a large number of people were
23 involved in that but also brought there were people for whom there wasn't
24 such a kind of information available."
25 And then you had to establish whether or not, in the course of
1 your investigation.
2 Now my question is -- and you also said that you often had no
3 documentation at the beginning of -- on why people were brought in.
4 Now my specific question is: At the beginning of the
5 investigation, at the beginning of your interview with a certain
6 detainee, did you have specific information, intelligence on that
7 detainee, and on why he was brought in?
8 A. Do you mean Sead Cirkin?
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: No, I mean in general. I mean in general.
10 At the beginning of your investigation, at the beginning of your
11 interview of each detainee, you and your colleagues, did you have any
12 intelligence on that person, or did you have to establish it during the
14 A. There was such information, and that was actually the foundation,
15 or, rather, the grounds for us to launch investigations. We wanted to
16 disrupt their activities. Most times the information was about the
17 illegal arming of the population. There was illegal trade in automatic
18 rifles, hand-grenades. Warehouses were built. Large quantities of fuel
19 and food were stored in the area round Kozarac, which all --
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, my question is, did you have
21 intelligence about this -- about every specific detainee about this?
22 If you say arms, did you have intelligence that this detain that
23 you -- that you were going to interview was suspected to be involved in
24 arm trafficking or in whatever, or was it a general intelligence about
25 things happening and then you trying to establish who of all the people
1 that were brought in were, indeed, involved in these activities?
2 A. As for the persons who had already been taken to the Prijedor SJB
3 before the investigation centre was established - Keraterm and Omarska,
4 that is - there was such information and based on that they were brought
5 in. Later, once the investigation centres were set up, a larger number
6 of people were brought in for whom there was no such information
7 available and that is why we screened them and set up category 3. And
8 our position was, as I have already stated, that these persons should be
9 sent home. But those for whom the suspicion was corroborated were kept
10 and then our work consisted in documenting and processing.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
12 I have another question for you, but it has nothing to do with
13 Omarska, so I would perhaps ask you that afterwards.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Judge.
15 Mr. Witness, do you recall exactly who ordered the interrogations
16 to be commenced at Keraterm and Omarska? On whose orders was this system
17 of interrogation teams set up; do you recall that?
18 A. At that moment, I really didn't know. I had no such information.
19 Later on, I learned from the media, that is, Dr. Stakic, spoke
20 about it on TV. He was the president of the Municipal Assembly of
21 Prijedor at the time. And he said then that it was the decision of the
22 Prijedor Crisis Staff. That's the version I know.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: So in your understanding it was the Crisis Staff
24 that had ordered the interrogation of detainees at Keraterm and Omarska
25 and who had also decided how these teams should be composed; is that
2 A. It was us to determined the composition of the teams, but they
3 made the decisions -- the decisions that applied to the public and had
4 this military aspect and -- and so on. That's what I assume.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just to be sure, I think you have already
6 testified about how the teams were composed, but you said that you
7 decided that yourself.
8 Could you just briefly repeat to me how each team was composed?
9 A. When the investigation centre was established, we agreed that we
10 should have mixed teams. And as for engaging both services, that
11 decision was taken by another body.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: So, in the end, there was one from the MUP and
13 one from the army, and the third one was from where?
14 A. From state. That is, state security; then there was also public
15 security; and there was military security.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. What exactly did you understand to be
17 the purpose of these interrogations? What was the information that you
18 were required to elicit from the detainees?
19 A. I can honestly say that my understanding was that the purpose was
20 to investigate criminal activities. That is, to establish which persons
21 had been acting illegally. Whether it was about procuring weapons for
22 which no licence could be given, and these are long-barrelled weapons
23 such as automatic rifles and others, so it was my belief that the purpose
24 was to prevent such activity, which was contrary to laws and regulations.
25 That is why we decided that all persons for whom there was no
1 such information should be sent home. But then there was the order of
2 Chief Drljaca that nobody must be released without his approval.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'll get to that in just a minute.
4 But let me return to what you perceived as the task that you were
5 given. You -- you say that the purpose was to establish whether persons
6 had been acting illegally.
7 Now, that's a very wide notion. Illegal activity could also be
8 theft, or tax fraud, or something other. So my question is to you now:
9 Do you mean to say that the illegal activity was related to the armed
10 conflict, that you were asked to elicit information regarding the
11 activities of the detainees related to the armed conflict?
12 Was that the purpose of your investigation centre?
13 A. Yes. Illegal arming, which would result in armed conflict.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: And was it your understanding that, as a result
15 of your interrogation, the findings that you made were then to be used in
16 a subsequent judicial prosecution of these people for armed rebellion?
17 Was that your understanding?
18 A. Yes, exactly.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: And which, if I may be more specific, which
20 activities did you perceive to be associated with the armed rebellion?
21 You have mentioned procurement of arms. Can you provide us with further
22 detail about which particular activities you, as the interrogation teams,
23 had associated with the armed conflict? What exactly were you looking
25 A. We had intelligence that the population were procuring large
1 quantities of food. They also procured tanker trucks and built
2 stockpiles of fuel.
3 We had information that in the area around Kozarac, some units
4 were being established, from squad, to company, and that persons had been
5 appointed to command these units. Check-points had been set up by these
6 persons, although the police -- it was the police's task to set up
7 check-points where they deemed them necessary.
8 We also had intelligence as to where the medical service would
9 be, or the quartermaster services, if there should be larger conflict.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: And who had gathered this intelligence? Where
11 did it come from?
12 A. I have said already that I had already retired in 1991. Until
13 May 1992, I was informed by my colleagues that my service and the Public
14 Security Service, as well as the Military Security Service, had collected
15 such intelligence. What I'm saying I heard from my colleagues during the
16 period when I started working again and later on, when Mr. Vojin Bera
17 presented part of that information.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Was the information offered to you in writing, or
19 was it given orally?
20 A. Orally.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Tell us exactly how -- how this was given. Was
22 that during the meetings that you had every morning that there would be
23 someone from state security or from the military security intelligence
24 who would provide you with information that, for instance, food-stocks
25 were being gathered or fuel collected or check-points set up?
1 How were you given, and by whom were you given, this information?
2 A. Initially it happened through conversations with my colleagues.
3 However, the investigation confirmed quite a few pieces of information of
4 that kind. For example, people came up with information saying that
5 large quantities of food were being stored, that people were procuring
6 tanker lorries for fuel, et cetera. So people confirmed these facts
7 through investigations.
8 And as for this second part, there were no meetings in the sense
9 that the military security inspector would inform me about their
10 intelligence or someone from the Public Security Service. I did talk to
11 Mijic and I received some information from him though, because he was an
12 active-duty employee in the service and was working both in 1991 and
13 continued thereafter.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, my question lies in extension of the
15 question that was put to you by His Honour Judge Delvoie just a while
16 ago. And Judge Delvoie asked you whether you would have in front of you
17 at every occasion where a new detainee was brought into the office where
18 you were conducting the interrogation, whether at each and every such
19 occasion you would have in front of you some documentation that would
20 enable you to interrogate the detainee, and I think you said that you had
21 such file on each and every person that was brought to you.
22 Is that correct, or did I misunderstand?
23 A. Well, we didn't have them for all individuals. That particular
24 pertains to the group of people who had been brought in before I was
25 mobilised. They were kept in custody at the SJB, and based on the
1 information available they were arrested.
2 As for the others, quite a few of those who were taken first to
3 Keraterm and then to Omarska, there were no documents accompanying them.
4 These documents were produced in the course of the investigation. The
5 investigation showed that the majority of people had been brought without
6 any information or valid reasons, and, therefore, our view was that these
7 should be sent home. And this is what we started doing at the beginning,
8 but after that, Mr. Drljaca issued this order.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand.
10 But just to be sure, that, for those on whom no file existed, you
11 only had the oral information that was given to you by the intelligence
12 services of the MUP and of the army prior to your interrogation of a
13 detainee. So that was the only basis that you had when you started the
14 interrogation was some oral information given to you by an intelligence
15 officer; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: And were there instances then in which you did
18 not even have this oral information from an intelligence officer from the
19 army or from the MUP; that is to say, were there instances where you had
20 absolutely nothing when the detainee was brought before you?
21 A. Yes, there were such instances.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And what did you do then?
23 A. During these morning briefings at Mr. Simo Drljaca's office, I
24 would express my opinion that people should not be sent to the
25 investigation centre without proper documentation. Or, if that happens,
1 that such an individual should be accompanied by a file containing the
2 information relating to illegal activities performed by that individual.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: And I understand that Mr. Drljaca then, at some
4 point, opposed -- was opposed to releasing anyone from Omarska or
6 So that brings me back to my question: What did you do in
7 practice when a detainee was brought to you in your office in the
8 interrogation room and you had no information about who this person was
9 or what he was suspected of having doing?
10 What did you do in practice?
11 A. We would conduct this preliminary interview, let's say. So if
12 this person said nothing that was of interest, or if there was no
13 information acquired from other persons that we had already processed,
14 then this category of people would be the individuals that we requested
15 to be sent home.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: What were the questions that you would put to
18 A. Well, we asked them mainly about this activity. Most often we
19 would work on the premise that there was illegal arming of the
20 population. Then he would be asked if, in the area where he lived, there
21 were any paramilitary formations and units.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And if the person denied knowledge of any such
23 activity, your recommendation then was that he should be released; is
24 that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Are you able to give an estimation, just roughly,
2 of how many people out of the hundreds of persons that you interrogated
3 personally, just about how many ended up in that category? I'm just
4 talking about the persons that you interrogated. And I take it from what
5 you have already testified that you must have had at least a couple of
6 hundred interrogations during the time that you were at Omarska.
7 So out of those persons that you interrogated, how many did you
8 recommend belonged to the group that should be sent home? Just roughly.
9 A. Well, as I said, we recommended category 3 to be released.
10 Because, for them, we did not have any information of security interests,
11 and our position was that they should be released. But somebody decided
12 to return them from Omarska to Trnopolje.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But my question was: Out of the
14 persons that you interrogated personally, was it 30 per cent that ended
15 up in that group, or 50, or 80? I mean, just roughly speaking, how large
16 a percentage of persons ended up with your recommendation that they
17 should be released?
18 A. Well, roughly speaking, 30 per cent.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
20 My last question: Do you know who rounded up and arrested and
21 brought the detainees to Keraterm and Omarska?
22 A. I cannot give you a specific and accurate answer. I suppose that
23 both the army and the police were involved in that.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you know how this was done? Was there a plan
25 to arrest particular persons, or was it actions in which, literally,
1 everyone was rounded up and brought in?
2 A. Well, there were such cases. In view of the conflict that was
3 going on in Hambarine, in Carakovo, and part of Ljubija, they were
4 carrying out the mopping up of the terrain, and, as far as I know, the
5 majority of the Muslim population were picked up.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: When you say that "the majority of the Muslim
7 population was picked up," I suppose that this would be, still, under the
8 suspicion that they had taken part in the armed rebellion, wasn't it?
9 A. Well, yes. Because war operations were going on up there, a
10 number of police officers were killed in the forests known as Kurevo.
11 And after that the army and the police started mopping up the area in
12 order to pull out the dead and possibly locate people who were hiding in
13 the area, because this is a forested area.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. So in those areas, the majority of the
15 Muslim population would have been suspected of having taken part in the
16 armed rebellion. I mean, the term that you're using yourself, "mopping
17 up" would seem to suggest that it was literally everyone around belonging
18 to the Muslim population that would be arrested and brought in because
19 they were believed to have, in some way or other, taken part in the armed
21 Do you know if that was the assumption?
22 A. Well, I think, for the most part, that was the assumption because
23 the groups that attacked Prijedor were trained in this specific area at
24 Kurevo hill, but I do not rule out the possibility that also rounded up
25 were people who, let's say, were innocent.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Final question: Were there women and children
2 and elderly among those that were brought to Omarska and Keraterm?
3 A. Yes, there were women. I don't know about the children. And
4 there were elderly people as well.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
6 Back to Judge Delvoie.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
8 Could I have a document on the screen, please, R093-1297,
9 document ID.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can anyone of the parties assist me? What I'm
12 looking for is the aerial photo of Keraterm.
13 MR. OLMSTED: We're checking right now. You're not interested in
14 the one that we showed him in his testimony so far, you're looking for a
15 different one?
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: It could very well be that that's the one. I
17 don't know. You showed him one I think --
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I think -- if I may be of assistance, I think it
19 was P1696, the aerial photo of the Omarska.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: No, no, no.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's not Omarska; it's Keraterm.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Oh, sorry.
24 MR. OLMSTED: I think what will suffice is 65 ter
25 Exhibit 3419.45.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: 3419.45.
2 Well, yes. Yes, okay. That's fine. Thank you.
3 Mr. Witness, I was just wondering whether you could assist the
4 Trial Chamber in understanding the configuration of this site.
5 You recognised the Keraterm camp here or the ...
6 A. I think that this is this building here.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could we enlarge the big building with the red
8 roof. That one, yes. Okay. Perfect.
9 You recognise it, Mr. Witness?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: What I wanted to ask you is, when, in the morning
12 you -- you worked here for a few days, you told us. So I would like to
13 know when you arrived here in the morning, I suppose you came by the road
14 in front of the -- of the premises. And then my question --
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: My question is where would your car stop, and
17 where would you enter the building? Could you indicate with -- for
18 instance, with a A the place where car stopped, where you got out of your
19 car; and with a B the place where you entered the building?
20 Perhaps we can zoom in a little bit more. Would be easier, I
21 think. No?
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. No, no, let it be then.
24 So I see where you came in. So then you passed the weigh-bridge
25 there on the right side of the entrance road, right? You recognise the
2 A. Well, we would go from here to the left, and then we would enter
3 the compound from the right.
4 Shall I mark it with an arrow?
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mark -- mark it with an A where you would enter
6 the building, please.
7 A. This is it. I have already marked it.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's -- that's the back of the building, isn't
10 A. This is the main road between Prijedor and Banja Luka.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. I see -- I see the first -- I suppose that
12 was the first marking you made. That is where you put your car, right?
13 Then --
14 A. This is where we would enter. We would park our cars within the
15 parameter. This part of the building was an administration building.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: And where would that be? Where would that be?
17 Where would you park your car?
18 A. In this part here. So we would enter the building there, where,
19 on the first floor, there was a restaurant and a number of offices.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: And where -- where -- I -- I -- I'm a little bit
21 lost here. Where is that? Where would you enter the building -- is
22 that -- does the pen work?
23 A. The entrance, as far as I know, because I was there only for two
24 days --
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
1 A. -- was either here. But this part of the building was used as an
2 investigation centre, and the rest were production plants.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Maybe the witness should be instructed, around the
4 building, where he says that part of the building was used then to mark
5 with --
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: I first want to know where he entered the
8 MR. ZECEVIC: He should be [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is it -- is it -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] -- Your Honour.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Pardon?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: He should be instructed to draw on the map --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. He should --
14 MR. ZECEVIC: -- on the monitor, yeah.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: He should mark with an A. Oh, A was where he put
16 the car, okay. With a B the place where you entered the building.
17 A. As far as I know, it was here, so letter B.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Hmm. That's -- so that is at the back side of
19 the building, you're showing.
20 A. I know very well that this is the administration part of the
21 building. And immediately we would enter from the main road, go to the
22 parking lot, leave our cars there, enter the building, climb the stairs,
23 and go to the first floor, where the cafeteria and where the offices
24 allocated to us were found.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. And where were the people held, the
1 detainees. Where were they held? Did you ever go down there because you
2 were working on the first floor as well, I think, didn't you? Where the
3 cafeteria and the offices were.
4 A. The detainees were kept in the production part of the facility.
5 That was on the ground floor. Whether there were garages there as well,
6 I don't know, because I really never went there.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
8 A. The garages should be somewhere here.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: One -- one last question. You have the big grey
10 roof, which, I suppose, was a production hall. And at the long side of
11 the building, there is a small -- a small and lower part of building.
12 You see that? You see what I mean? A grey roof as well but it is lower
13 than the very large roof.
14 A. What was your question, please?
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: My first question is whether you see -- whether
16 you see what I mean.
17 Perhaps the usher can give him the paper -- paper copy of the
18 photo. And show the witness this part where -- that I marked with three
19 Xs. So that's the part where I want to ask a question. You show it to
20 the parties for a moment as well, please.
21 So that you know what I'm talking about. So that the small part
22 I marked with three Xs, could you -- could you please put three Xs on
23 that part as well, on -- on the screen so that we know, for the record,
24 what we are talking about.
25 A. [Marks]
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah, that's the one. Okay. Can you remember
2 whether that part of the building was there in -- when you were working
3 at Keraterm? If you don't, just say so.
4 A. I really cannot confirm this.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. No problem. Thank you very much. That's
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: One last thing, Witness.
9 Could you, on the roof of the big building, put a C where you
10 think your office was, more or less.
11 A. If I understand correctly, then the office was below this spot
12 that I marked on the roof.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Can you put a C there,
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can you put a C there, please.
17 A. [Marks]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
19 And one really last question. Where you entered the building
20 and -- to go to your office, did that look as the main entrance of the
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
24 JUDGE HALL: So I suppose we would be giving this marked copy a C
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit C1.
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness we thank you for being able to, despite
3 your health difficulties, to -- to continue your testimony until --
4 through to today. We are finally at an end, and we thank you for your
5 assistance to the Tribunal, and you're now released as a witness. And we
6 wish you a safe journey back home, and of course we wish you all the best
7 in terms of your own health improvement.
8 Thank you, sir.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Olmsted, I suppose, whereas, as matter of
12 courtesy to the next witness who has been waiting, we should at least see
13 him today. The practical problem is that the time that it takes to set
14 up the microphone, especially, is such that it would be time to adjourn,
15 so ...
16 Does the OTP have a suggestion?
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 MR. OLMSTED: We've been joined by Ms. Pidwell who will be
19 leading him in evidence, so I will let her speak for the Prosecution.
20 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, you're correct in that -- it's a
21 small microphone. I'll bend down.
22 Your Honours, the witness has been waiting for a significant
23 amount of the morning, I'm really not -- and he is quite prepared -- he
24 wanted to wait here so -- rather than in his hotel. He is quite prepared
25 to start and just be sworn in now and be released for tomorrow, or,
1 alternatively, we can release him now and he can start and hopefully
2 finish in one sitting, or continuous sitting, tomorrow.
3 We're really in your hands. I do have a couple of procedural
4 issues that I can fill five minutes with at this juncture, if that
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: For purely practical purposes, we would request that
8 VWS convey the explanation to him as to why he can't begin until
10 Ms. Pidwell, I assume the matters that you wish to raise should
11 be heard in open court. So we would raise the shutters.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MS. PIDWELL: Your Honours, just firstly the Prosecution filed a
14 motion on the 28th of September of this year requesting a subpoena for a
15 particular witness, who I won't name, but we're seeking leave to withdraw
16 that motion and indicating that we would no longer be calling that
17 witness. So we seek leave to take him off our 65 ter witness list.
18 JUDGE HALL: Order as prayed.
19 MS. PIDWELL: His number is ST-252, for the record.
20 The other matter that I wish to raise, Your Honours, is in light
21 of the uncertainty of the stipulations and in terms of scheduling for the
22 balance of the month of November, currently on the schedule that we have
23 arranged we have some gaps which will need to be filled by witnesses, if
24 Your Honours require, are going to require us to call witnesses that we
25 would propose to be 92 bis. If we're going to require them for
1 cross-examination to attend personally, they would need to be arranged to
2 come in the last two weeks of November and accordingly, we are wanting an
3 indication or a decision on those witnesses as soon as possible, because
4 most of them live in the region, require visas to attend, and therefore
5 we need some lead-in time to make those arrangements.
6 Otherwise, there will be gaps in the last two weeks in November,
7 because of the -- we have essentially run out of witnesses, Your Honours.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thank you, Ms. Pidwell.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we have a number of problems
11 with this. The -- the -- the Office of the Prosecutor gives us on
12 Thursday the list of the witnesses for next week. We -- we divide
13 between ourselves the preparation for these witnesses.
14 Now, it took me two days to prepare the Witness ST-252 only to be
15 told today on Wednesday, or Thursday, that's today, that the witness will
16 not be coming at all. And that instead of this witness coming on Monday,
17 as it was suggested to us, that he cannot come because of the subpoena
18 problems and that he will be coming next week, early next week.
19 Now we have another -- new witnesses for the next week. I lost
20 two days in order to prepare the other witness. Now I am told that this
21 witness will not be coming at all. And it requires me to -- to work now
22 for -- for another witness and another witness. I mean, we have to know
23 that. That is -- that was the purpose of the -- of the advance notice on
24 Thursday, who are the witnesses for next week. On such a late -- I mean,
25 I understand things can happen. But that -- that the Office of the
1 Prosecutor, after a week, told us only on Thursday that the witness is
2 not coming at all, that they decided to the withdraw the motion, is, I
3 think, puts the Defence in a very awkward situation.
4 Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, as you say, things happen,
8 unfortunately. That's the reality of trials. And, of course, we would
9 seek to accommodate you as best we are able to in the changing
10 circumstances of trial.
11 So we take the adjournment, to resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
12 Thank you.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.36 p.m.,
14 it be reconvened on Friday, the 5th day of
15 November, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.